Volume IX.); but it is more than once hinted at in the "Origin," in

the passages where rudimentary organs are said to be more variable than

others, because no longer under the restraining influence of Natural

Selection. And still more distinctly is this principle recognised in

page 120.

Thus, in sending you the enclosed letter, I do not imagine that I am

bringing any novel suggestions under your notice. As I see that you

have already applied the principle in question to the case of

artificially-bred structures, I cannot but infer that you have pondered

it in connection with naturally-bred structures. What objection,

however, you can have seen to this principle in this latter connection,

I am unable to divine; and so I think the best course for me to pursue

is the one I adopt--viz., to send you my considerations in full.

In the absence of express information, the most natural inference is

that the reason you refuse to entertain the principle in question, is

because you show the backward tendency of indiscriminate variability

[to be] inadequate to contend with the conservative tendency of long

inheritance. The converse of this is expressed in the words "That the

struggle between Natural Selection on the one hand, and the tendency to

reversion and variability on the other hand, will in the course of

time cease; and that the most abnormally developed organs may be made

constant, I see no reason to doubt" ("Origin," page 121). Certainly not,

if, as I doubt not, the word "constant" is intended to bear a relative

signification; but to say that constancy can ever become absolute--i.e.,

that any term of inheritance could secure to an organ a total immunity

from the smallest amount of spontaneous variability--to say this would

be unwarrantable. Suppose, for instance, that for some reason or other a

further increase in the size of a bat's wing should now suddenly

become highly beneficial to that animal: we can scarcely suppose that

variations would not be forthcoming for Natural Selection to seize upon

(unless the limit of possible size has now been reached, which is an

altogether distinct matter). And if we suppose that minute variations on

the side of increase are thus even now occasionally taking place, much

more is it probable that similar variations on the side of decrease are

now taking place--i.e., that if the conservative influence of Natural

Selection were removed for a long period of time, more variations would

ensue below the present size of bat's wings, than above it. To this it

may be added, that when the influence of "speedy selection" is removed,

it seems in itself highly probable that the structure would, for this

reason, become more variable, for the only reason why it ever ceased to

be variable (i.e., after attaining its maximum size), was because of the

influence of selection constantly destroying those individuals in which

a tendency to vary occurred. When, therefore, this force antagonistic

to variability was removed, it seems highly probable that the latter

principle would again begin to assert itself, and this in a cumulative

manner. Those individuals in which a tendency to vary occurred being no

longer cut off, they would have as good a chance of leaving progeny to

inherit their fluctuating disposition as would their more inflexible

companions.

LETTER 264. TO G.J. ROMANES. July 16th, 1874.

I am much obliged for your kind and long communication, which I have

read with great interest, as well as your articles in "Nature." The

subject seems to me as important and interesting as it is difficult.

I am much out of health, and working very hard on a very different

subject, so thus I cannot give your remarks the attention which they

deserve. I will, however, keep your letter for some later time, when I

may again take up the subject. Your letter makes it clearer to me than

it ever was before, how a part or organ which has already begun from any

cause to decrease, will go on decreasing through so-called spontaneous

variability, with intercrossing; for under such circumstances it is very

unlikely that there should be variation in the direction of increase

beyond the average size, and no reason why there should not be

variations of decrease. I think this expresses your view. I had intended

this summer subjecting plants to [illegible] conditions, and observing

the effects on variation; but the work would be very laborious, yet I am

inclined to think it will be hereafter worth the labour.

LETTER 265. TO T. MEEHAN. Down, October 9th, 1874.

I am glad that you are attending to the colours of dioecious flowers;

but it is well to remember that their colours may be as unimportant to

them as those of a gall, or, indeed, as the colour of an amethyst or

ruby is to these gems. Some thirty years ago I began to investigate

the little purple flowers in the centre of the umbels of the carrot.

I suppose my memory is wrong, but it tells me that these flowers are

female, and I think that I once got a seed from one of them; but

my memory may be quite wrong. I hope that you will continue your

interesting researches.

LETTER 266. TO G. JAGER. Down, February 3rd, 1875.

I received this morning a copy of your work "Contra Wigand," either

from yourself or from your publisher, and I am greatly obliged for

it. (266/1. Jager's "In Sachen Darwins insbesondere contra Wigand"

(Stuttgart, 1874) is directed against A. Wigand's "Der Darwinismus

und die Naturforschung Newtons und Cuviers" (Brunswick, 1874).) I had,

however, before bought a copy, and have sent the new one to our best

library, that of the Royal Society. As I am a very poor german scholar,

I have as yet read only about forty pages; but these have interested

me in the highest degree. Your remarks on fixed and variable species

deserve the greatest attention; but I am not at present quite convinced

that there are such independent of the conditions to which they are

subjected. I think you have done great service to the principle of

evolution, which we both support, by publishing this work. I am the more

glad to read it as I had not time to read Wigand's great and tedious

volume.

LETTER 267. TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT. Down, March 13th, 1875.

I write to-day so that there shall be no delay this time in thanking you

for your interesting and long letter received this morning. I am sure

that you will excuse brevity when I tell you that I am half-killing

myself in trying to get a book ready for the press. (267/1. The MS. of

"Insectivorous Plants" was got ready for press in March, 1875. Darwin

seems to have been more than usually oppressed by the work.) I

quite agree with what you say about advantages of various degrees of

importance being co-selected (267/2. Mr. Chauncey Wright wrote (February

24th, 1875): "The inquiry as to which of several real uses is the one

through which Natural Selection has acted...has for several years seemed

to me a somewhat less important question than it seemed formerly, and

still appears to most thinkers on the subject...The uses of the rattling

of the rattlesnake as a protection by warning its enemies and as a

sexual call are not rival uses; neither are the high-reaching and the

far-seeing uses of the giraffe's neck 'rivals.'"), and aided by

the effects of use, etc. The subject seems to me well worth further

development. I do not think I have anywhere noticed the use of the

eyebrows, but have long known that they protected the eyes from sweat.

