← catalogue

More Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 2

by Charles Darwin · English · Gutenberg #2740 · 1,265,500 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of More Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 2
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: More Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 2

Author: Charles Darwin

Editor: Sir Francis Darwin
        A. C. Seward


        
Release date: July 1, 2001 [eBook #2740]
                Most recently updated: December 1, 2008

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2740

Credits: Produced by Sue Asscher, and David Widger


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN — VOLUME 2 ***




Produced by Sue Asscher





MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN

By Charles Darwin


A RECORD OF HIS WORK IN A SERIES OF HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED LETTERS

EDITED BY FRANCIS DARWIN, FELLOW OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, AND A.C. SEWARD,
FELLOW OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

IN TWO VOLUMES



Transcriber's Notes:


All biographical footnotes of both volumes appear at the end of Volume
II.

All other notes by Charles Darwin's editors appear in the text, in
brackets () with a Chapter/Note or Letter/Note number.


VOLUME II.


DEDICATED WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT, TO

SIR JOSEPH HOOKER

IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIS LIFELONG FRIENDSHIP WITH CHARLES DARWIN


"You will never know how much I owe to you for your constant kindness
and encouragement"

CHARLES DARWIN TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER, SEPTEMBER 14, 1862




MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN




VOLUME II



CHAPTER 2.VII.--GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION.

1843-1882 (Continued) (1867-1882.)


LETTER 378. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, January 20th, 1867.

Prof. Miquel, of Utrecht, begs me to ask you for your carte, and offers
his in return. I grieve to bother you on such a subject. I am sick and
tired of this carte correspondence. I cannot conceive what Humboldt's
Pyrenean violet is: no such is mentioned in Webb, and no alpine one at
all. I am sorry I forgot to mention the stronger African affinity of
the eastern Canary Islands. Thank you for mentioning it. I cannot admit,
without further analysis, that most of the peculiar Atlantic Islands
genera were derived from Europe, and have since become extinct there.
I have rather thought that many are only altered forms of existing
European genera; but this is a very difficult point, and would require
a careful study of such genera and allies with this object in view. The
subject has often presented itself to me as a grand one for analytic
botany. No doubt its establishment would account for the community of
the peculiar genera on the several groups and islets, but whilst so
many species are common we must allow for a good deal of migration of
peculiar genera too.

By Jove! I will write out next mail to the Governor of St. Helena for
boxes of earth, and you shall have them to grow. Thanks for telling me
of having suggested to me the working out of proportions of plants with
irregular flowers in islands. I thought it was a deuced deal too good
an idea to have arisen spontaneously in my block, though I did not
recollect your having done so. No doubt your suggestion was crystallised
in some corner of my sensorium. I should like to work out the point.

Have you Kerguelen Land amongst your volcanic islands? I have a curious
book of a sealer who was wrecked on the island, and who mentions a
volcanic mountain and hot springs at the S.W. end; it is called the
"Wreck of the Favourite." (378/1. "Narrative of the Wreck of the
'Favourite' on the Island of Desolation; detailing the Adventures,
Sufferings and Privations of John Munn; an Historical Account of the
Island and its Whale and Sea Fisheries." Edited by W.B. Clarke: London,
1850.)


LETTER 379. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 17th, 1867.

It is a long time since I have written, but I cannot boast that I have
refrained from charity towards you, but from having lots of work...You
ask what I have been doing. Nothing but blackening proofs with
corrections. I do not believe any man in England naturally writes so
vile a style as I do...

In your paper on "Insular Floras" (page 9) there is what I must think an
error, which I before pointed out to you: viz., you say that the plants
which are wholly distinct from those of nearest continent are often
very common instead of very rare. (379/1. "Insular Floras," pamphlet
reprinted from the "Gardeners' Chronicle," page 9: "As a general
rule the species of the mother continent are proportionally the most
abundant, and cover the greatest surface of the islands. The peculiar
species are rarer, the peculiar genera of continental affinity are rarer
still; whilst the plants having no affinity with those of the mother
continent are often very common." In a letter of March 20th, 1867,
Sir Joseph explains that in the case of the Atlantic islands it is the
"peculiar genera of EUROPEAN AFFINITY that are so rare," while Clethra,
Dracaena and the Laurels, which have no European affinity, are common.)
Etty (379/2. Mr. Darwin's daughter, now Mrs. Litchfield.), who has read
your paper with great interest, was confounded by this sentence. By the
way, I have stumbled on two old notes: one, that twenty-two species of
European birds occasionally arrive as chance wanderers to the Azores;
and, secondly, that trunks of American trees have been known to be
washed on the shores of the Canary Islands by the Gulf-stream, which
returns southward from the Azores. What poor papers those of A. Murray
are in "Gardeners' Chronicle." What conclusions he draws from a single
Carabus (379/3. "Dr. Hooker on Insular Floras" ("Gardeners' Chronicle,"
1867, pages 152, 181). The reference to the Carabidous beetle
(Aplothorax) is at page 181.), and that a widely ranging genus! He seems
to me conceited; you and I are fair game geologically, but he refers to
Lyell, as if his opinion on a geological point was worth no more than
his own. I have just bought, but not read a sentence of, Murray's
big book (379/4. "Geographical Distribution of Mammals," 1866.),
second-hand, for 30s., new, so I do not envy the publishers. It is clear
to me that the man cannot reason. I have had a very nice letter from
Scott at Calcutta (379/5. See Letter 150.): he has been making some
good observations on the acclimatisation of seeds from plants of same
species, grown in different countries, and likewise on how far European
plants will stand the climate of Calcutta. He says he is astonished
how well some flourish, and he maintains, if the land were unoccupied,
several could easily cross, spreading by seed, the Tropics from north to
south, so he knows how to please me; but I have told him to be cautious,
else he will have dragons down on him...

As the Azores are only about two-and-a-half times more distant from
America (in the same latitude) than from Europe, on the occasional
migration view (especially as oceanic currents come directly from
West Indies and Florida, and heavy gales of wind blow from the same
direction), a large percentage of the flora ought to be American; as it
is, we have only the Sanicula, and at present we have no explanation of
this apparent anomaly, or only a feeble indication of an explanation in
the birds of the Azores being all European.


LETTER 380. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 21st [1867].

Many thanks for your pleasant and very amusing letter. You have been
treated shamefully by Etty and me, but now that I know the facts,
the sentence seems to me quite clear. Nevertheless, as we have both
blundered, it would be well to modify the sentence something as follows:
"whilst, on the other hand, the plants which are related to those
of distant continents, but have no affinity with those of the mother
continent, are often very common." I forget whether you explain this
circumstance, but it seems to me very mysterious (380/1. Sir Joseph
Hooker wrote (March 23rd, 1867): "I see you 'smell a rat' in the matter
of insular plants that are related to those of [a] distant continent
being common. Yes, my beloved friend, let me make a clean breast of
it. I only found it out after the lecture was in print!...I have
been waiting ever since to 'think it out,' and write to you about it,
coherently. I thought it best to squeeze it in, anyhow or anywhere,
rather than leave so curious a fact unnoticed.")...Do always remember
that nothing in the world gives us so much pleasure as seeing you here
whenever you can come. I chuckle over what you say of And. Murray, but I
must grapple with his book some day.


LETTER 381. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 31st [1867].

Mr. [J.P. Mansel] Weale sent to me from Natal a small packet of dry
locust dung, under 1/2 oz., with the statement that it is believed that
they introduce new plants into a district. (381/1. See Volume I., Letter
221.) This statement, however, must be very doubtful. From this packet
seven plants have germinated, belonging to at least two kinds of
grasses. There is no error, for I dissected some of the seeds out of
the middle of the pellets. It deserves notice that locusts are sometimes
blown far out to sea. I caught one 370 miles from Africa, and I have
heard of much greater distances. You might like to hear the following
case, as it relates to a migratory bird belonging to the most wandering
of all orders--viz. the woodcock. (381/2. "Origin," Edition VI., page
328.) The tarsus was firmly coated with mud, weighing when dry 9 grains,
and from this the Juncus bufonius, or toad rush, germinated. By the way,
the locust case verifies what I said in the "Origin," that many possible
means of distribution would be hereafter discovered. I quite agree about
the extreme difficulty of the distribution of land mollusca. You will
have seen in the last edition of "Origin" (381/3. "Origin," Edition IV.,
page 429. The reference is to MM. Marten's (381/4. For Marten's read
Martins' [the name is wrongly spelt in the "Origin of Species."])
experiments on seeds "in a box in the actual sea.") that my observations
on the effects of sea-water have been confirmed. I still suspect that
the legs of birds which roost on the ground may be an efficient means;
but I was interrupted when going to make trials on this subject, and
have never resumed it.

We shall be in London in the middle of latter part of November, when I
shall much enjoy seeing you. Emma sends her love, and many thanks for
Lady Lyell's note.


LETTER 382. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Wednesday [1867].

I daresay there is a great deal of truth in your remarks on the glacial
affair, but we are in a muddle, and shall never agree. I am bigoted to
the last inch, and will not yield. I cannot think how you can attach so
much weight to the physicists, seeing how Hopkins, Hennessey, Haughton,
and Thomson have enormously disagreed about the rate of cooling of the
crust; remembering Herschel's speculations about cold space (382/1.
The reader will find some account of Herschel's views in Lyell's
"Principles," 1872, Edition XI., Volume I., page 283.), and bearing in
mind all the recent speculations on change of axis, I will maintain to
the death that your case of Fernando Po and Abyssinia is worth ten
times more than the belief of a dozen physicists. (382/2. See "Origin,"
Edition VI., page 337: "Dr. Hooker has also lately shown that several of
the plants living on the upper parts of the lofty island of Fernando Po
and on the neighbouring Cameroon mountains, in the Gulf of Guinea, are
closely related to those in the mountains of Abyssinia, and likewise to
those of temperate Europe." Darwin evidently means that such facts as
these are better evidence of the gigantic periods of time occupied by
evolutionary changes than the discordant conclusions of the physicists.
See "Linn. Soc. Journ." Volume VII., page 180, for Hooker's general
conclusions; also Hooker and Ball's "Marocco," Appendix F, page 421. For
the case of Fernando Po see Hooker ("Linn. Soc. Journ." VI., 1861, page
3, where he sums up: "Hence the result of comparing Clarence Peak flora
[Fernando Po] with that of the African continent is--(1) the intimate
relationship with Abyssinia, of whose flora it is a member, and from
which it is separated by 1800 miles of absolutely unexplored country;
(2) the curious relationship with the East African islands, which are
still farther off; (3) the almost total dissimilarity from the Cape
flora." For Sir J.D. Hooker's general conclusions on the Cameroon plants
see "Linn. Soc. Journ." VII., page 180. More recently equally striking
cases have come to light: for instance, the existence of a Mediterranean
genus, Adenocarpus, in the Cameroons and on Kilima Njaro, and nowhere
else in Africa; and the probable migration of South African forms along
the highlands from the Natal District to Abysinnia. See Hooker, "Linn.
Soc. Journ." XIV., 1874, pages 144-5.) Your remarks on my regarding
temperate plants and disregarding the tropical plants made me at first
uncomfortable, but I soon recovered. You say that all botanists would
agree that many tropical plants could not withstand a somewhat cooler
climate. But I have come not to care at all for general beliefs without
the special facts. I have suffered too often from this: thus I found in
every book the general statement that a host of flowers were fertilised
in the bud, that seeds could not withstand salt water, etc., etc. I
would far more trust such graphic accounts as that by you of the mixed
vegetation on the Himalayas and other such accounts. And with respect to
tropical plants withstanding the slowly coming on cool period, I trust
to such facts as yours (and others) about seeds of the same species
from mountains and plains having acquired a slightly different climatal
constitution. I know all that I have said will excite in you savage
contempt towards me. Do not answer this rigmarole, but attack me to your
heart's content, and to that of mine, whenever you can come here, and
may it be soon.


LETTER 383. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, 1870.

(383/1. The following extract from a letter of Sir J.D. Hooker shows the
tables reversed between the correspondents.)

Grove is disgusted at your being disquieted about W. Thomson. Tell
George from me not to sit upon you with his mathematics. When I
threatened your tropical cooling views with the facts of the physicists,
you snubbed me and the facts sweetly, over and over again; and now,
because a scarecrow of x+y has been raised on the selfsame facts, you
boo-boo. Take another dose of Huxley's penultimate G. S. Address, and
send George back to college. (383/2. Huxley's Anniversary Address to the
Geological Society, 1869 ("Collected Essays," VIII., page 305). This is
a criticism of Lord Kelvin's paper "On Geological Time" ("Trans. Geolog.
Soc. Glasgow," III.). At page 336 Mr. Huxley deals with Lord Kelvin's
"third line of argument, based on the temperature of the interior of the
earth." This was no doubt the point most disturbing to Mr. Darwin, since
it led Lord Kelvin to ask (as quoted by Huxley), "Are modern geologists
prepared to say that all life was killed off the earth 50,000, 100,000,
or 200,000 years ago?" Mr. Huxley, after criticising Lord Kelvin's data
and conclusion, gives his conviction that the case against Geology has
broken down. With regard to evolution, Huxley (page 328) ingeniously
points out a case of circular reasoning. "But it may be said that it
is biology, and not geology, which asks for so much time--that the
succession of life demands vast intervals; but this appears to me to
be reasoning in a circle. Biology takes her time from geology. The only
reason we have for believing in the slow rate of the change in living
forms is the fact that they persist through a series of deposits which,
geology informs us, have taken a long while to make. If the geological
clock is wrong, all the naturalist will have to do is to modify his
notions of the rapidity of change accordingly.")


LETTER 384. TO J.D. HOOKER. February 3rd [1868].

I am now reading Miquel on "Flora of Japan" (384/1. Miquel, "Flore du
Japon": "Archives Neerlandaises" ii., 1867.), and like it: it is rather
a relief to me (though, of course, not new to you) to find so very
much in common with Asia. I wonder if A. Murray's (384/2. "Geographical
Distribution of Mammals," by Andrew Murray, 1866. See Chapter V., page
47. See Letter 379.) notion can be correct, that a [profound] arm of
the sea penetrated the west coast of N. America, and prevented the
Asiatico-Japan element colonising that side of the continent so much
as the eastern side; or will climate suffice? I shall to the day of my
death keep up my full interest in Geographical Distribution, but I doubt
whether I shall ever have strength to come in any fuller detail than in
the "Origin" to this grand subject. In fact, I do not suppose any man
could master so comprehensive a subject as it now has become, if all
kingdoms of nature are included. I have read Murray's book, and am
disappointed--though, as you said, here and there clever thoughts occur.
How strange it is, that his view not affording the least explanation of
the innumerable adaptations everywhere to be seen apparently does not
in the least trouble his mind. One of the most curious cases which he
adduces seems to me to be the two allied fresh-water, highly peculiar
porpoises in the Ganges and Indus; and the more distantly allied form
of the Amazons. Do you remember his explanation of an arm of the sea
becoming cut off, like the Caspian, converted into fresh-water, and then
divided into two lakes (by upheaval), giving rise to two great rivers.
But no light is thus thrown on the affinity of the Amazon form. I now
find from Flower's paper (384/3. "Zoolog. Trans." VI., 1869, page 115.
The toothed whales are divided into the Physeteridae, the Delphinidae,
and the Platanistidae, which latter is placed between the two
other families, and is divided into the sub-families Iniinae and
Platanistinae.) that these fresh-water porpoises form two sub-families,
making an extremely isolated and intermediate, very small family. Hence
to us they are clearly remnants of a large group; and I cannot doubt
we here have a good instance precisely like that of ganoid fishes, of a
large ancient marine group, preserved exclusively in fresh-water, where
there has been less competition, and consequently little modification.
(384/4. See Volume I., Letter 95.) What a grand fact that is which
Miquel gives of the beech not extending beyond the Caucasus, and then
reappearing in Japan, like your Himalayan Pinus, and the cedar of
Lebanon. (384/5. For Pinus read Deodar. The essential identity of the
deodar and the cedar of Lebanon was pointed out in Hooker's "Himalayan
Journals" in 1854 (Volume I., page 257.n). In the "Nat. History Review,"
January, 1862, the question is more fully dealt with by him, and the
distribution discussed. The nearest point at which cedars occur is the
Bulgar-dagh chain of Taurus--250 miles from Lebanon. Under the name of
Cedrus atlantica the tree occurs in mass on the borders of Tunis, and as
Deodar it first appears to the east in the cedar forests of Afghanistan.
Sir J.D. Hooker supposes that, during a period of greater cold, the
cedars on the Taurus and on Lebanon lived many thousand feet nearer the
sea-level, and spread much farther to the east, meeting similar belts
of trees descending and spreading westward from Afghanistan along the
Persian mountains.) I know of nothing that gives one such an idea of the
recent mutations in the surface of the land as these living "outlyers."
In the geological sense we must, I suppose, admit that every yard of
land has been successively covered with a beech forest between the
Caucasus and Japan!

I have not yet seen (for I have not sent to the station) Falconer's
works. When you say that you sigh to think how poor your reprinted
memoirs would appear, on my soul I should like to shake you till your
bones rattled for talking such nonsense. Do you sigh over the "Insular
Floras," the Introduction to New Zealand Flora, to Australia, your
Arctic Flora, and dear Galapagos, etc., etc., etc.? In imagination I am
grinding my teeth and choking you till I put sense into you. Farewell. I
have amused myself by writing an audaciously long letter. By the way, we
heard yesterday that George has won the second Smith's Prize, which I am
excessively glad of, as the Second Wrangler by no means always succeeds.
The examination consists exclusively of [the] most difficult subjects,
which such men as Stokes, Cayley, and Adams can set.


LETTER 385. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. March 8th, 1868.

...While writing a few pages on the northern alpine forms of plants
on the Java mountains I wanted a few cases to refer to like Teneriffe,
where there are no northern forms and scarcely any alpine. I expected
the volcanoes of Hawaii would be a good case, and asked Dr. Seemann
about them. It seems a man has lately published a list of Hawaiian
plants, and the mountains swarm with European alpine genera and
some species! (385/1. "This turns out to be inaccurate, or greatly
exaggerated. There are no true alpines, and the European genera are
comparatively few. See my 'Island Life,' page 323."--A.R.W.) Is not this
most extraordinary, and a puzzler? They are, I believe, truly oceanic
islands, in the absence of mammals and the extreme poverty of birds and
insects, and they are within the Tropics.

Will not that be a hard nut for you when you come to treat in detail on
geographical distribution? I enclose Seemann's note, which please return
when you have copied the list, if of any use to you.


LETTER 386. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 21st [1870].

I read yesterday the notes on Round Island (386/1. In Wallace's "Island
Life," page 410, Round Island is described as an islet "only about a
mile across, and situated about fourteen miles north-east of Mauritius."
Wallace mentions a snake, a python belonging to the peculiar and
distinct genus Casarea, as found on Round Island, and nowhere else in
the world. The palm Latania Loddigesii is quoted by Wallace as "confined
to Round Island and two other adjacent islets." See Baker's "Flora of
the Mauritius and the Seychelles." Mr. Wallace says that, judging from
the soundings, Round Island was connected with Mauritius, and that when
it was "first separated [it] would have been both much larger and much
nearer the main island.") which I owe to you. Was there ever such an
enigma? If, in the course of a week or two, you can find time to let me
hear what you think, I should very much like to hear: or we hope to be
at Erasmus' on March 4th for a week. Would there be any chance of your
coming to luncheon then? What a case it is. Palms, screw-pines, four
snakes--not one being in main island--lizards, insects, and not one
land bird. But, above everything, such a proportion of individual
monocotyledons! The conditions do not seem very different from the Tuff
Galapagos Island, but, as far as I remember, very few monocotyledons
there. Then, again, the island seems to have been elevated. I wonder
much whether it stands out in the line of any oceanic current, which
does not so forcibly strike the main island? But why, oh, why should so
many monocotyledons have come there? or why should they have survived
there more than on the main island, if once connected? So, again, I
cannot conceive that four snakes should have become extinct in Mauritius
and survived on Round Island. For a moment I thought that Mauritius
might be the newer island, but the enormous degradation which the outer
ring of rocks has undergone flatly contradicts this, and the marine
remains on the summit of Round Island indicate the island to be
comparatively new--unless, indeed, they are fossil and extinct marine
remains. Do tell me what you think. There never was such an enigma.
I rather lean to separate immigration, with, of course, subsequent
modification; some forms, of course, also coming from Mauritius.
Speaking of Mauritius reminds me that I was so much pleased the day
before yesterday by reading a review of a book on the geology of St.
Helena, by an officer who knew nothing of my hurried observations, but
confirms nearly all that I have said on the general structure of the
island, and on its marvellous denudation. The geology of that island was
like a novel.



LETTER 387. TO A. BLYTT. Down, March 28th, 1876.

(387/1. The following refers to Blytt's "Essay on the Immigration of the
Norwegian Flora during Alternating Rainy and Dry Periods," Christiania,
1876.)

I thank you sincerely for your kindness in having sent me your work on
the "Immigration of the Norwegian Flora," which has interested me in the
highest degree. Your view, supported as it is by various facts, appears
to me the most important contribution towards understanding the present
distribution of plants, which has appeared since Forbes' essay on the
effects of the Glacial Period.


LETTER 388. TO AUG. FOREL. Down, June 19th, 1876.

I hope you will allow me to suggest an observation, should any
opportunity occur, on a point which has interested me for many
years--viz., how do the coleoptera which inhabit the nests of ants
colonise a new nest? Mr. Wallace, in reference to the presence of such
coleoptera in Madeira, suggests that their ova may be attached to the
winged female ants, and that these are occasionally blown across the
ocean to the island. It would be very interesting to discover whether
the ova are adhesive, and whether the female coleoptera are guided by
instinct to attach them to the female ants (388/1. Dr. Sharp is good
enough to tell us that he is not aware of any such adaptation. Broadly
speaking, the distribution of the nest-inhabiting beetles is due to
co-migration with the ants, though in some cases the ants transport the
beetles. Sitaris and Meloe are beetles which live "at the expense of
bees of the genus Anthophora." The eggs are laid not in but near the
bees' nest; in the early stage the larva is active and has the instinct
to seize any hairy object near it, and in this way they are carried by
the Anthophora to the nest. Dr. Sharp states that no such preliminary
stage is known in the ant's-nest beetles. For an account of Sitaris and
Meloe, see Sharp's "Insects," II., page 272.); or whether the larvae
pass through an early stage, as with Sitaris or Meloe, or cling to the
bodies of the females. This note obviously requires no answer. I trust
that you continue your most interesting investigations on ants.


(PLATE: MR. A.R. WALLACE, 1878. From a photograph by Maull & Fox.)


LETTER 389. TO A.R. WALLACE.

(389/1. Published in "Life and Letters," III., page 230.)

(389/2. The following five letters refer to Mr. Wallace's "Geographical
Distribution of Animals," 1876.)

[Hopedene] (389/3. Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood's house in Surrey.), June 5th,
1876.

I must have the pleasure of expressing to you my unbounded admiration
of your book (389/4. "Geographical Distribution," 1876.), though I have
read only to page 184--my object having been to do as little as
possible while resting. I feel sure that you have laid a broad and safe
foundation for all future work on Distribution. How interesting it will
be to see hereafter plants treated in strict relation to your views; and
then all insects, pulmonate molluscs and fresh-water fishes, in greater
detail than I suppose you have given to these lower animals. The point
which has interested me most, but I do not say the most valuable point,
is your protest against sinking imaginary continents in a quite
reckless manner, as was stated by Forbes, followed, alas, by Hooker,
and caricatured by Wollaston and [Andrew] Murray! By the way, the main
impression that the latter author has left on my mind is his utter want
of all scientific judgment. I have lifted up my voice against the above
view with no avail, but I have no doubt that you will succeed, owing
to your new arguments and the coloured chart. Of a special value, as it
seems to me, is the conclusion that we must determine the areas, chiefly
by the nature of the mammals. When I worked many years ago on this
subject, I doubted much whether the now-called Palaearctic and Nearctic
regions ought to be separated; and I determined if I made another region
that it should be Madagascar. I have, therefore, been able to appreciate
your evidence on these points. What progress Palaeontology has made
during the last twenty years! but if it advances at the same rate in the
future, our views on the migration and birthplace of the various groups
will, I fear, be greatly altered. I cannot feel quite easy about the
Glacial period, and the extinction of large mammals, but I must hope
that you are right. I think you will have to modify your belief about
the difficulty of dispersal of land molluscs; I was interrupted when
beginning to experimentise on the just hatched young adhering to the
feet of ground-roosting birds. I differ on one other point--viz. in the
belief that there must have existed a Tertiary Antarctic continent, from
which various forms radiated to the southern extremities of our present
continents. But I could go on scribbling forever. You have written, as
I believe, a grand and memorable work, which will last for years as the
foundation for all future treatises on Geographical Distribution.

P.S.--You have paid me the highest conceivable compliment, by what
you say of your work in relation to my chapters on distribution in the
"Origin," and I heartily thank you for it.


LETTER 390. FROM A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. The Dell, Grays, Essex,
June 7th, 1876.