During the voyage of the "Beagle" one of the men ascended a lofty

hill during a very hot day. He had small eyebrows, and his eyes became

fearfully inflamed from the sweat running into them. The Portuguese

inhabitants were familiar with this evil. I think you allude to the

transverse furrows on the forehead as a protection against sweat; but

remember that these incessantly appear on the foreheads of baboons.

P.S.--I have been greatly pleased by the notices in the "Nation."

LETTER 268. TO A. WEISMANN. Down, May 1st, 1875.

I did not receive your essay for some days after your very kind letter,

and I read german so slowly that I have only just finished it. (268/1.

"Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie" I. "Ueber den Saison-Dimorphismus,"

1875. The fact was previously known that two forms of the genus Vanessa

which had been considered to be distinct species are only SEASONAL forms

of the same species--one appearing in spring, the other in summer. This

remarkable relationship forms the subject of the essay.) Your work has

interested me greatly, and your conclusions seem well established. I

have long felt much curiosity about season-dimorphism, but never could

form any theory on the subject. Undoubtedly your view is very important,

as bearing on the general question of variability. When I wrote the

"Origin" I could not find any facts which proved the direct action of

climate and other external conditions. I long ago thought that the time

would soon come when the causes of variation would be fully discussed,

and no one has done so much as you in this important subject. The recent

evidence of the difference between birds of the same species in the N.

and S. United States well shows the power of climate. The two sexes of

some few birds are there differently modified by climate, and I have

introduced this fact in the last edition of my "Descent of Man." (268/2.

"Descent of Man," Edition II. (in one volume), page 423. Allen showed

that many species of birds are more strongly coloured in the south of

the United States, and that sometimes one sex is more affected than

the other. It is this last point that bears on Weismann's remarks (loc.

cit., pages 44, 45) on Pieris napi. The males of the alpine-boreal form

bryoniae hardly differ from those of the German form (var. vernalis),

while the females are strikingly different. Thus the character of

secondary sexual differences is determined by climate.) I am, therefore,

fully prepared to admit the justness of your criticism on sexual

selection of lepidoptera; but considering the display of their beauty, I

am not yet inclined to think that I am altogether in error.

What you say about reversion (268/3. For instance, the fact that

reversion to the primary winter-form may be produced by the disturbing

effect of high temperature (page 7).) being excited by various causes,

agrees with what I concluded with respect to the remarkable effects

of crossing two breeds: namely, that anything which disturbs the

constitution leads to reversion, or, as I put the case under my

hypothesis of pangenesis, gives a good chance of latent gemmules

developing. Your essay, in my opinion, is an admirable one, and I thank

you for the interest which it has afforded me.

P.S. I find that there are several points, which I have forgotten. Mr.

Jenner Weir has not published anything more about caterpillars, but

I have written to him, asking him whether he has tried any more

experiments, and will keep back this letter till I receive his answer.

Mr. Riley of the United States supports Mr. Weir, and you will

find reference to him and other papers at page 426 of the new and

much-corrected edition of my "Descent of Man." As I have a duplicate

copy of Volume I. (I believe Volume II. is not yet published in german)

I send it to you by this post. Mr. Belt, in his travels in Nicaragua,

gives several striking cases of conspicuously coloured animals (but not

caterpillars) which are distasteful to birds of prey: he is an excellent

observer, and his book, "The Naturalist in Nicaragua," very interesting.

I am very much obliged for your photograph, which I am particularly glad

to possess, and I send mine in return.

I see you allude to Hilgendorf's statements, which I was sorry to

see disputed by some good German observer. Mr. Hyatt, an excellent

palaeontologist of the United States, visited the place, and likewise

assured me that Hilgendorf was quite mistaken. (268/4. See Letters

252-7.)

I am grieved to hear that your eyesight still continues bad, but anyhow

it has forced your excellent work in your last essay.

May 4th. Here is what Mr. Weir says:--

"In reply to your inquiry of Saturday, I regret that I have little

to add to my two communications to the 'Entomological Society

Transactions.'

"I repeated the experiments with gaudy caterpillars for years, and

always with the same results: not on a single occasion did I find richly

coloured, conspicuous larvae eaten by birds. It was more remarkable

to observe that the birds paid not the slightest attention to gaudy

caterpillars, not even when in motion,--the experiments so thoroughly

satisfied my mind that I have now given up making them."

LETTER 269. TO LAWSON TAIT.

(269/1. The late Mr. Lawson Tait wrote to Mr. Darwin (June 2nd, 1875):

"I am watching a lot of my mice from whom I removed the tails at birth,

and I am coming to the conclusion that the essential use of the tail

there is as a recording organ--that is, they record in their memories

the corners they turn and the height of the holes they pass through by

touching them with their tails." Mr. Darwin was interested in the idea

because "some German sneered at Natural Selection and instanced the

tails of mice.")

June 11th, 1875.

It has just occurred to me to look at the "Origin of Species" (Edition

VI., page 170), and it is certain that Bronn, in the appended chapter

to his translation of my book into german, did advance ears and tail of

various species of mice as a difficulty opposed to Natural Selection. I

answered with respect to ears by alluding to Schobl's curious paper (I

forget when published) (269/2. J. Schobl, "Das aussere Ohr der Mause als

wichtiges Tastorgan." "Archiv. Mik. Anat." VII., 1871, page 260.) on the

hairs of the ears being sensitive and provided with nerves. I presume

he made fine sections: if you are accustomed to such histological work,

would it not be worth while to examine hairs of tail of mice? At page

189 I quote Henslow (confirmed by Gunther) on Mus messorius (and other

species?) using tail as prehensile organ.