Many thanks for your very kind letter. So few people will read my book
at all regularly, that a criticism from one who does so will be very
welcome. If, as I suppose, it is only to page 184 of Volume I. that you
have read, you cannot yet quite see my conclusions on the points you
refer to (land molluscs and Antarctic continent). My own conclusion
fluctuated during the progress of the book, and I have, I know,
occasionally used expressions (the relics of earlier ideas) which are
not quite consistent with what I say further on. I am positively against
any Southern continent as uniting South America with Australia or New
Zealand, as you will see at Volume I., pages 398-403, and 459-66. My
general conclusions as to distribution of land mollusca are at Volume
II., pages 522-9. (390/1. "Geographical Distribution" II., pages 524,
525. Mr. Wallace points out that "hardly a small island on the globe but
has some land-shells peculiar to it"--and he goes so far as to say that
probably air-breathing mollusca have been chiefly distributed by air-
or water-carriage, rather than by voluntary dispersal on the land.) When
you have read these passages, and looked at the general facts which lead
to them, I shall be glad to hear if you still differ from me.

Though, of course, present results as to the origin and migrations of
genera of mammals will have to be modified owing to new discoveries, I
cannot help thinking that much will remain unaffected, because in all
geographical and geological discoveries the great outlines are soon
reached, the details alone remain to be modified. I also think much of
the geological evidence is now so accordant with, and explanatory of,
Geographical Distribution, that it is prima facie correct in outline.
Nevertheless, such vast masses of new facts will come out in the next
few years that I quite dread the labour of incorporating them in a new
edition.

I hope your health is improved; and when, quite at your leisure, you
have waded through my book, I trust you will again let me have a few
lines of friendly criticism and advice.


LETTER 391. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, June 17th, 1876.

I have now finished the whole of Volume I., with the same interest and
admiration as before; and I am convinced that my judgment was right
and that it is a memorable book, the basis of all future work on the
subject. I have nothing particular to say, but perhaps you would like to
hear my impressions on two or three points. Nothing has struck me more
than the admirable and convincing manner in which you treat Java. To
allude to a very trifling point, it is capital about the unadorned head
of the Argus-pheasant. (391/1. See "Descent of Man," Edition I., pages
90 and 143, for drawings of the Argus pheasant and its markings. The
ocelli on the wing feathers were favourite objects of Mr. Darwin,
and sometimes formed the subject of the little lectures which on rare
occasions he would give to a visitor interested in Natural History. In
Mr. Wallace's book the meaning of the ocelli comes in by the way, in the
explanation of Plate IX., "A Malayan Forest with some of its peculiar
Birds." Mr. Wallace (volume i., page 340) points out that the head of
the Argus pheasant is, during the display of the wings, concealed from
the view of a spectator in front, and this accounts for the absence of
bright colour on the head--a most unusual point in a pheasant. The case
is described as a "remarkable confirmation of Mr. Darwin's views, that
gaily coloured plumes are developed in the male bird for the purpose
of attractive display." For the difference of opinion between the two
naturalists on the broad question of coloration see "Life and Letters,"
III., page 123. See Letters 440-453.) How plain a thing is, when it is
once pointed out! What a wonderful case is that of Celebes: I am glad
that you have slightly modified your views with respect to Africa.
(391/2. "I think this must refer to the following passage in 'Geog.
Dist. of Animals,' Volume I., pages 286-7. 'At this period (Miocene)
Madagascar was no doubt united with Africa, and helped to form a great
southern continent which must at one time have extended eastward as far
as Southern India and Ceylon; and over the whole of this the lemurine
type no doubt prevailed.' At the time this was written I had not paid
so much attention to islands, and in my "Island Life" I have given ample
reasons for my belief that the evidence of extinct animals does not
require any direct connection between Southern India and Africa."--Note
by Mr. Wallace.) And this leads me to say that I cannot swallow the
so-called continent of Lemuria--i.e., the direct connection of Africa
and Ceylon. (391/3. See "Geographical Distribution," I., page 76. The
name Lemuria was proposed by Mr. Sclater for an imaginary submerged
continent extending from Madagascar to Ceylon and Sumatra. Mr. Wallace
points out that if we confine ourselves to facts Lemuria is reduced to
Madagascar, which he makes a subdivision of the Ethiopian Region.) The
facts do not seem to me many and strong enough to justify so immense a
change of level. Moreover, Mauritius and the other islands appear to
me oceanic in character. But do not suppose that I place my judgment
on this subject on a level with yours. A wonderfully good paper was
published about a year ago on India, in the "Geological Journal," I
think by Blanford. (391/4. H.F. Blanford "On the Age and Correlations
of the Plant-bearing Series of India and the Former Existence of an
Indo-Oceanic Continent" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." XXXI., 1875, page
519). The name Gondwana-Land was subsequently suggested by Professor
Suess for this Indo-Oceanic continent. Since the publication of
Blanford's paper, much literature has appeared dealing with the evidence
furnished by fossil plants, etc., in favour of the existence of a vast
southern continent.) Ramsay agreed with me that it was one of the
best published for a long time. The author shows that India has been a
continent with enormous fresh-water lakes, from the Permian period to
the present day. If I remember right, he believes in a former connection
with S. Africa.

I am sure that I read, some twenty to thirty years ago in a French
journal, an account of teeth of Mastodon found in Timor; but the
statement may have been an error. (391/5. In a letter to Falconer
(Letter 155), January 5th, 1863, Darwin refers to the supposed
occurrence of Mastodon as having been "smashed" by Falconer.)

With respect to what you say about the colonising of New Zealand,
I somewhere have an account of a frog frozen in the ice of a Swiss
glacier, and which revived when thawed. I may add that there is an
Indian toad which can resist salt-water and haunts the seaside. Nothing
ever astonished me more than the case of the Galaxias; but it does
not seem known whether it may not be a migratory fish like the salmon.
(391/6. The only genus of the Galaxidae, a family of fresh-water fishes
occurring in New Zealand, Tasmania, and Tierra del Fuego, ranging north
as far as Queensland and Chile (Wallace's "Geographical Distribution,"
II., page 448).)


LETTER 392. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, June 25th, 1876.

I have been able to read rather more quickly of late, and have finished
your book. I have not much to say. Your careful account of the temperate
parts of South America interested me much, and all the more from knowing
something of the country. I like also much the general remarks towards
the end of the volume on the land molluscs. Now for a few criticisms.

Page 122. (392/1. The pages refer to Volume II. of Wallace's
"Geographical Distribution.")--I am surprised at your saying that
"during the whole Tertiary period North America was zoologically far
more strongly contrasted with South America than it is now." But we know
hardly anything of the latter except during the Pliocene period; and
then the mastodon, horse, several great edentata, etc., etc., were
common to the north and south. If you are right, I erred greatly in my
"Journal," where I insisted on the former close connection between the
two.

Page 252 and elsewhere.--I agree thoroughly with the general principle
that a great area with many competing forms is necessary for much and
high development; but do you not extend this principle too far--I should
say much too far, considering how often several species of the same
genus have been developed on very small islands?

Page 265.--You say that the Sittidae extend to Madagascar, but there
is no number in the tabular heading. [The number (4) was erroneously
omitted.--A.R.W.]

Page 359.--Rhinochetus is entered in the tabular heading under No. 3
of the neotropical subregions. [An error: should have been the
Australian.--A.R.W.]

Reviewers think it necessary to find some fault; and if I were to
review you, the sole point which I should blame is your not giving very
numerous references. These would save whoever follows you great
labour. Occasionally I wished myself to know the authority for certain
statements, and whether you or somebody else had originated certain
subordinate views. Take the case of a man who had collected largely on
some island, for instance St. Helena, and who wished to work out the
geographical relations of his collections: he would, I think, feel very
blank at not finding in your work precise references to all that had
been written on St. Helena. I hope you will not think me a confoundedly
disagreeable fellow.

I may mention a capital essay which I received a few months ago
from Axel Blytt (392/2. Axel Blytt, "Essay on the Immigration of
the Norwegian Flora." Christiania, 1876. See Letter 387.) on the
distribution of the plants of Scandinavia; showing the high probability
of there having been secular periods alternately wet and dry, and of the
important part which they have played in distribution.

I wrote to Forel (392/3. See Letter 388.), who is always at work
on ants, and told him your views about the dispersal of the blind
coleoptera, and asked him to observe.

I spoke to Hooker about your book, and feel sure that he would like
nothing better than to consider the distribution of plants in relation
to your views; but he seemed to doubt whether he should ever have time.

And now I have done my jottings, and once again congratulate you on
having brought out so grand a work. I have been a little disappointed at
the review in "Nature." (392/4. June 22nd, 1876, pages 165 et seq.)


LETTER 393. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. Rosehill, Dorking, July
23rd, 1876.

I should have replied sooner to your last kind and interesting letters,
but they reached me in the midst of my packing previous to removal here,
and I have only just now got my books and papers in a get-at-able state.

And first, many thanks for your close observation in detecting the two
absurd mistakes in the tabular headings.

As to the former greater distinction of the North and South American
faunas, I think I am right. The edentata being proved (as I hold)
to have been mere temporary migrants into North America in the
post-Pliocene epoch, form no part of its Tertiary fauna. Yet in South
America they were so enormously developed in the Pliocene epoch that
we know, if there is any such thing as evolution, etc., that strange
ancestral forms must have preceded them in Miocene times.

Mastodon, on the other hand, represented by one or two species only,
appears to have been a late immigrant into South America from the north.

The immense development of ungulates (in varied families, genera, and
species) in North America during the whole Tertiary epoch is, however,
the great feature which assimilates it to Europe, and contrasts it
with South America. True camels, hosts of hog-like animals, true
rhinoceroses, and hosts of ancestral horses, all bring the North
American [fauna] much nearer to the Old World than it is now. Even the
horse, represented in all South America by Equus only, was probably a
temporary immigrant from the north.

As to extending too far the principle (yours) of the necessity of
comparatively large areas for the development of varied faunas, I may
have done so, but I think not. There is, I think, every probability that
most islands, etc., where a varied fauna now exists, have been once more
extensive--eg., New Zealand, Madagascar: where there is no such evidence
(e.g., Galapagos), the fauna is very restricted.

Lastly, as to want of references: I confess the justice of your
criticism; but I am dreadfully unsystematic. It is my first large work
involving much of the labour of others. I began with the intention of
writing a comparatively short sketch, enlarged it, and added to it bit
by bit; remodelled the tables, the headings, and almost everything else,
more than once, and got my materials in such confusion that it is a
wonder it has not turned out far more crooked and confused than it is.
I, no doubt, ought to have given references; but in many cases I found
the information so small and scattered, and so much had to be combined
and condensed from conflicting authorities, that I hardly knew how
to refer to them or where to leave off. Had I referred to all authors
consulted for every fact, I should have greatly increased the bulk of
the book, while a large portion of the references would be valueless
in a few years, owing to later and better authorities. My experience
of referring to references has generally been most unsatisfactory. One
finds, nine times out of ten, the fact is stated, and nothing more; or a
reference to some third work not at hand!

I wish I could get into the habit of giving chapter and verse for every
fact and extract; but I am too lazy, and generally in a hurry, having to
consult books against time, when in London for a day.

However, I will try to do something to mend this matter, should I have
to prepare another edition.

I return you Forel's letter. It does not advance the question much;
neither do I think it likely that even the complete observation he
thinks necessary would be of much use, because it may well be that the
ova, or larvae, or imagos of the beetles are not carried systematically
by the ants, but only occasionally, owing to some exceptional
circumstances. This might produce a great effect in distribution, yet be
so rare as never to come under observation.

Several of your remarks in previous letters I shall carefully consider.
I know that, compared with the extent of the subject, my book is in
many parts crude and ill-considered; but I thought, and still think, it
better to make some generalisations wherever possible, as I am not at
all afraid of having to alter my views in many points of detail. I was
so overwhelmed with zoological details, that I never went through the
Geological Society's "Journal" as I ought to have done, and as I mean to
do before writing more on the subject.


LETTER 394. TO F. BUCHANAN WHITE.

(394/1. "Written in acknowledgment of a copy of a paper (published by me
in the "Proceedings of the Zoological Society") on the Hemiptera of St.
Helena, but discussing the origin of the whole fauna and flora of that
island."--F.B.W.)

Down, September 23rd. [1878].

I have now read your paper, and I hope that you will not think me
presumptuous in writing another line to say how excellent it seems to
me. I believe that you have largely solved the problem of the affinities
of the inhabitants of this most interesting little island, and this is a
delightful triumph.


LETTER 395. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 22nd [1879].

I have just read Ball's Essay. (395/1. The late John Ball's lecture
"On the Origin of the Flora of the Alps" in the "Proceedings of the R.
Geogr. Soc." 1879. Ball argues (page 18) that "during ancient Palaeozoic
times, before the deposition of the Coal-measures, the atmosphere
contained twenty times as much carbonic acid gas and considerably less
oxygen than it does at present." He further assumes that in such an
atmosphere the percentage of CO2 in the higher mountains would be
excessively different from that at the sea-level, and appends the result
of calculations which gives the amount of CO2 at the sea-level as 100
per 10,000 by weight, at a height of 10,000 feet as 12.5 per 10,000.
Darwin understands him to mean that the Vascular Cryptogams and
Gymnosperms could stand the sea-level atmosphere, whereas the
Angiosperms would only be able to exist in the higher regions where the
percentage of CO2 was small. It is not clear to us that Ball relies so
largely on the condition of the atmosphere as regards CO2. If he does
he is clearly in error, for everything we know of assimilation points
to the conclusion that 100 per 10,000 (1 per cent.) is by no means a
hurtful amount of CO2, and that it would lead to an especially vigorous
assimilation. Mountain plants would be more likely to descend to the
plains to share in the rich feast than ascend to higher regions to avoid
it. Ball draws attention to the imperfection of our plant records as
regards the floras of mountain regions. It is, he thinks, conceivable
that there existed a vegetation on the Carboniferous mountains of which
no traces have been preserved in the rocks. See "Fossil Plants as Tests
of Climate," page 40, A.C. Seward, 1892.

Since the first part of this note was written, a paper has been read
(May 29th, 1902) by Dr. H.T. Brown and Mr. F. Escombe, before the Royal
Society on "The Influence of varying amounts of Carbon Dioxide in the
Air on the Photosynthetic Process of Leaves, and on the Mode of Growth
of Plants." The author's experiments included the cultivation of several
dicotyledonous plants in an atmosphere containing in one case 180 to 200
times the normal amount of CO2, and in another between three and four
times the normal amount. The general results were practically identical
in the two sets of experiments. "All the species of flowering plants,
which have been the subject of experiment, appear to be accurately
'tuned' to an atmospheric environment of three parts of CO2 per 10,000,
and the response which they make to slight increases in this amount
are in a direction altogether unfavourable to their growth and
reproduction." The assimilation of carbon increases with the increase in
the partial pressure of the CO2. But there seems to be a disturbance
in metabolism, and the plants fail to take advantage of the increased
supply of CO2. The authors say:--"All we are justified in concluding is,
that if such atmospheric variations have occurred since the advent
of flowering plants, they must have taken place so slowly as never
to outrun the possible adaptation of the plants to their changing
conditions."

Prof. Farmer and Mr. S.E. Chandler gave an account, at the same meeting
of the Royal Society, of their work "On the Influence of an Excess of
Carbon Dioxide in the Air on the Form and Internal Structure of Plants."
The results obtained were described as differing in a remarkable way
from those previously recorded by Teodoresco ("Rev. Gen. Botanique,"
II., 1899

It is hoped that Dr. Horace Brown and Mr. Escombe will extend their
experiments to Vascular Cryptogams, and thus obtain evidence bearing
more directly upon the question of an increased amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere of the Coal-period forests.) It is pretty bold. The rapid
development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within
recent geological times is an abominable mystery. Certainly it would be
a great step if we could believe that the higher plants at first could
live only at a high level; but until it is experimentally [proved] that
Cycadeae, ferns, etc., can withstand much more carbonic acid than the
higher plants, the hypothesis seems to me far too rash. Saporta believes
that there was an astonishingly rapid development of the high plants,
as soon [as] flower-frequenting insects were developed and favoured
intercrossing. I should like to see this whole problem solved. I
have fancied that perhaps there was during long ages a small isolated
continent in the S. Hemisphere which served as the birthplace of the
higher plants--but this is a wretchedly poor conjecture. It is odd
that Ball does not allude to the obvious fact that there must have
been alpine plants before the Glacial period, many of which would have
returned to the mountains after the Glacial period, when the climate
again became warm. I always accounted to myself in this manner for the
gentians, etc.

Ball ought also to have considered the alpine insects common to the
Arctic regions. I do not know how it may be with you, but my faith in
the glacial migration is not at all shaken.


LETTER 396. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(396/1. This letter is in reply to Mr. Darwin's criticisms on Mr.
Wallace's "Island Life," 1880.)

Pen-y-Bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon, November 8th, 1880.

Many thanks for your kind remarks and notes on my book. Several of the
latter will be of use to me if I have to prepare a second edition, which
I am not so sure of as you seem to be.

1. In your remark as to the doubtfulness of paucity of fossils being due
to coldness of water, I think you overlook that I am speaking only of
water in the latitude of the Alps, in Miocene and Eocene times, when
icebergs and glaciers temporarily descended into an otherwise warm sea;
my theory being that there was no Glacial epoch at that time, but merely
a local and temporary descent of the snow-line and glaciers owing to
high excentricity and winter in aphelion.

2. I cannot see the difficulty about the cessation of the Glacial
period.

Between the Miocene and the Pleistocene periods geographical changes
occurred which rendered a true Glacial period possible with high
excentricity. When the high excentricity passed away the Glacial epoch
also passed away in the temperate zone; but it persists in the arctic
zone, where, during the Miocene, there were mild climates, and this
is due to the persistence of the changed geographical conditions. The
present arctic climate is itself a comparatively new and abnormal state
of things, due to geographical modification.

As to "epoch" and "period," I use them as synonyms to avoid repeating
the same word.

3. Rate of deposition and geological time. Here no doubt I may have
gone to an extreme, but my "28 million years" may be anything under 100
millions, as I state. There is an enormous difference between mean and
maximum denudation and deposition. In the case of the great faults
the upheaval along a given line would itself facilitate the denudation
(whether sub-aerial or marine) of the upheaved portion at a rate perhaps
a hundred times above the average, just as valleys have been denuded
perhaps a hundred times faster than plains and plateaux. So local
subsidence might itself lead to very rapid deposition. Suppose a portion
of the Gulf of Mexico, near the mouths of the Mississippi, were to
subside for a few thousand years, it might receive the greater portion
of the sediment from the whole Mississippi valley, and thus form strata
at a very rapid rate.

4. You quote the Pampas thistles, etc., against my statement of the
importance of preoccupation. But I am referring especially to St.
Helena, and to plants naturally introduced from the adjacent continents.
Surely if a certain number of African plants reached the island, and
became modified into a complete adaptation to its climatic conditions,
they would hardly be expelled by other African plants arriving
subsequently. They might be so, conceivably, but it does not seem
probable. The cases of the Pampas, New Zealand, Tahiti, etc., are
very different, where highly developed aggressive plants have been
artificially introduced. Under nature it is these very aggressive
species that would first reach any island in their vicinity, and, being
adapted to the island and colonising it thoroughly, would then hold
their own against other plants from the same country, mostly less
aggressive in character.

I have not explained this so fully as I should have done in the book.
Your criticism is therefore useful.

5. My Chapter XXIII. is no doubt very speculative, and I cannot wonder
at your hesitating at accepting my views. To me, however, your theory of
hosts of existing species migrating over the tropical lowlands from the
N. temperate to the S. temperate zone appears more speculative and
more improbable. For where could the rich lowland equatorial flora have
existed during a period of general refrigeration sufficient for this?
and what became of the wonderfully rich Cape flora, which, if the
temperature of tropical Africa had been so recently lowered, would
certainly have spread northwards, and on the return of the heat
could hardly have been driven back into the sharply defined and very
restricted area in which it now exists.

As to the migration of plants from mountain to mountain not being so
probable as to remote islands, I think that is fully counterbalanced by
two considerations:--

a. The area and abundance of the mountain stations along such a range
as the Andes are immensely greater than those of the islands in the N.
Atlantic, for example.

b. The temporary occupation of mountain stations by migrating plants
(which I think I have shown to be probable) renders time a much more
important element in increasing the number and variety of the plants so
dispersed than in the case of islands, where the flora soon acquires
a fixed and endemic character, and where the number of species is
necessarily limited.

No doubt direct evidence of seeds being carried great distances through
the air is wanted, but I am afraid can hardly be obtained. Yet I feel
the greatest confidence that they are so carried. Take, for instance,
the two peculiar orchids of the Azores (Habenaria sp.) What other mode
of transit is conceivable? The whole subject is one of great difficulty,
but I hope my chapter may call attention to a hitherto neglected factor
in the distribution of plants.

Your references to the Mauritius literature are very interesting, and
will be useful to me; and I again thank you for your valuable remarks.


LETTER 397. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(397/1. The following letters were written to Sir J.D. Hooker when he
was preparing his Address as President of the Geographical Section of
the British Association at its fiftieth meeting, at York. The second
letter (August 12th) refers to an earlier letter of August 6th,
published in "Life and Letters," III., page 246.)

4, Bryanston Street, W., Saturday, 26th [February, 1881].

I should think that you might make a very interesting address on
Geographical Distribution. Could you give a little history of the
subject. I, for one, should like to read such history in petto; but I
can see one very great difficulty--that you yourself ought to figure
most prominently in it; and this you would not do, for you are just the
man to treat yourself in a dishonourable manner. I should very much like
to see you discuss some of Wallace's views, especially his ignoring
the all-powerful effects of the Glacial period with respect to alpine
plants. (397/2. "Having been kindly permitted by Mr. Francis Darwin to
read this letter, I wish to explain that the above statement applies
only to my rejection of Darwin's view that the presence of arctic and
north temperate plants in the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE was brought about
by the lowering of the temperature of the tropical regions during the
Glacial period, so that even 'the lowlands of these great continents
were everywhere tenanted under the equator by a considerable number of
temperate forms ("Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 338). My
own views are fully explained in Chapter XXIII. of my "Island Life,"
published in 1880. I quite accept all that Darwin, Hooker, and Asa Gray
have written about the effect of the Glacial epoch in bringing about
the present distribution of alpine and arctic plants in the NORTHERN
HEMISPHERE."--Note by Mr. Wallace.) I do not know what you think, but it
appears to me that he exaggerates enormously the influence of debacles
or slips and new surface of soil being exposed for the reception of
wind-blown seeds. What kinds of seeds have the plants which are common
to the distant mountain-summits in Africa? Wallace lately wrote to me
about the mountain plants of Madagascar being the same with those on
mountains in Africa, and seemed to think it proved dispersal by the
wind, without apparently having inquired what sorts of seeds the plants
bore. (397/3. The affinity with the flora of the Eastern African islands
was long ago pointed out by Sir J.D. Hooker, "Linn. Soc. Journal," VI.,
1861, page 3. Speaking of the plants of Clarence Peak in Fernando Po, he
says, "The next affinity is with Mauritius, Bourbon, and Madagascar:
of the whole 76 species, 16 inhabit these places and 8 more are closely
allied to plants from there. Three temperate species are peculiar to
Clarence Peak and the East African islands..." The facts to which
Mr. Wallace called Darwin's attention are given by Mr. J.G. Baker in
"Nature," December 9th, 1880, page 125. He mentions the Madagascar
Viola, which occurs elsewhere only at 7,000 feet in the Cameroons, at
10,000 feet in Fernando Po and in the Abyssinian mountains; and the same
thing is true of the Madagascar Geranium. In Mr. Wallace's letter
to Darwin, dated January 1st, 1881, he evidently uses the expression
"passing through the air" in contradistinction to the migration of a
species by gradual extension of its area on land. "Through the air"
would moreover include occasional modes of transport other than simple
carriage by wind: e.g., the seeds might be carried by birds, either
attached to the feathers or to the mud on their feet, or in their crops
or intestines.)

I suppose it would be travelling too far (though for the geographical
section the discussion ought to be far-reaching), but I should like
to see the European or northern element in the Cape of Good Hope
flora discussed. I cannot swallow Wallace's view that European plants
travelled down the Andes, tenanted the hypothetical Antarctic continent
(in which I quite believe), and thence spread to South Australia and the
Cape of Good Hope.

Moseley told me not long ago that he proposed to search at Kerguelen
Land the coal beds most carefully, and was absolutely forbidden to do
so by Sir W. Thomson, who said that he would undertake the work, and he
never once visited them. This puts me in a passion. I hope that you will
keep to your intention and make an address on distribution. Though I
differ so much from Wallace, his "Island Life" seems to me a wonderful
book.

Farewell. I do hope that you may have a most prosperous journey. Give my
kindest remembrances to Asa Gray.



LETTER 398. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 12th, 1881.

...I think that I must have expressed myself badly about Humboldt.
I should have said that he was more remarkable for his astounding
knowledge than for originality. I have always looked at him as, in fact,
the founder of the geographical distribution of organisms. I thought
that I had read that extinct fossil plants belonging to Australian forms
had lately been found in Australia, and all such cases seem to me very
interesting, as bearing on development.

I have been so astonished at the apparently sudden coming in of the
higher phanerogams, that I have sometimes fancied that development might
have slowly gone on for an immense period in some isolated continent or
large island, perhaps near the South Pole. I poured out my idle thoughts
in writing, as if I had been talking with you.

No fact has so interested me for a heap of years as your case of the
plants on the equatorial mountains of Africa; and Wallace tells me that
some one (Baker?) has described analogous cases on the mountains of
Madagascar (398/1. See Letter 397, note.)...I think that you ought to
allude to these cases.