Dr. Kane in his account of the second Grinnell Expedition says that the

Esquimaux in severe weather carry a fox-tail tied to the neck, which

they use as a respirator by holding the tip of the tail between their

teeth. (269/3. The fact is stated in Volume II., page 24, of E.K. Kane's

"Arctic Explorations: The Second Grinnell Expedition in Search of Sir

John Franklin." Philadelphia, 1856.)

He says also that he found a frozen fox curled up with his nose buried

in his tail.

N.B. It is just possible that the latter fact is stated by M'Clintock,

not by Dr. Kane.

(269/4. The final passage is a postscript by Mr. W.E. Darwin bearing on

Mr. Lawson Tait's idea of the respirator function of the fox's tail.)

LETTER 270. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, July 12th, 1875.

I am correcting a second edition of "Variation under Domestication," and

find that I must do it pretty fully. Therefore I give a short abstract

of potato graft-hybrids, and I want to know whether I did not send you a

reference about beet. Did you look to this, and can you tell me anything

about it?

I hope with all my heart that you are getting on pretty well with your

experiments.

I have been led to think a good deal on the subject, and am convinced

of its high importance, though it will take years of hammering before

physiologists will admit that the sexual organs only collect the

generative elements.

The edition will be published in November, and then you will see

all that I have collected, but I believe that you gave all the more

important cases. The case of vine in "Gardeners' Chronicle," which I

sent you, I think may only be a bud-variation not due to grafting. I

have heard indirectly of your splendid success with nerves of medusae.

We have been at Abinger Hall for a month for rest, which I much

required, and I saw there the cut-leaved vine which seems splendid for

graft hybridism.

LETTER 271. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, November 7th, 1875.

I have read your essay with much curiosity and interest, but you

probably have no idea how excessively difficult it is to understand.

(271/1. "A Theory of Heredity" ("Journal of the Anthropological

Institute," 1875). In this paper Mr. Galton admits that the hypothesis

of organic units "must lie at the foundation of the science of

heredity," and proceeds to show in what respect his conception differs

from the hypothesis of pangenesis. The copy of Mr. Galton's paper, which

Darwin numbered in correspondence with the criticisms in his letter, is

not available, and we are therefore only able to guess at some of

the points referred to.) I cannot fully grasp, only here and there

conjecture, what are the points on which we differ. I daresay this is

chiefly due to muddy-headedness on my part, but I do not think wholly

so. Your many terms, not defined, "developed germs," "fertile," and

"sterile germs" (the word "germ" itself from association misleading to

me) "stirp," "sept," "residue," etc., etc., quite confounded me. If I

ask myself how you derive, and where you place the innumerable gemmules

contained within the spermatozoa formed by a male animal during its

whole life, I cannot answer myself. Unless you can make several parts

clearer I believe (though I hope I am altogether wrong) that only a few

will endeavour or succeed in fathoming your meaning. I have marked a

few passages with numbers, and here make a few remarks and express my

opinion, as you desire it, not that I suppose it will be of any use to

you.

1. If this implies that many parts are not modified by use and disuse

during the life of the individual, I differ widely from you, as every

year I come to attribute more and more to such agency. (271/2. This

seems to refer to page 329 of Mr. Galton's paper. The passage must have

been hastily read, and has been quite misunderstood. Mr. Galton has

never expressed the view attributed to him.)

2. This seems rather bold, as sexuality has not been detected in some

of the lowest forms, though I daresay it may hereafter be. (271/3. Mr.

Galton, op. cit., pages 332-3: "There are not of a necessity two

sexes, because swarms of creatures of the simplest organisations mainly

multiply by some process of self-division.")

3. If gemmules (to use my own term) were often deficient in buds, I

cannot but think that bud-variations would be commoner than they are in

a state of nature; nor does it seem that bud-variations often exhibit

deficiencies which might be accounted for by the absence of the proper

gemmules. I take a very different view of the meaning or cause of

sexuality. (271/4. Mr. Galton's idea is that in a bud or other

asexually produced part, the germs (i.e. gemmules) may not be completely

representative of the whole organism, and if reproduction is continued

asexually "at each successive stage there is always a chance of some one

or more of the various species of germs... dying out" (page 333). Mr.

Galton supposes, in sexual reproduction, where two parents contribute

germs to the embryo the chance of deficiency of any of the necessary

germs is greatly diminished. Darwin's "very different view of the

meaning or cause of sexuality" is no doubt that given in "Cross and

Self Fertilisation"--i.e., that sexuality is equivalent to changed

conditions, that the parents are not representative of different sexes,

but of different conditions of life.)

4. I have ordered "Fraser's Magazine" (271/5. "The History of Twins,"

by F. Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," November, 1875, republished with

additions in the "Journal of the Anthropological Institute," 1875. Mr.

Galton explains the striking dissimilarity of twins which is sometimes

met with by supposing that the offspring in this case divide the

available gemmules between them in such a way that each is the

complement of the other. Thus, to put the case in an exaggerated way,

similar twins would each have half the gemmules A, B, C,...Z., etc,

whereas, in the case of dissimilar twins, one would have all the

gemmules A, B, C, D,...M, and the other would have N...Z.), and am

curious to learn how twins from a single ovum are distinguished from

twins from two ova. Nothing seems to me more curious than the similarity

and dissimilarity of twins.

5. Awfully difficult to understand.

6. I have given almost the same notion.

7. I hope that all this will be altered. I have received new and

additional cases, so that I have now not a shadow of doubt.

8. Such cases can hardly be spoken of as very rare, as you would say if

you had received half the number of cases I have.

(271/6. We are unable to determine to what paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 refer.)

I am very sorry to differ so much from you, but I have thought that you

would desire my open opinion. Frank is away, otherwise he should have

copied my scrawl.