I most fully agree that no problem is more interesting than that of
the temperate forms in the southern hemisphere, common to the north. I
remember writing about this after Wallace's book appeared, and hoping
that you would take it up. The frequency with which the drainage from
the land passes through mountain-chains seems to indicate some general
law--viz., the successive formation of cracks and lines of elevation
between the nearest ocean and the already upraised land; but that is too
big a subject for a note.

I doubt whether any insects can be shown with any probability to have
been flower feeders before the middle of the Secondary period. Several
of the asserted cases have broken down.

Your long letter has stirred many pleasant memories of long past days,
when we had many a discussion and many a good fight.


LETTER 399. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 21st, 1881.

I cannot aid you much, or at all. I should think that no one could
have thought on the modification of species without thinking of
representative species. But I feel sure that no discussion of any
importance had been published on this subject before the "Origin,"
for if I had known of it I should assuredly have alluded to it in the
"Origin," as I wished to gain support from all quarters. I did not then
know of Von Buch's view (alluded to in my Historical Introduction in all
the later editions). Von Buch published his "Isles Canaries" in 1836,
and he here briefly argues that plants spread over a continent and
vary, and the varieties in time come to be species. He also argues that
closely allied species have been thus formed in the SEPARATE valleys of
the Canary Islands, but not on the upper and open parts. I could lend
you Von Buch's book, if you like. I have just consulted the passage.

I have not Baer's papers; but, as far as I remember, the subject is not
fully discussed by him.

I quite agree about Wallace's position on the ocean and continent
question.

To return to geographical distribution: As far as I know, no one ever
discussed the meaning of the relation between representative species
before I did, and, as I suppose, Wallace did in his paper before the
Linnean Society. Von Buch's is the nearest approach to such discussion
known to me.


LETTER 400. TO W.D. CRICK.

(400/1. The following letters are interesting not only for their own
sake, but because they tell the history of the last of Mr. Darwin's
publications--his letter to "Nature" on the "Dispersal of Freshwater
Bivalves," April 6th, 1882.)

Down, February 21st, 1882.

Your fact is an interesting one, and I am very much obliged to you for
communicating it to me. You speak a little doubtfully about the name of
the shell, and it would be indispensable to have this ascertained with
certainty. Do you know any good conchologist in Northampton who could
name it? If so I should be obliged if you would inform me of the result.

Also the length and breadth of the shell, and how much of leg (which
leg?) of the Dytiscus [a large water-beetle] has been caught. If you
cannot get the shell named I could take it to the British Museum when I
next go to London; but this probably will not occur for about six weeks,
and you may object to lend the specimen for so long a time.

I am inclined to think that the case would be worth communicating to
"Nature."

P.S.--I suppose that the animal in the shell must have been alive when
the Dytiscus was captured, otherwise the adductor muscle of the shell
would have relaxed and the shell dropped off.


LETTER 401. TO W.D. CRICK. Down, February 25th, 1882.

I am much obliged for your clear and distinct answers to my questions.
I am sorry to trouble you, but there is one point which I do not fully
understand. Did the shell remain attached to the beetle's leg from the
18th to the 23rd, and was the beetle kept during this time in the air?

Do I understand rightly that after the shell had dropped off, both being
in water, that the beetle's antenna was again temporarily caught by the
shell?

I presume that I may keep the specimen till I go to London, which will
be about the middle of next month.

I have placed the shell in fresh-water, to see if the valve will open,
and whether it is still alive, for this seems to me a very interesting
point. As the wretched beetle was still feebly alive, I have put it in
a bottle with chopped laurel leaves, that it may die an easy and quicker
death. I hope that I shall meet with your approval in doing so.

One of my sons tells me that on the coast of N. Wales the bare fishing
hooks often bring up young mussels which have seized hold of the points;
but I must make further enquiries on this head.


LETTER 402. TO W.D. CRICK. Down, March 23rd, 1882.

I have had a most unfortunate and extraordinary accident with your
shell. I sent it by post in a strong box to Mr. Gwyn Jeffreys to be
named, and heard two days afterwards that he had started for Italy.
I then wrote to the servant in charge of his house to open the parcel
(within which was a cover stamped and directed to myself) and return
it to me. This servant, I suppose, opened the box and dropped the glass
tube on a stone floor, and perhaps put his foot on it, for the tube and
shell were broken into quite small fragments. These were returned to me
with no explanation, the box being quite uninjured. I suppose you would
not care for the fragments to be returned or the Dytiscus; but if you
wish for them they shall be returned. I am very sorry, but it has not
been my fault.

It seems to me almost useless to send the fragments of the shell to the
British Museum to be named, more especially as the umbo has been lost.
It is many years since I have looked at a fresh-water shell, but I
should have said that the shell was Cyclas cornea. (402/1. It was Cyclas
cornea.) Is Sphaenium corneum a synonym of Cyclas? Perhaps you could
tell by looking to Mr. G. Jeffreys' book. If so, may we venture to call
it so, or shall I put an (?) to the name?

As soon as I hear from you I will send my letter to "Nature." Do you
take in "Nature," or shall I send you a copy?



CHAPTER 2.VIII.--MAN.

I. Descent of Man.--II. Sexual Selection.--III. Expression of the
Emotions.


2.VIII.I. DESCENT OF MAN, 1860-1882.


LETTER 403. TO C. LYELL. Down, April 27th [1860].

I cannot explain why, but to me it would be an infinite satisfaction to
believe that mankind will progress to such a pitch that we should [look]
back at [ourselves] as mere Barbarians. I have received proof-sheets
(with a wonderfully nice letter) of very hostile review by Andrew
Murray, read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh. (403/1. "On Mr.
Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species," by Andrew Murray. "Proc. Roy.
Soc., Edinb." Volume IV., pages 274-91, 1862. The review concludes with
the following sentence: "I have come to be of opinion that Mr. Darwin's
theory is unsound, and that I am to be spared any collision between my
inclination and my convictions" (referring to the writer's belief in
Design).) But I am tired with answering it. Indeed I have done nothing
the whole day but answer letters.


LETTER 404. TO L. HORNER.

(404/1. The following letter occurs in the "Memoir of Leonard Horner,
edited by his daughter Katherine M. Lyell," Volume II., page 300
(privately printed, 1890).)

Down, March 20th [1861].

I am very much obliged for your Address (404/2. Mr. Horner's Anniversary
Address to the Geological Society ("Proc. Geol. Soc." XVII., 1861).)
which has interested me much...I thought that I had read up pretty well
on the antiquity of man; but you bring all the facts so well together in
a condensed focus, that the case seems much clearer to me. How curious
about the Bible! (404/3. At page lxviii. Mr. Horner points out that the
"chronology, given in the margin of our Bibles," i.e., the statement
that the world was created 4004 B.C., is the work of Archbishop Usher,
and is in no way binding on those who believe in the inspiration of
Scripture. Mr. Horner goes on (page lxx): "The retention of the marginal
note in question is by no means a matter of indifference; it is untrue,
and therefore it is mischievous." It is interesting that Archbishop
Sumner and Dr. Dawes, Dean of Hereford, wrote with approbation of Mr.
Horner's views on Man. The Archbishop says: "I have always considered
the first verse of Genesis as indicating, rather than denying, a
PREADAMITE world" ("Memoir of Leonard Horner, II.", page 303).) I declare
I had fancied that the date was somehow in the Bible. You are coming out
in a new light as a Biblical critic. I must thank you for some remarks
on the "Origin of Species" (404/4. Mr. Horner (page xxxix) begins by
disclaiming the qualifications of a competent critic, and confines
himself to general remarks on the philosophic candour and freedom from
dogmatism of the "Origin": he does, however, give an opinion on the
geological chapters IX. and X. As a general criticism he quotes Mr.
Huxley's article in the "Westminster Review," which may now be read in
"Collected Essays," II., page 22.) (though I suppose it is almost as
incorrect to do so as to thank a judge for a favourable verdict): what
you have said has pleased me extremely. I am the more pleased, as I
would rather have been well attacked than have been handled in the
namby-pamby, old-woman style of the cautious Oxford Professor. (404/5.
This no doubt refers to Professor Phillips' "Life on the Earth," 1860, a
book founded on the author's "Rede Lecture," given before the University
of Cambridge. Reference to this work will be found in "Life and
Letters," II., pages 309, 358, 373.)


LETTER 405. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(405/1. Mr. Wallace was, we believe, the first to treat the evolution of
Man in any detail from the point of view of Natural Selection,
namely, in a paper in the "Anthropological Review and Journal of the
Anthropological Society," May 1864, page clviii. The deep interest with
which Mr. Darwin read his copy is graphically recorded in the continuous
series of pencil-marks along the margins of the pages. His views are
fully given in Letter 406. The phrase, "in this case it is too far,"
refers to Mr. Wallace's habit of speaking of the theory of Natural
Selection as due entirely to Darwin.)

May 22nd 1864.

I have now read Wallace's paper on Man, and think it MOST striking and
original and forcible. I wish he had written Lyell's chapters on Man.
(405/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 11 et seq. for Darwin's
disappointment over Lyell's treatment of the evolutionary question in
his "Antiquity of Man"; see also page 29 for Lyell's almost pathetic
words about his own position between the discarded faith of many years
and the new one not yet assimilated. See also Letters 132, 164, 170.) I
quite agree about his high-mindedness, and have long thought so; but in
this case it is too far, and I shall tell him so. I am not sure that
I fully agree with his views about Man, but there is no doubt, in my
opinion, on the remarkable genius shown by the paper. I agree, however,
to the main new leading idea.


LETTER 406. TO A.R. WALLACE.

(406/1. This letter was published in "Life and Letters," III., page 89.)

Down, [May] 28th [1864].

I am so much better that I have just finished a paper for the Linnean
Society (406/2. On the three forms, etc., of Lythrum.); but I am not yet
at all strong, I felt much disinclination to write, and therefore you
must forgive me for not having sooner thanked you for your paper on
Man (406/3. "Anthropological Review," May 1864.) received on the 11th.
(406/4. Mr. Wallace wrote, May 10th, 1864: "I send you now my little
contribution to the theory of the origin of man. I hope you will be able
to agree with me. If you are able [to write] I shall be glad to have
your criticisms. I was led to the subject by the necessity of explaining
the vast mental and cranial differences between man and the apes
combined with such small structural differences in other parts of the
body,--and also by an endeavour to account for the diversity of human
races combined with man's almost perfect stability of form during all
historical epochs." But first let me say that I have hardly ever in my
life been more struck by any paper than that on "Variation," etc., etc.,
in the "Reader." (406/5. "Reader," April 16th, 1864, an abstract of Mr.
Wallace: "On the Phenomena of Variation and Geographical Distribution
as illustrated by the Papilionidae of the Malayan Region." "Linn.
Soc. Trans." XXV.) I feel sure that such papers will do more for the
spreading of our views on the modification of species than any separate
treatises on the simple subject itself. It is really admirable; but you
ought not in the Man paper to speak of the theory as mine; it is just
as much yours as mine. One correspondent has already noticed to me your
"high-minded" conduct on this head.

But now for your Man paper, about which I should like to write more than
I can. The great leading idea is quite new to me--viz. that during late
ages the mind will have been modified more than the body; yet I had got
as far as to see with you, that the struggle between the races of man
depended entirely on intellectual and moral qualities. The latter part
of the paper I can designate only as grand and most eloquently done. I
have shown your paper to two or three persons who have been here, and
they have been equally struck with it. I am not sure that I go with you
on all minor points: when reading Sir G. Grey's account of the constant
battles of Australian savages, I remember thinking that Natural
Selection would come in, and likewise with the Esquimaux, with whom the
art of fishing and managing canoes is said to be hereditary. I rather
differ on the rank, under a classificatory point of view, which you
assign to man; I do not think any character simply in excess ought ever
to be used for the higher divisions. Ants would not be separated from
other hymenopterous insects, however high the instinct of the one, and
however low the instincts of the other. With respect to the differences
of race, a conjecture has occurred to me that much may be due to the
correlation of complexion (and consequently hair) with constitution.
Assume that a dusky individual best escaped miasma, and you will
readily see what I mean. I persuaded the Director-General of the Medical
Department of the Army to send printed forms to the surgeons of all
regiments in tropical countries to ascertain this point, but I daresay
I shall never get any returns. Secondly, I suspect that a sort of sexual
selection has been the most powerful means of changing the races of man.
I can show that the different races have a widely different standard of
beauty. Among savages the most powerful men will have the pick of
the women, and they will generally leave the most descendants. I have
collected a few notes on man, but I do not suppose I shall ever use
them. Do you intend to follow out your views? and if so, would you like
at some future time to have my few references and notes? I am sure I
hardly know whether they are of any value, and they are at present in a
state of chaos.