I have got a good stock of pods of sweet peas, but the autumn has been

frightfully bad; perhaps we may still get a few more to ripen.

LETTER 272. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 12th [1875].

Many thanks for your "Biology," which I have read. (272/1. "A Course of

Practical Instruction in Elementary Biology," by T.H. Huxley and H.N.

Martin, 1875. For an account of the book see "Life and Letters of T.H.

Huxley," Volume I., page 380.) It was a real stroke of genius to think

of such a plan. Lord, how I wish I had gone through such a course!

LETTER 273. TO FRANCIS GALTON. December 18th [1875].

George has been explaining our differences. I have admitted in the

new edition (273/1. In the second edition (1875) of the "Variation of

Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 350, reference is made to Mr.

Galton's transfusion experiments, "Proc. R. Soc." XIX., page 393; also

to Mr. Galton's letter to "Nature," April 27th, 1871, page 502. This

is a curious mistake; the letter in "Nature," April 27th, 1871, is by

Darwin himself, and refers chiefly to the question whether gemmules may

be supposed to be in the blood. Mr. Galton's letter is in "Nature,"

May 4th, 1871, Volume IV., page 5. See Letter 235.) (before seeing

your essay) that perhaps the gemmules are largely multiplied in the

reproductive organs; but this does not make me doubt that each unit of

the whole system also sends forth its gemmules. You will no doubt have

thought of the following objection to your views, and I should like to

hear what your answer is. If two plants are crossed, it often, or rather

generally, happens that every part of stem, leaf, even to the hairs,

and flowers of the hybrid are intermediate in character; and this hybrid

will produce by buds millions on millions of other buds all exactly

reproducing the intermediate character. I cannot doubt that every unit

of the hybrid is hybridised and sends forth hybridised gemmules. Here we

have nothing to do with the reproductive organs. There can hardly be a

doubt from what we know that the same thing would occur with all those

animals which are capable of budding, and some of these (as the compound

Ascidians) are sufficiently complex and highly organised.

LETTER 274. TO LAWSON TAIT. March 25th, 1876.

(274/1. The reference is to the theory put forward in the first edition

of "Variation of Animals and Plants," II., page 15, that the asserted

tendency to regeneration after the amputation of supernumerary digits

in man is a return to the recuperative powers characteristic of a "lowly

organised progenitor provided with more than five digits." Darwin's

recantation is at Volume I., page 459 of the second edition.)

Since reading your first article (274/2. Lawson Tait wrote two notices

on "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" in the

"Spectator" of March 4th, 1876, page 312, and March 25th, page 406.),

Dr. Rudinger has written to me and sent me an essay, in which he gives

the results of the MOST EXTENSIVE inquiries from all eminent surgeons

in Germany, and all are unanimous about non-growth of extra digits after

amputation. They explain some apparent cases, as Paget did to me. By the

way, I struck out of my second edition a quotation from Sir J. Simpson

about re-growth in the womb, as Paget demurred, and as I could not say

how a rudiment of a limb due to any cause could be distinguished from

an imperfect re-growth. Two or three days ago I had another letter from

Germany from a good naturalist, Dr. Kollmann (274/3. Dr. Kollmann was

Secretary of the Anthropologische Gesellschaft of Munich, in which

Society took place the discussion referred to in "Variation of Animals

and Plants," I., 459, as originating Darwin's doubts on the whole

question. The fresh evidence adduced by Kollmann as to the normal

occurrence of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians is Borus' paper,

"Die sechste Zehe der Anuren" in "Morpholog. Jahrbuch," Bd. I., page

435. On this subject see Letter 178.), saying he was sorry that I

had given up atavism and extra digits, and telling me of new and good

evidence of rudiments of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians (which

I had myself seen, but given up owing to Gegenbaur's views); but, with

re-growth failing me, I could not uphold my old notion.

LETTER 275. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(275/1. Mr. Romanes' reply to this letter is printed in his "Life and

Letters," page 93, where by an oversight it is dated 1880-81.)

H. Wedgwood, Esq., Hopedene, Dorking, May 29th [1876].

As you are interested in pangenesis, and will some day, I hope, convert

an "airy nothing" into a substantial theory, I send by this post

an essay by Hackel (275/2. "Die Perigenesis der Plastidule oder die

Wellenzeugung der Lebenstheilchen," 79 pages. Berlin, 1876.) attacking

Pan. and substituting a molecular hypothesis. If I understand his views

rightly, he would say that with a bird which strengthened its wings by

use, the formative protoplasm of the strengthened parts became changed,

and its molecular vibrations consequently changed, and that these

vibrations are transmitted throughout the whole frame of the bird,

and affect the sexual elements in such a manner that the wings of the

offspring are developed in a like strengthened manner. I imagine he

would say, in cases like those of Lord Morton's mare (275/3. A

nearly pure-bred Arabian chestnut mare bore a hybrid to a quagga, and

subsequently produced two striped colts by a black Arabian horse: see

"Animals and Plants," I., page 403. The case was originally described

in the "Philosophical Transactions," 1821, page 20. For an account of

recent work bearing on this question, see article on "Zebras, Horses,

and Hybrids," in the "Quarterly Review," October 1899. See Letter 235.),

that the vibrations from the protoplasm, or "plasson," of the seminal

fluid of the zebra set plasson vibrating in the mare; and that these

vibrations continued until the hair of the second colt was formed, and

which consequently became barred like that of a zebra. How he explains

reversion to a remote ancestor, I know not. Perhaps I have misunderstood

him, though I have skimmed the whole with some care. He lays much stress

on inheritance being a form of unconscious memory, but how far this is

part of his molecular vibration, I do not understand. His views make

nothing clearer to me; but this may be my fault. No one, I presume,

would doubt about molecular movements of some kind. His essay is clever

and striking. If you read it (but you must not on my account), I should

much like to hear your judgment, and you can return it at any time. The

blue lines are Hackel's to call my attention.

We have come here for rest for me, which I have much needed; and shall

remain here for about ten days more, and then home to work, which is

my sole pleasure in life. I hope your splendid Medusa work and your

experiments on pangenesis are going on well. I heard from my son Frank

yesterday that he was feverish with a cold, and could not dine with the

physiologists, which I am very sorry for, as I should have heard what

they think about the new Bill. I see that you are one of the secretaries

to this young Society.

LETTER 276. TO H.N. MOSELEY. Down, November 22nd [1876].

It is very kind of you to send me the Japanese books, which are

extremely curious and amusing. My son Frank is away, but I am sure he

will be much obliged for the two papers which you have sent him.

Thanks, also, for your interesting note. It is a pity that Peripatus

(276/1. Moseley "On the Structure and Development of Peripatus capensis"

("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 164, page 757, 1874). "When suddenly

handled or irritated, they (i.e. Peripatus) shoot out fine threads of a

remarkably viscid and tenacious milky fluid... projected from the tips

of the oral papillae" (page 759).) is so stupid as to spit out the

viscid matter at the wrong end of its body; it would have been beautiful

thus to have explained the origin of the spider's web.

LETTER 277. NAPHTALI LEWY TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(277/1. The following letter refers to a book, "Toledoth Adam," written

by a learned Jew with the object of convincing his co-religionists of

the truth of the theory of evolution. The translation we owe to the

late Henry Bradshaw, University Librarian at Cambridge. The book is

unfortunately no longer to be found in Mr. Darwin's library.)

[1876].

To the Lord, the Prince, who "stands for an ensign of the people" (Isa.

xi. 10), the Investigator of the generation, the "bright son of the

morning" (Isa. xiv. 12), Charles Darwin, may he live long!

"From the rising of the sun and from the west" (Isa. xlv. 6) all the

nations know concerning the Torah (Theory) (277/2. Lit., instruction.

The Torah is the Pentateuch, strictly speaking, the source of all

knowledge.) which has "proceeded from thee for a light of the people"

(Isa. li. 4), and the nations "hear and say, It is truth" (Isa. xliii.

9). But with "the portion of my people" (Jer. x. 16), Jacob, "the lot

of my inheritance" (Deut. xxxii. 9), it is not so. This nation, "the

ancient people" (Isa. xliv. 7), which "remembers the former things and

considers the things of old (Isa. xliii. 18), "knows not, neither doth

it understand" (Psalm lxxxii. 5), that by thy Torah (instruction or

theory) thou hast thrown light upon their Torah (the Law), and that the

eyes of the Hebrews (277/3. One letter in this word changed would make

the word "blind," which is what Isaiah uses in the passage alluded to.)

"can now see out of obscurity and out of darkness" (Isa. xxix. 18).

Therefore "I arose" (Judges v. 7) and wrote this book, "Toledoth Adam"

("the generations of man," Gen. v. 1), to teach the children of my

people, the seed of Jacob, the Torah (instruction) which thou hast given

for an inheritance to all the nations of the earth.

And I have "proceeded to do a marvellous work among this people, even a

marvellous work and a wonder" (Isa. xxix. 14), enabling them now to read

in the Torah of Moses our teacher, "plainly and giving the sense"

(Neh. viii. 8), that which thou hast given in thy Torahs (works of

instruction). And when my people perceive that thy view has by no means

"gone astray" (Num. v. 12, 19, etc.) from the Torah of God, they will

hold thy name in the highest reverence, and "will at the same time

glorify the God of Israel" (Isa. xxix. 23).

"The vision of all this" (Isa. xxix. 11) thou shalt see, O Prince of

Wisdom, in this book, "which goeth before me" (Gen. xxxii. 21); and

whatever thy large understanding finds to criticise in it, come, "write

it in a table and note it in a book" (Isa. xxx. 8); and allow me to name

my work with thy name, which is glorified and greatly revered by

Thy servant, Naphtali Hallevi [i.e. the Levite].

Dated here in the city of Radom, in the province of Poland, in the month

of Nisan in the year 636, according to the lesser computation (i.e. A.M.

[5]636 = A.D. 1876).

LETTER 278. TO OTTO ZACHARIAS. 1877.

When I was on board the "Beagle" I believed in the permanence of

species, but, as far as I can remember, vague doubts occasionally

flitted across my mind. On my return home in the autumn of 1836 I

immediately began to prepare my journal for publication, and then saw

how many facts indicated the common descent of species (278/1. "The

facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently

fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but until

the relations of the existing with the extinct species and of the

species of the different geographical areas, with one another were

determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation

for speculation. It was not possible that this determination should have

been effected before the return of the "Beagle" to England; and thus the

date which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to the dawn of the new light

which was rising in his mind becomes intelligible."--From "Darwiniana,"

Essays by Thomas H. Huxley, London, 1893; pages 274-5.), so that in

July, 1837, I opened a notebook to record any facts which might bear on

the question; but I did not become convinced that species were mutable

until, I think, two or three years had elapsed. (278/2. On this last

point see page 38.)

LETTER 279. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(279/1. The following letter refers to MS. notes by Romanes, which we

have not seen. Darwin's remarks on it are, however, sufficiently clear.)

My address will be "Bassett, Southampton," June 11th [1877].

I have received the crossing paper which you were so kind as to send me.

It is very clear, and I quite agree with it; but the point in question

has not been a difficulty to me, as I have never believed in a new form

originating from a single variation. What I have called unconscious

selection by man illustrates, as it seems to me, the same principle as

yours, within the same area. Man purchases the individual animals or

plants which seem to him the best in any respect--some more so, and some

less so--and, without any matching or pairing, the breed in the

course of time is surely altered. The absence in numerous instances

of intermediate or blending forms, in the border country between two

closely allied geographical races or close species, seemed to me a

greater difficulty when I discussed the subject in the "Origin."