There is much more that I should like to write, but I have not strength.

P.S. Our aristocracy is handsomer (more hideous according to a Chinese
or Negro) than the middle classes, from [having the] pick of the women;
but oh, what a scheme is primogeniture for destroying Natural Selection!
I fear my letter will be barely intelligible to you.


LETTER 406* A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. 5, Westbourne Grove Terrace,
W., May 29th [1864].

You are always so ready to appreciate what others do, and especially to
overestimate my desultory efforts, that I cannot be surprised at your
very kind and flattering remarks on my papers. I am glad, however, that
you have made a few critical observations (and am only sorry that you
were not well enough to make more), as that enables me to say a few
words in explanation.

My great fault is haste. An idea strikes me, I think over it for a few
days, and then write away with such illustrations as occur to me while
going on. I therefore look at the subject almost solely from one
point of view. Thus, in my paper on Man (406*/1. Published in the
"Anthropological Review," 1864.), I aim solely at showing that brutes
are modified in a great variety of ways by Natural Selection, but that
in none of these particular ways can Man be modified, because of the
superiority of his intellect. I therefore no doubt overlook a few
smaller points in which Natural Selection may still act on men and
brutes alike. Colour is one of them, and I have alluded to this in
correlation to constitution, in an abstract I have made at Sclater's
request for the "Natural History Review." (406*/2. "Nat. Hist. Review,"
1864, page 328.) At the same time, there is so much evidence of
migrations and displacements of races of man, and so many cases of
peoples of distinct physical characters inhabiting the same or similar
regions, and also of races of uniform physical characters inhabiting
widely dissimilar regions,--that the external characteristics of the
chief races of man must, I think, be older than his present geographical
distribution, and the modifications produced by correlation to
favourable variations of constitution be only a secondary cause of
external modification. I hope you may get the returns from the Army.
(406*/3. Measurements taken of more than one million soldiers in the
United States showed that "local influences of some kind act directly
on structure."--"Descent of Man," 1901, page 45.) They would be very
interesting, but I do not expect the results would be favourable to your
view.

With regard to the constant battles of savages leading to selection of
physical superiority, I think it would be very imperfect and subject to
so many exceptions and irregularities that it would produce no definite
result. For instance: the strongest and bravest men would lead, and
expose themselves most, and would therefore be most subject to wounds
and death. And the physical energy which led to any one tribe delighting
in war, might lead to its extermination, by inducing quarrels with
all surrounding tribes and leading them to combine against it. Again,
superior cunning, stealth, and swiftness of foot, or even better
weapons, would often lead to victory as well as mere physical strength.
Moreover, this kind of more or less perpetual war goes on amongst savage
peoples. It could lead, therefore, to no differential characters, but
merely to the keeping up of a certain average standard of bodily and
mental health and vigour.

So with selection of variations adapted to special habits of life as
fishing, paddling, riding, climbing, etc., etc., in different races,
no doubt it must act to some extent, but will it be ever so rigid as to
induce a definite physical modification, and can we imagine it to have
had any part in producing the distinct races that now exist?

The sexual selection you allude to will also, I think, have been equally
uncertain in its results. In the very lowest tribes there is rarely much
polygamy, and women are more or less a matter of purchase. There is also
little difference of social condition, and I think it rarely happens
that any healthy and undeformed man remains without wife and children.
I very much doubt the often-repeated assertion that our aristocracy
are more beautiful than the middle classes. I allow that they present
specimens of the highest kind of beauty, but I doubt the average. I have
noticed in country places a greater average amount of good looks among
the middle classes, and besides we unavoidably combine in our idea of
beauty, intellectual expression, and refinement of manner, which often
makes the less appear the more beautiful. Mere physical beauty--i.e. a
healthy and regular development of the body and features approaching to
the mean and type of European man, I believe is quite as frequent in one
class of society as the other, and much more frequent in rural districts
than in cities.

With regard to the rank of man in zoological classification, I fear I
have not made myself intelligible. I never meant to adopt Owen's or any
other such views, but only to point out that from one point of view he
was right. I hold that a distinct family for Man, as Huxley allows, is
all that can possibly be given him zoologically. But at the same time,
if my theory is true, that while the animals which surrounded him have
been undergoing modification in all parts of their bodies to a generic
or even family degree of difference, he has been changing almost wholly
in the brain and head--then in geological antiquity the SPECIES man may
be as old as many mammalian families, and the origin of the FAMILY man
may date back to a period when some of the ORDERS first originated.

As to the theory of Natural Selection itself, I shall always maintain it
to be actually yours and yours only. You had worked it out in details I
had never thought of, years before I had a ray of light on the subject,
and my paper would never have convinced anybody or been noticed as more
than an ingenious speculation, whereas your book has revolutionised the
study of Natural History, and carried away captive the best men of
the present age. All the merit I claim is the having been the means of
inducing you to write and publish at once. I may possibly some day go a
little more into this subject (of Man), and if I do will accept the kind
offer of your notes.

I am now, however, beginning to write the "Narrative of my Travels,"
which will occupy me a long time, as I hate writing narrative, and after
Bates' brilliant success rather fear to fail.

I shall introduce a few chapters on Geographical Distribution and other
such topics. Sir C. Lyell, while agreeing with my main argument on Man,
thinks I am wrong in wanting to put him back into Miocene times, and
thinks I do not appreciate the immense interval even to the later
Pliocene. But I still maintain my view, which in fact is a logical
result of my theory; for if man originated in later Pliocene, when
almost all mammalia were of closely allied species to those now living,
and many even identical, then man has not been stationary in bodily
structure while animals have been varying, and my theory will be proved
to be all wrong.

In Murchison's address to the Geographical Society, just delivered, he
points out Africa as being the oldest existing land. He says there is
no evidence of its having been ever submerged during the Tertiary epoch.
Here then is evidently the place to find early man. I hope something
good may be found in Borneo, and that the means may be found to explore
the still more promising regions of tropical Africa, for we can expect
nothing of man very early in Europe.

It has given me great pleasure to find that there are symptoms of
improvement in your health. I hope you will not exert yourself too soon
or write more than is quite agreeable to you. I think I made out every
word of your letter, though it was not always easy.

(406*/4. For Wallace's later views see Letter 408, note.)


LETTER 407. TO W. TURNER.

(407/1. Sir William Turner is frequently referred to in the "Descent of
Man" as having supplied Mr. Darwin with information.)

Down, December 14th [1866].

Your kindness when I met you at the Royal Society makes me think that
you would grant me the favour of a little information, if in your power.
I am preparing a book on Domestic Animals, and as there has been so much
discussion on the bearing of such views as I hold on Man, I have some
thoughts of adding a chapter on this subject. The point on which I
want information is in regard to any part which may be fairly called
rudimentary in comparison with the same part in the Quadrumana or any
other mammal. Now the os coccyx is rudimentary as a tail, and I am
anxious to hear about its muscles. Mr. Flower found for me in some work
that its one muscle (with striae) was supposed only to bring this bone
back to its proper position after parturition. This seems to me hardly
credible. He said he had never particularly examined this part, and when
I mentioned your name, he said you were the most likely man to give me
information.

Are there any traces of other muscles? It seems strange if there are
none. Do you know how the muscles are in this part in the anthropoid
apes? The muscles of the ear in man may, I suppose, in most cases be
considered as rudimentary; and so they seem to be in the anthropoids;
at least, I am assured in the Zoological Gardens they do not erect their
ears. I gather there are a good many muscles in various parts of the
body which are in this same state: could you specify any of the best
cases? The mammae in man are rudimentary. Are there any other glands or
other organs which you can think of? I know I have no right whatever to
ask all these questions, and can only say that I should be grateful for
any information. If you tell me anything about the os coccyx or other
structures, I hope that you will permit me to quote the statement on
your authority, as that would add so greatly to its value.

Pray excuse me for troubling you, and do not hurry yourself in the least
in answering me.

I do not know whether you would care to possess a copy, but I told my
publisher to send you a copy of the new edition of the "Origin" last
month.


LETTER 408. TO W. TURNER. Down, February 1st [1867].

I thank you cordially for all your full information, and I regret much
that I have given you such great trouble at a period when your time is
so much occupied. But the facts were so valuable to me that I cannot
pretend that I am sorry that I did trouble you; and I am the less so,
as from what you say I hope you may be induced some time to write a full
account of all rudimentary structures in Man: it would be a very curious
and interesting memoir. I shall at present give only a brief abstract
of the chief facts which you have so very kindly communicated to me, and
will not touch on some of the doubtful points. I have received far more
information than I ventured to anticipate. There is one point which has
occurred to me, but I suspect there is nothing in it. If, however, there
should be, perhaps you will let me have a brief note from you, and if
I do not hear I will understand there is nothing in the notion. I have
included the down on the human body and the lanugo on the foetus as a
rudimentary representation of a hairy coat. (408/1. "Descent of Man"
I., page 25; II., page 375.) I do not know whether there is any direct
functional connection between the presence of hair and the panniculus
carnosus (408/2. Professor Macalister draws our attention to the fact
that Mr. Darwin uses the term panniculus in the generalised sense of any
sheet of muscle acting on the skin.) (to put the question under
another point of view, is it the primary or aboriginal function of the
panniculus to move the dermal appendages or the skin itself?); but both
are superficial, and would perhaps together become rudimentary. I was
led to think of this by the places (as far as my ignorance of anatomy
has allowed me to judge) of the rudimentary muscular fasciculi which you
specify. Now, some persons can move the skin of their hairy heads; and
is this not effected by the panniculus? How is it with the eyebrows? You
specify the axillae and the front region of the chest and lower part of
scapulae: now, these are all hairy spots in man. On the other hand,
the neck, and as I suppose the covering of the gluteus medius, are not
hairy; so, as I said, I presume there is nothing in this notion. If
there were, the rudiments of the panniculus ought perhaps to occur more
plainly in man than in woman...

P.S.--If the skin on the head is moved by the panniculus, I think I
ought just to allude to it, as some men alone having power to move the
skin shows that the apparatus is generally rudimentary.

(408/3. In March 1869 Darwin wrote to Mr. Wallace: "I shall be intensely
curious to read the "Quarterly." I hope you have not murdered too
completely your own and my child." The reference is to Mr. Wallace's
review, in the April number of the "Quarterly," of Lyell's "Principles
of Geology" (tenth edition), and of the sixth edition of the "Elements
of Geology." Mr. Wallace points out that here for the first time Sir C.
Lyell gave up his opposition to evolution; and this leads Mr. Wallace to
give a short account of the views set forth in the "Origin of Species."
In this article Mr. Wallace makes a definite statement as to his views
on the evolution of man, which were opposed to those of Mr. Darwin. He
upholds the view that the brain of man, as well as the organs of speech,
the hand and the external form, could not have been evolved by Natural
Selection (the child he is supposed to murder). At page 391 he writes:
"In the brain of the lowest savages, and, as far as we know, of the
prehistoric races, we have an organ...little inferior in size and
complexity to that of the highest types...But the mental requirements
of the lowest savages, such as the Australians or the Andaman Islanders,
are very little above those of many animals...How, then, was an organ
developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor? Natural Selection
could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior
to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little
inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies." This
passage is marked in Mr. Darwin's copy with a triply underlined "No,"
and with a shower of notes of exclamation. It was probably the first
occasion on which he realised the extent of this great and striking
divergence in opinion between himself and his colleague.

He had, however, some indication of it in Wallace's paper on Man,
"Anthropological Review," 1864. (See Letter 406). He wrote to Lyell,
May 4th, 1869, "I was dreadfully disappointed about Man; it seems to me
incredibly strange." And to Mr. Wallace, April 14th, 1869, "If you had
not told me, I should have thought that [your remarks on Man] had been
added by some one else. As you expected, I differ grievously from you,
and I am very sorry for it."


LETTER 409. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, Thursday, February 21st [1868-70?].

I received the Jermyn Street programme, but have hardly yet considered
it, for I was all day on the sofa on Tuesday and Wednesday. Bad though
I was, I thought with constant pleasure of your very great kindness in
offering to read the proofs of my essay on man. I do not know whether
I said anything which might have appeared like a hint, but I assure you
that such a thought had never even momentarily passed through my mind.
Your offer has just made all the difference, that I can now write,
whether or no my essay is ever printed, with a feeling of satisfaction
instead of vague dread.

Beg my colleague, Mrs. Huxley, not to forget the corrugator supercilii:
it will not be easy to catch the exact moment when the child is on the
point of crying, and is struggling against the wrinkling up [of] its
little eyes; for then I should expect the corrugator, from being little
under the command of the will, would come into play in checking or
stopping the wrinkling. An explosion of tears would tell nothing.


LETTER 410. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, December 23rd [1870?].

I have only read about fifty pages of your book (to the Judges) (410/1.
"Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences," by
Francis Galton, London, 1869. "The Judges of England between 1660 and
1865" is the heading of a section of this work (page 55). See "Descent
of Man" (1901), page 41.), but I must exhale myself, else something
will go wrong in my inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read
anything more interesting and original. And how well and clearly you
put every point! George, who has finished the book, and who expressed
himself just in the same terms, tells me the earlier chapters are
nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some time to get
to these later chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is
also much interested. You have made a convert of an opponent in one
sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not
differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think
[this] is an eminently important difference. I congratulate you on
producing what I am convinced will prove a memorable work. I look
forward with intense interest to each reading, but it sets me thinking
so much that I find it very hard work; but that is wholly the fault of
my brain, and not of your beautifully clear style.


LETTER 411. TO W.R. GREG. March 21st [1871?].

Many thanks for your note. I am very glad indeed to read remarks made by
a man who possesses such varied and odd knowledge as you do, and who is
so acute a reasoner. I have no doubt that you will detect blunders of
many kinds in my book. (411/1. "The Descent of Man.") Your MS. on the
proportion of the sexes at birth seems to me extremely curious, and I
hope that some day you will publish it. It certainly appears that the
males are decreasing in the London districts, and a most strange fact
it is. Mr. Graham, however, I observe in a note enclosed, does not seem
inclined to admit your conclusion. I have never much considered the
subject of the causes of the proportion. When I reflected on queen
bees producing only males when not impregnated, whilst some other
parthenogenetic insects produced, as far as known, only females, the
subject seemed to me hopelessly obscure. It is, however, pretty clear
that you have taken the one path for its solution. I wished only to
ascertain how far with various animals the males exceeded the females,
and I have given all the facts which I could collect. As far as I
know, no other data have been published. The equality of the sexes with
race-horses is surprising. My remarks on mankind are quite superficial,
and given merely as some sort of standard for comparison with the lower
animals. M. Thury is the writer who makes the sex depend on the period
of impregnation. His pamphlet was sent me from Geneva. (411/2. "Memoire
sur la loi de Production des Sexes," 2nd edition, 1863 (a pamphlet
published by Cherbuliez, Geneva).) I can lend it you if you like. I
subsequently read an account of experiments which convinced me that
M. Thury was in error; but I cannot remember what they were, only the
impression that I might safely banish this view from my mind. Your
remarks on the less ratio of males in illegitimate births strikes me
as the most doubtful point in your MS.--requiring two assumptions, viz.
that the fathers in such cases are relatively too young, and that the
result is the same as when the father is relatively too old.

My son, George, who is a mathematician, and who read your MS. with much
interest, has suggested, as telling in the right direction, but whether
sufficient is another question, that many more illegitimate children
are murdered and concealed shortly after birth, than in the case of
legitimate children; and as many more males than females die during the
first few days of life, the census of illegitimate children practically
applies to an older age than with legitimate children, and would thus
slightly reduce the excess of males. This might possibly be worth
consideration. By a strange coincidence a stranger writes to me this
day, making the very same suggestion.

I am quite delighted to hear that my book interests you enough to lead
you to read it with some care.


LETTER 412. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, January 4th, 1873.

Very many thanks for "Fraser" (412/1. "Hereditary Improvement," by
Francis Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," January 1873, page 116.): I have
been greatly interested by your article. The idea of castes being
spontaneously formed and leading to intermarriage (412/2. "My object is
to build up, by the mere process of extensive enquiry and publication of
results, a sentiment of caste among those who are naturally gifted,
and to procure for them, before the system has fairly taken root, such
moderate social favours and preference, no more no less, as would seem
reasonable to those who were justly informed of the precise measure of
their importance to the nation" (loc. cit., page 123).) is quite new
to me, and I should suppose to others. I am not, however, so hopeful
as you. Your proposed Society (412/3. Mr. Galton proposes that "Some
society should undertake three scientific services: the first, by
means of a moderate number of influential local agencies, to institute
continuous enquiries into the facts of human heredity; the second to be
a centre of information on heredity for breeders of animals and plants;
and the third to discuss and classify the facts that were collected"
(loc. cit., page 124).) would have awfully laborious work, and I doubt
whether you could ever get efficient workers. As it is, there is much
concealment of insanity and wickedness in families; and there would
be more if there was a register. But the greatest difficulty, I think,
would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register. How few are
above mediocrity in health, strength, morals and intellect; and how
difficult to judge on these latter heads. As far as I see, within the
same large superior family, only a few of the children would deserve
to be on the register; and these would naturally stick to their own
families, so that the superior children of distinct families would have
no good chance of associating much and forming a caste. Though I see so
much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out
the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving
the human race. I should be inclined to trust more (and this is part
of your plan) to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the
all-important principle of inheritance. I will make one or two minor
criticisms. Is it not possible that the inhabitants of malarious
countries owe their degraded and miserable appearance to the bad
atmosphere, though this does not kill them, rather than to "economy of
structure"? I do not see that an orthognathous face would cost more
than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one. That is a fine
simile (page 119) about the chip of a statue (412/4. "...The life of the
individual is treated as of absolutely no importance, while the race is
as everything; Nature being wholly careless of the former except as a
contributor to the maintenance and evolution of the latter. Myriads
of inchoate lives are produced in what, to our best judgment, seems a
wasteful and reckless manner, in order that a few selected specimens
may survive, and be the parents of the next generation. It is as though
individual lives were of no more consideration than are the senseless
chips which fall from the chisel of the artist who is elaborating some
ideal form from a rude block" (loc. cit., page 119).); but surely Nature
does not more carefully regard races than individuals, as (I believe I
have misunderstood what you mean) evidenced by the multitude of races
and species which have become extinct. Would it not be truer to say that
Nature cares only for the superior individuals and then makes her new
and better races? But we ought both to shudder in using so freely the
word "Nature" (412/5. See Letter 190, Volume I.) after what De Candolle
has said. Again let me thank you for the interest received in reading
your essay.

Many thanks about the rabbits; your letter has been sent to Balfour:
he is a very clever young man, and I believe owes his cleverness to
Salisbury blood. This letter will not be worth your deciphering. I have
almost finished Greg's "Enigmas." (412/6. "The Enigmas of Life," 1872.)
It is grand poetry--but too Utopian and too full of faith for me; so
that I have been rather disappointed. What do you think about it? He
must be a delightful man.

I doubt whether you have made clear how the families on the Register are
to be kept pure or superior, and how they are to be in course of time
still further improved.


LETTER 413. TO MAX MULLER. Down, July 3rd, 1873.

(413/1. In June, 1873, Professor Max Muller sent to Mr. Darwin a copy of
the sixth edition of his "Lectures on the Science of Language" (413/2.
A reference to the first edition occurs in "Life and Letters," II., page
390.), with a letter concluding with these words: "I venture to send
you my three lectures, trusting that, though I differ from some of your
conclusions, you will believe me to be one of your diligent readers and
sincere admirers.")

I am much obliged for your kind note and present of your lectures. I
am extremely glad to have received them from you, and I had intended
ordering them.

I feel quite sure from what I have read in your works that you would
never say anything of an honest adversary to which he would have any
just right to object; and as for myself, you have often spoken highly of
me--perhaps more highly than I deserve.

As far as language is concerned I am not worthy to be your adversary, as
I know extremely little about it, and that little learnt from very few
books. I should have been glad to have avoided the whole subject,
but was compelled to take it up as well as I could. He who is fully
convinced, as I am, that man is descended from some lower animal, is
almost forced to believe a priori that articulate language has been
developed from inarticulate cries (413/3. "Descent of Man" (1901), page
133.); and he is therefore hardly a fair judge of the arguments opposed
to this belief.

(413/4. In October, 1875, Mr. Darwin again wrote cordially to Professor
Max Muller on receipt of a pamphlet entitled "In Self-Defence" (413/5.
Printed in "Chips from a German Workshop," Volume IV., 1875, page 473.),
which is a reply to Professor Whitney's "Darwinism and Language" in the
"North American Review," July 1874. This essay had been brought before
the "general reader" in England by an article of Mr. G. Darwin's in the
"Contemporary Review," November, 1874, page 894, entitled, "Professor
Whitney on the Origin of Language." The article was followed by
"My reply to Mr. Darwin," contributed by Professor Muller to the
"Contemporary Review," January, 1875, page 305.)


LETTER 414. G. ROLLESTON TO CHARLES DARWIN. British Association,
Bristol, August 30th, 1875.

(414/1. In the first edition of the "Descent of Man" Mr. Darwin wrote:
"It is a more curious fact that savages did not formerly waste away, as
Mr. Bagehot has remarked, before the classical nations, as they now
do before modern civilised nations..."(414/2. Bagehot, "Physics and
Politics," "Fortnightly Review," April, 1868, page 455.) In the second
edition (page 183) the statement remains, but a mass of evidence
(pages 183-92) is added, to which reference occurs in the reply to the
following letter.)

At pages 4-5 of the enclosed Address (414/3. "British Association
Reports," 1875, page 142.) you will find that I have controverted Mr.
Bagehot's view as to the extinction of the barbarians in the times of
classical antiquity, as also the view of Poppig as to there being
some occult influence exercised by civilisation to the disadvantage of
savagery when the two come into contact.

I write to say that I took up this subject without any wish to impugn
any views of yours as such, but with the desire of having my say upon
certain anti-sanitarian transactions and malfeasance of which I had had
a painful experience.

On reading however what I said, and had written somewhat hastily, it has
struck me that what I have said might bear the former interpretation in
the eyes of persons who might not read other papers of mine, and indeed
other parts of the same Address, in which my adhesion, whatever it
is worth, to your views in general is plainly enough implied. I have
ventured to write this explanation to you for several reasons.


LETTER 415. TO G. ROLLESTON. Bassett, Southampton, September 2nd [1875].

I am much obliged to you for having sent me your Address, which has
interested me greatly. I quite subscribe to what you say about Mr.
Bagehot's striking remark, and wish I had not quoted it. I can perceive
no sort of reflection or blame on anything which I have written, and I
know well that I deserve many a good slap on the face. The decrease of
savage populations interests me much, and I should like you some time
to look at a discussion on this subject which I have introduced in the
second edition of the "Descent of Man," and which you can find (for I
have no copy here) in the list of additions. The facts have convinced me
that lessened fertility and the poor constitution of the children is one
chief cause of such decrease; and that the case is strictly parallel to
the sterility of many wild animals when made captive, the civilisation
of savages and the captivity of wild animals leading to the same result.


LETTER 416. TO ERNST KRAUSE. Down, June 30th, 1877.

I have been much interested by your able argument against the belief
that the sense of colour has been recently acquired by man. (416/1.
See "Kosmos," June 1877, page 264, a review of Dr. Hugo Magnus' "Die
Geschichtliche Entwickelung des Farbensinnes," 1877. The first part is
chiefly an account of the author's views; Dr. Krause's argument begins
at page 269. The interest felt by Mr. Darwin is recorded by the numerous
pencil-marks on the margin of his copy.) The following observation bears
on this subject.

I attended carefully to the mental development of my young children, and
with two, or as I believe three of them, soon after they had come to the
age when they knew the names of all common objects, I was startled by
observing that they seemed quite incapable of affixing the right names
to the colours in coloured engravings, although I tried repeatedly to
teach them. I distinctly remember declaring that they were colour-blind,
but this afterwards proved a groundless fear.

On communicating this fact to another person he told me that he had
observed a nearly similar case. Therefore the difficulty which young
children experience either in distinguishing, or more probably in naming
colours, seems to deserve further investigation. I will add that it
formerly appeared to me that the gustatory sense, at least in the
case of my own infants, and very young children, differed from that of
grown-up persons. This was shown by their not disliking rhubarb mixed
with a little sugar and milk, which is to us abominably nauseous; and
in their strong taste for the sourest and most austere fruits, such as
unripe gooseberries and crabapples.


(PLATE: G.J. ROMANES, 1891. Elliott & Fry, photo. Walker and Cockerell,
ph. sc.)


LETTER 417. TO G.J. ROMANES. [Barlaston], August 20th, 1878.

(417/1. Part of this letter (here omitted) is published in "Life and
Letters," III., page 225, and the whole in the "Life and Letters of G.J.
Romanes," page 74. The lecture referred to was on animal intelligence,
and was given at the Dublin meeting of the British Association.)

...The sole fault which I find with your lecture is that it is too
short, and this is a rare fault. It strikes me as admirably clear and
interesting. I meant to have remonstrated that you had not discussed
sufficiently the necessity of signs for the formation of abstract ideas
of any complexity, and then I came on the discussion on deaf mutes. This
latter seems to me one of the richest of all the mines, and is worth
working carefully for years, and very deeply. I should like to read
whole chapters on this one head, and others on the minds of the higher
idiots. Nothing can be better, as it seems to me, than your several
lines or sources of evidence, and the manner in which you have arranged
the whole subject. Your book will assuredly be worth years of hard
labour; and stick to your subject. By the way, I was pleased at your
discussing the selection of varying instincts or mental tendencies;
for I have often been disappointed by no one having ever noticed this
notion.