With respect to your illustration, it formerly drove me half mad to

attempt to account for the increase or diminution of the productiveness

of an organism; but I cannot call to mind where my difficulty lay.

(279/2. See Letters 209-16.) Natural Selection always applies, as I

think, to each individual and its offspring, such as its seeds, eggs,

which are formed by the mother, and which are protected in various ways.

(279/3. It was in regard to this point that Romanes had sent the MS. to

Darwin. In a letter of June 16th he writes: "It was with reference

to the possibility of Natural Selection acting on organic types as

distinguished from individuals,--a possibility which you once told

me did not seem at all clear.") There does not seem any difficulty in

understanding how the productiveness of an organism might be increased;

but it was, as far as I can remember, in reducing productiveness that I

was most puzzled. But why I scribble about this I know not.

I have read your review of Mr. Allen's book (279/4. See "Nature"

(June 7th, 1877, page 98), a review of Grant Allen's "Physiological

Aesthetics."), and it makes me more doubtful, even, than I was before

whether he has really thrown much light on the subject.

I am glad to hear that some physiologists take the same view as I did

about your giving too much credit to H. Spencer--though, heaven knows,

this is a rare fault. (279/5. The reference is to Romanes' lecture on

Medusa, given at the Royal Institution, May 25th. (See "Nature," XVI.,

pages 231, 269, 289.) It appears from a letter of Romanes (June 6th)

that it was the abstract in the "Times" that gave the impression

referred to. References to Mr. Spencer's theories of nerve-genesis occur

in "Nature," pages 232, 271, 289.)

The more I think of your medusa-nerve-work the more splendid it seems to

me.

LETTER 280. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, August 3rd, 1877.

I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your long and interesting

letter. The cause and means of the transition from an hermaphrodite to

a unisexual condition seems to me a very perplexing problem, and I shall

be extremely glad to read your remarks on Smilax, whenever I receive the

essay which you kindly say that you will send me. (280/1. "Monographiae

Phanerogamarum," Volume I. In his treatment of the Smilaceae, De

Candolle distinguishes:--Heterosmilax which has dioecious flowers

without a trace of aborted stamens or pistils, Smilax with sterile

stamens in the female flowers, and Rhipogonum with hermaphrodite

flowers.) There is much justice in your criticisms (280/2. The passage

criticised by De Candolle is in "Forms of Flowers" (page 7): "It is a

natural inference that their corollas have been increased in size for

this special purpose." De Candolle goes on to give an account of the

"recherche linguistique," which, with characteristic fairness, he

undertook to ascertain whether the word "purpose" differs in meaning

from the corresponding French word "but.") on my use of the terms

object, end, purpose; but those who believe that organs have been

gradually modified for Natural Selection for a special purpose may,

I think, use the above terms correctly, though no conscious being has

intervened. I have found much difficulty in my occasional attempts

to avoid these terms, but I might perhaps have always spoken of a

beneficial or serviceable effect. My son Francis will be interested by

hearing about Smilax. He has dispatched to you a copy of his paper on

the glands of Dipsacus (280/3. "Quart. Journ. Mic. Sci." 1877.), and I

hope that you will find time to read it, for the case seems to me a new

and highly remarkable one. We are now hard at work on an attempt to make

out the function or use of the bloom or waxy secretion on the leaves and

fruit of many plants; but I doubt greatly whether our experiments will

tell us much. (280/4. "As it is we have made out clearly that with

some plants (chiefly succulent) the bloom checks evaporation--with

some certainly prevents attacks of insects; with some sea-shore plants

prevents injury from salt-water, and I believe, with a few prevents

injury from pure water resting on the leaves." (See letter to Sir W.

Thiselton-Dyer, "Life and Letters," III., page 341. A paper on the

same subject by Francis Darwin was published in the "Journ. Linn.

Soc." XXII.)) If you have any decided opinion whether plants with

conspicuously glaucous leaves are more frequent in hot than in temperate

or cold, in dry than in damp countries, I should be grateful if you

would add to your many kindnesses by informing me. Pray give my kind

remembrances to your son, and tell him that my son has been trying on

a large scale the effects of feeding Drosera with meat, and the results

are most striking and far more favourable than I anticipated.

LETTER 281. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(281/1. Published in the "Life and Letters" of Romanes, page 66.)

Down, Saturday Night [1877].

I have just finished your lecture (281/2. "The Scientific Evidence of

Organic Evolution: a Discourse" (delivered before the Philosophical

Society of Ross-shire), Inverness, 1877. It was reprinted in the

"Fortnightly Review," and was afterwards worked up into a book under

the above title.); it is an admirable scientific argument, and most

powerful. I wish that it could be sown broadcast throughout the land.

Your courage is marvellous, and I wonder that you were not stoned on

the spot--and in Scotland! Do please tell me how it was received in the

Lecture Hall. About man being made like a monkey (page 37 (281/3. "And

if you reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent, you can

only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous

pains to make him in the image of the ape" ("Discourse," page 37).)) is

quite new to me, and the argument in an earlier place (page 8 (281/4.

At page 8 of the "Discourse" the speaker referred to the law "which Sir

William Hamilton called the Law of Parsimony--or the law which forbids

us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found

sufficient to explain the desired effects," as constituting the "only

logical barrier between Science and Superstition.")) on the law of

parsimony admirably put. Yes, page 21 (281/5. "Discourse," page 21. If

we accept the doctrines of individual creations and ideal types, we

must believe that the Deity acted "with no other apparent motive than

to suggest to us, by every one of the observable facts, that the ideal

types are nothing other than the bonds of a lineal descent.") is new to

me. All strike me as very clear, and, considering small space, you have

chosen your lines of reasoning excellently.

The few last pages are awfully powerful, in my opinion.

Sunday Morning.--The above was written last night in the enthusiasm of

the moment, and now--this dark, dismal Sunday morning--I fully agree

with what I said.

I am very sorry to hear about the failures in the graft experiments, and

not from your own fault or ill-luck. Trollope in one of his novels gives

as a maxim of constant use by a brickmaker--"It is dogged as does it"

(281/6. "Tell 'ee what, Master Crawley;--and yer reverence mustn't think

as I means to be preaching; there ain't nowt a man can't bear if he'll

only be dogged. You go whome, Master Crawley, and think o' that, and

may be it'll do ye a good yet. It's dogged as does it. It ain't thinking

about it." (Giles Hoggett, the old Brickmaker, in "The Last Chronicle

of Barset," Volume II., 1867, page 188.))--and I have often and often

thought that this is the motto for every scientific worker. I am sure it

is yours--if you do not give up pangenesis with wicked imprecations.

By the way, G. Jager has brought out in "Kosmos" a chemical sort of

pangenesis bearing chiefly on inheritance. (281/7. Several papers by

Jager on "Inheritance" were published in the first volume of "Kosmos,"

1877.)

I cannot conceive why I have not offered my garden for your experiments.

I would attend to the plants, as far as mere care goes, with pleasure;

but Down is an awkward place to reach.

Would it be worth while to try if the "Fortnightly" would republish it

[i.e. the lecture]?

LETTER 282. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(282/1. In 1877 the honorary degree of LL.D. was conferred on Mr. Darwin

by the University of Cambridge. At the dinner given on the occasion

by the Philosophical Society, Mr. Huxley responded to the toast of the

evening with the speech of which an authorised version is given by Mr.

L. Huxley in the "Life and Letters" of his father (Volume I., page 479).

Mr. Huxley said, "But whether the that doctrine [of evolution] be true

or whether it be false, I wish to express the deliberate opinion, that

from Aristotle's great summary of the biological knowledge of his time

down to the present day, there is nothing comparable to the "Origin of

Species," as a connected survey of the phenomena of life permeated and

vivified by a central idea."

In the first part of the speech there was a brilliant sentence which he

described as a touch of the whip "tied round with ribbons," and this was

perhaps a little hard on the supporters of evolution in the University.

Mr. Huxley said "Instead of offering her honours when they ran a chance

of being crushed beneath the accumulated marks of approbation of the

whole civilised world, the University has waited until the trophy

was finished, and has crowned the edifice with the delicate wreath of

academic appreciation.")

Down, Monday night, November 19th [1877].

I cannot rest easy without telling you more gravely than I did when we

met for five minutes near the Museum, how deeply I have felt the many

generous things (as far as Frank could remember them) which you said

about me at the dinner. Frank came early next morning boiling over with

enthusiasm about your speech. You have indeed always been to me a most

generous friend, but I know, alas, too well how greatly you overestimate

me. Forgive me for bothering you with these few lines.

(282/2. The following extract from a letter (February 10th, 1878) to his

old schoolfellow, Mr. J. Price, gives a characteristic remark about the

honorary degree.)

"I am very much obliged for your kind congratulations about the LL.D.

Why the Senate conferred it on me I know not in the least. I was

astonished to hear that the R. Prof. of Divinity and several other great

Dons attended, and several such men have subscribed, as I am informed,

for the picture for the University to commemorate the honour conferred

on me."

LETTER 283. TO W. BOWMAN.

(283/1. We have not discovered to what prize the following letter to the

late Sir W. Bowman (the well known surgeon) refers.)

Down, February 22nd, 1878.

I received your letter this morning, and it was quite impossible that

you should receive an answer by 4 p.m. to-day. But this does not signify

in the least, for your proposal seems to me a very good one, and I most

entirely agree with you that it is far better to suggest some special

question rather than to have a general discussion compiled from

books. The rule that the Essay must be "illustrative of the wisdom and

beneficence of the Almighty" would confine the subjects to be proposed.

With respect to the Vegetable Kingdom, I could suggest two or three

subjects about which, as it seems to me, information is much required;

but these subjects would require a long course of experiment, and

unfortunately there is hardly any one in this country who seems inclined

to devote himself to experiments.

LETTER 284. TO J. TORBITT.

(284/1. Mr. Torbitt was engaged in trying to produce by methodical

selection and cross-fertilisation a fungus-proof race of the potato. The

plan is fully described in the "Life and Letters," III., page 348.

The following letter is given in additional illustration of the keen

interest Mr. Darwin took in the project.)

Down, Monday, March 4th, 1878.

I have nothing good to report. Mr. Caird called upon me yesterday;

both he and Mr. Farrer (284/2. The late Lord Farrer.) have been

most energetic and obliging. There is no use in thinking about the

Agricultural Society. Mr. Caird has seen several persons on the subject,

especially Mr. Carruthers, Botanist to the Society. He (Mr. Carruthers)

thinks the attempt hopeless, but advances in a long memorandum sent to

Mr. Caird, reasons which I am convinced are not sound. He specifies two

points, however, which are well worthy of your consideration--namely,

that a variety should be tested three years before its soundness can

be trusted; and especially it should be grown under a damp climate. Mr.

Carruthers' opinion on this head is valuable because he was employed

by the Society in judging the varieties sent in for the prize offered a

year or two ago. If I had strength to get up a memorial to Government, I

believe that I could succeed; for Sir J. Hooker writes that he believes

you are on the right path; but I do not know to whom else to apply

whose judgment would have weight with Government, and I really have not

strength to discuss the matter and convert persons.

At Mr. Farrer's request, when we hoped the Agricultural Society might

undertake it, I wrote to him a long letter giving him my opinion on the

subject; and this letter Mr. Caird took with him yesterday, and

will consider with Mr. Farrer whether any application can be made to

Government.

I am, however, far from sanguine. I shall see Mr. Farrer this evening,

and will do what I can. When I receive back my letter I will send it to

you for your perusal.

After much reflection it seems to me that your best plan will be, if

we fail to get Government aid, to go on during the present year, on a

reduced scale, in raising new cross-fertilised varieties, and next

year, if you are able, testing the power of endurance of only the most

promising kind. If it were possible it would be very advisable for you

to get some grown on the wet western side of Ireland. If you succeed

in procuring a fungus-proof variety you may rely on it that its merits

would soon become known locally and it would afterwards spread rapidly

far and wide. Mr. Caird gave me a striking instance of such a case in

Scotland. I return home to-morrow morning.

I have the pleasure to enclose a cheque for 100 pounds. If you receive a

Government grant, I ought to be repaid.

P.S. If I were in your place I would not expend any labour or money in

publishing what you have already done, or in sending seeds or tubers to

any one. I would work quietly on till some sure results were obtained.

And these would be so valuable that your work in this case would soon be

known. I would also endeavour to pass as severe a judgment as possible

on the state of the tubers and plants.

LETTER 285. TO E. VON MOJSISOVICS. Down, June 1st, 1878.

I have at last found time to read [the] first chapter of your "Dolomit

Riffe" (285/1. "Dolomitriffe Sudtirols und Venetiens." Wien, 1878.), and

have been exceedingly interested by it. What a wonderful change in

the future of geological chronology you indicate, by assuming the

descent-theory to be established, and then taking the graduated changes

of the same group of organisms as the true standard! I never hoped to

live to see such a step even proposed by any one. (285/2. Published in

"Life and Letters," III., pages 234, 235.)

Nevertheless, I saw dimly that each bed in a formation could contain

only the organisms proper to a certain depth, and to other there

existing conditions, and that all the intermediate forms between one

marine species and another could rarely be preserved in the same

place and bed. Oppel, Neumayr, and yourself will confer a lasting and

admirable service on the noble science of Geology, if you can spread

your views so as to be generally known and accepted.

With respect to the continental and oceanic periods common to the whole

northern hemisphere, to which you refer, I have sometimes speculated

that the present distribution of the land and sea over the world may

have formerly been very different to what it now is; and that new genera

and families may have been developed on the shores of isolated tracts in

the south, and afterwards spread to the north.

LETTER 286. TO J.W. JUDD. Down, June 27th, 1878.

I am heartily glad to hear of your intended marriage. A good wife is the

supreme blessing in this life, and I hope and believe from what you

say that you will be as happy as I have been in this respect. May your

future geological work be as valuable as that which you have already

done; and more than this need not be wished for any man. The practical

teaching of Geology seems an excellent idea.

Many thanks for Neumayr, (286/1. Probably a paper on "Die Congerien

und Paludinenschichten Slavoniens und deren Fauna. Ein Beitrag zur

Descendenz-Theorie," "Wien. Geol. Abhandl." VII. (Heft 3), 1874-82.),

but I have already received and read a copy of the same, or at least of

a very similar essay, and admirably good it seemed to me.

This essay, and one by Mojsisovics (286/2. See note to Letter 285.),

which I have lately read, show what Palaeontology in the future will do

for the classification and sequence of formations. It delighted me to

see so inverted an order of proceeding--viz., the assuming the descent

of species as certain, and then taking the changes of closely allied

forms as the standard of geological time. My health is better than it

was a few years ago, but I never pass a day without much discomfort and

the sense of extreme fatigue.

(286/3. We owe to Professor Judd the following interesting recollections

of Mr. Darwin, written about 1883:--

"On this last occasion, when I congratulated him on his seeming better

condition of health, he told me of the cause for anxiety which he had in

the state of his heart. Indeed, I cannot help feeling that he had a

kind of presentiment that his end was approaching. When I left him, he

insisted on conducting me to the door, and there was that in his tone

and manner which seemed to convey to me the sad intelligence that it

was not merely a temporary farewell, though he himself was perfectly

cheerful and happy.

"It is impossible for me adequately to express the impression made upon

my mind by my various conversations with Mr. Darwin. His extreme

modesty led him to form the lowest estimate of his own labours, and

a correspondingly extravagant idea of the value of the work done by

others. His deference to the arguments and suggestions of men greatly

his juniors, and his unaffected sympathy in their pursuits, was most

marked and characteristic; indeed, he, the great master of science, used

to speak, and I am sure felt, as though he were appealing to superior

authority for information in all his conversations. It was only when a

question was fully discussed with him that one became conscious of the

fund of information he could bring to its elucidation, and the breadth

of thought with which he had grasped it. Of his gentle, loving nature,

of which I had so many proofs, I need not write; no one could be with

him, even for a few minutes, without being deeply impressed by his

grateful kindliness and goodness.")

LETTER 287. TO COUNT SAPORTA. Down, August 15th, 1878.

I thank you very sincerely for your kind and interesting letter. It

would be false in me to pretend that I care very much about my election

to the Institute, but the sympathy of some few of my friends has

gratified me deeply.

I am extremely glad to hear that you are going to publish a work on the

more ancient fossil plants; and I thank you beforehand for the volume

which you kindly say that you will send me. I earnestly hope that you

will give, at least incidentally, the results at which you have arrived

with respect to the more recent Tertiary plants; for the close gradation

of such forms seems to me a fact of paramount importance for the

principle of evolution. Your cases are like those on the gradation in

the genus Equus, recently discovered by Marsh in North America.

LETTER 288. TO THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.

(288/1. The following letter was published in "Nature," March 5th, 1891,