I have just finished "La Psychologie, son Present et son Avenir,"
1876, by Delboeuf (a mathematician and physicist of Belgium) in about a
hundred pages. It has interested me a good deal, but why I hardly know;
it is rather like Herbert Spencer. If you do not know it, and would care
to see it, send me a postcard.

Thank Heaven, we return home on Thursday, and I shall be able to go on
with my humdrum work, and that makes me forget my daily discomfort.

Have you ever thought of keeping a young monkey, so as to observe its
mind? At a house where we have been staying there were Sir A. and Lady
Hobhouse, not long ago returned from India, and she and he kept [a]
young monkey and told me some curious particulars. One was that her
monkey was very fond of looking through her eyeglass at objects, and
moved the glass nearer and further so as to vary the focus. This struck
me, as Frank's son, nearly two years old (and we think much of his
intellect!!) is very fond of looking through my pocket lens, and I have
quite in vain endeavoured to teach him not to put the glass close down
on the object, but he always will do so. Therefore I conclude that a
child under two years is inferior in intellect to a monkey.

Once again I heartily congratulate you on your well-earned present, and
I feel assured, grand future success.

(417/2. Later in the year Mr. Darwin wrote: "I am delighted to hear that
you mean to work the comparative Psychology well. I thought your letter
to the "Times" very good indeed. (417/3. Romanes wrote to the "Times"
August 28th, 1878, expressing his views regarding the distinction
between man and the lower animals, in reply to criticisms contained in
a leading article in the "Times" of August 23rd on his lecture at the
Dublin meeting of the British Association.) Bartlett, at the Zoological
Gardens, I feel sure, would advise you infinitely better about
hardiness, intellect, price, etc., of monkey than F. Buckland; but with
him it must be viva voce.

"Frank says you ought to keep a idiot, a deaf mute, a monkey, and a baby
in your house.")


LETTER 418. TO G.A. GASKELL. Down, November 15th, 1878.

(418/1. This letter has been published in Clapperton's "Scientific
Meliorism," 1885, page 340, together with Mr. Gaskell's letter of
November 13th (page 337). Mr. Gaskell's laws are given in his letter of
November 13th, 1878. They are:--

     I.  The Organological Law:
           Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest.

     II.  The Sociological Law:
            Sympathetic Selection, or Indiscriminate Survival.

     III.  The Moral Law:
             Social Selection, or the Birth of the Fittest.)

Your letter seems to me very interesting and clearly expressed, and I
hope that you are in the right. Your second law appears to be largely
acted on in all civilised countries, and I just alluded to it in my
remarks to the effect (as far as I remember) that the evil which would
follow by checking benevolence and sympathy in not fostering the weak
and diseased would be greater than by allowing them to survive and then
to procreate.

With regard to your third law, I do not know whether you have read an
article (I forget when published) by F. Galton, in which he proposes
certificates of health, etc., for marriage, and that the best should be
matched. I have lately been led to reflect a little, (for, now that I
am growing old, my work has become [word indecipherable] special) on the
artificial checks, but doubt greatly whether such would be advantageous
to the world at large at present, however it may be in the distant
future. Suppose that such checks had been in action during the last
two or three centuries, or even for a shorter time in Britain, what a
difference it would have made in the world, when we consider America,
Australia, New Zealand, and S. Africa! No words can exaggerate the
importance, in my opinion, of our colonisation for the future history of
the world.

If it were universally known that the birth of children could be
prevented, and this were not thought immoral by married persons, would
there not be great danger of extreme profligacy amongst unmarried women,
and might we not become like the "arreoi" societies in the Pacific? In
the course of a century France will tell us the result in many ways, and
we can already see that the French nation does not spread or increase
much.

I am glad that you intend to continue your investigations, and I hope
ultimately may publish on the subject.


LETTER 419. TO K. HOCHBERG. Down, January 13th, 1879.

I am much obliged for your note and for the essay which you have sent
me. I am a poor german scholar, and your german is difficult; but I
think that I understand your meaning, and hope at some future time, when
more at leisure, to recur to your essay. As far as I can judge, you have
made a great advance in many ways in the subject; and I will send your
paper to Mr. Edmund Gurney (The late Edmund Gurney, author of "The Power
of Sound," 1880.), who has written on and is much interested in the
origin of the taste for music. In reading your essay, it occurred to me
that facility in the utterance of prolonged sounds (I do not think that
you allude to this point) may possibly come into play in rendering them
musical; for I have heard it stated that those who vary their voices
much, and use cadences in long continued speaking, feel less fatigued
than those who speak on the same note.


LETTER 420. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, February 5th, 1880.

(420/1. Romanes was at work on what ultimately came to be a book on
animal intelligence. Romanes's reply to this letter is given in his
"Life," page 95. The table referred to is published as a frontispiece to
his "Mental Evolution in Animals," 1885.)

As I feared, I cannot be of the least use to you. I could not venture to
say anything about babies without reading my Expression book and paper
on Infants, or about animals without reading the "Descent of Man" and
referring to my notes; and it is a great wrench to my mind to change
from one subject to another.

I will, however, hazard one or two remarks. Firstly, I should have
thought that the word "love" (not sexual passion), as shown very low in
the scale, to offspring and apparently to comrades, ought to have come
in more prominently in your table than appears to be the case. Secondly,
if you give any instance of the appreciation of different stimulants by
plants, there is a much better case than that given by you--namely,
that of the glands of Drosera, which can be touched roughly two or three
times and do not transmit any effect, but do so if pressed by a weight
of 1/78000 grain ("Insectivorous Plants" 263). On the other hand, the
filament of Dionoea may be quietly loaded with a much greater weight,
while a touch by a hair causes the lobes to close instantly. This has
always seemed to me a marvellous fact. Thirdly, I have been accustomed
to look at the coming in of the sense of pleasure and pain as one of the
most important steps in the development of mind, and I should think it
ought to be prominent in your table. The sort of progress which I have
imagined is that a stimulus produced some effect at the point affected,
and that the effect radiated at first in all directions, and then that
certain definite advantageous lines of transmission were acquired,
inducing definite reaction in certain lines. Such transmission
afterwards became associated in some unknown way with pleasure or pain.
These sensations led at first to all sorts of violent action, such as
the wriggling of a worm, which was of some use. All the organs of sense
would be at the same time excited. Afterwards definite lines of action
would be found to be the most useful, and so would be practised. But it
is of no use my giving you my crude notions.


LETTER 421. TO S. TOLVER PRESTON. Down, May 22nd, 1880.

(421/1. Mr. Preston wrote (May 20th, 1880) to the effect that
"self-interest as a motive for conduct is a thing to be commended--and
it certainly [is] I think...the only conceivable rational motive of
conduct: and always is the tacitly recognised motive in all rational
actions." Mr. Preston does not, of course, commend selfishness, which is
not true self-interest.

There seem to be two ways of looking at the case given by Darwin. The
man who knows that he is risking his life,--realising that the personal
satisfaction that may follow is not worth the risk--is surely admirable
from the strength of character that leads him to follow the social
instinct against his purely personal inclination. But the man who
blindly obeys the social instinct is a more useful member of a social
community. He will act with courage where even the strong man will
fail.)

Your letter appears to me an interesting and valuable one; but I have
now been working for some years exclusively on the physiology of plants,
and all other subjects have gone out of my head, and it fatigues me
much to try and bring them back again into my head. I am, moreover,
at present very busy, as I leave home for a fortnight's rest at the
beginning of next week. My conviction as yet remains unchanged, that
a man who (for instance) jumps into a river to save a life without a
second's reflection (either from an innate tendency or from one gained
by habit) is deservedly more honoured than a man who acts deliberately
and is conscious, for however short a time, that the risk and sacrifice
give him some inward satisfaction.

You are of course familiar with Herbert Spencer's writings on Ethics.


(422/1. The observations to which the following letters refer were
continued by Mr. Wallis, who gave an account of his work in an
interesting paper in the "Proceedings of the Zoological Society," March
2nd, 1897. The results on the whole confirm the belief that traces of an
ancestral pointed ear exist in man.)


LETTER 422. TO H.M. WALLIS. Down, March 22nd, 1881.

I am very much obliged for your courteous and kind note. The fact which
you communicate is quite new to me, and as I was laughed at about the
tips to human ears, I should like to publish in "Nature" some time your
fact. But I must first consult Eschricht, and see whether he notices
this fact in his curious paper on the lanugo on human embryos; and
secondly I ought to look to monkeys and other animals which have tufted
ears, and observe how the hair grows. This I shall not be able to do for
some months, as I shall not be in London until the autumn so as to go to
the Zoological Gardens. But in order that I may not hereafter throw away
time, will you be so kind as to inform me whether I may publish your
observation if on further search it seems desirable?


LETTER 423. TO H.M. WALLIS. Down, March 31st, 1881.

I am much obliged for your interesting letter. I am glad to hear that
you are looking to other ears, and will visit the Zoological Gardens.
Under these circumstances it would be incomparably better (as more
authentic) if you would publish a notice of your observations in
"Nature" or some scientific journal. Would it not be well to confine
your attention to infants, as more likely to retain any primordial
character, and offering less difficulty in observing. I think, though,
it would be worth while to observe whether there is any relation (though
probably none) between much hairiness on the ears of an infant and
the presence of the "tip" on the folded margin. Could you not get an
accurate sketch of the direction of the hair of the tip of an ear?

The fact which you communicate about the goat-sucker is very curious.
About the difference in the power of flight in Dorkings, etc., may it
not be due merely to greater weight of body in the adults?

I am so old that I am not likely ever again to write on general and
difficult points in the theory of Evolution.

I shall use what little strength is left me for more confined and easy
subjects.


LETTER 424. TO MRS. TALBOT.

(Mrs. Emily Talbot was secretary of the Education Department of the
American Social Science Association, Boston, Mass. A circular and
register was issued by the Department, and answers to various questions
were asked for. See "Nature," April 28th, page 617, 1881. The above
letter was published in "The Field Naturalist," Manchester, 1883, page
5, edited by Mr. W.E. Axon, to whom we are indebted for a copy.)

Down, July 19th [1881?]

In response to your wish, I have much pleasure in expressing the
interest which I feel in your proposed investigation on the mental and
bodily development of infants. Very little is at present accurately
known on this subject, and I believe that isolated observations will add
but little to our knowledge, whereas tabulated results from a very large
number of observations, systematically made, would probably throw
much light on the sequence and period of development of the several
faculties. This knowledge would probably give a foundation for some
improvement in our education of young children, and would show us
whether the system ought to be followed in all cases.

I will venture to specify a few points of inquiry which, as it seems to
me, possess some scientific interest. For instance, does the education
of the parents influence the mental powers of their children at any
age, either at a very early or somewhat more advanced stage? This could
perhaps be learned by schoolmasters and mistresses if a large number
of children were first classed according to age and their mental
attainments, and afterwards in accordance with the education of their
parents, as far as this could be discovered. As observation is one of
the earliest faculties developed in young children, and as this power
would probably be exercised in an equal degree by the children of
educated and uneducated persons, it seems not impossible that any
transmitted effect from education could be displayed only at a somewhat
advanced age. It would be desirable to test statistically, in a similar
manner, the truth of the oft-repeated statement that coloured children
at first learn as quickly as white children, but that they afterwards
fall off in progress. If it could be proved that education acts not only
on the individual, but, by transmission, on the race, this would be a
great encouragement to all working on this all-important subject. It is
well known that children sometimes exhibit, at a very early age,
strong special tastes, for which no cause can be assigned, although
occasionally they may be accounted for by reversion to the taste or
occupation of some progenitor; and it would be interesting to learn how
far such early tastes are persistent and influence the future career
of the individual. In some instances such tastes die away without
apparently leaving any after effect, but it would be desirable to know
how far this is commonly the case, as we should then know whether it
were important to direct as far as this is possible the early tastes
of our children. It may be more beneficial that a child should follow
energetically some pursuit, of however trifling a nature, and thus
acquire perseverance, than that he should be turned from it because
of no future advantage to him. I will mention one other small point of
inquiry in relation to very young children, which may possibly prove
important with respect to the origin of language; but it could be
investigated only by persons possessing an accurate musical ear.
Children, even before they can articulate, express some of their
feelings and desires by noises uttered in different notes. For instance,
they make an interrogative noise, and others of assent and dissent,
in different tones; and it would, I think, be worth while to ascertain
whether there is any uniformity in different children in the pitch of
their voices under various frames of mind.

I fear that this letter can be of no use to you, but it will serve to
show my sympathy and good wishes in your researches.



2.VIII.II. SEXUAL SELECTION, 1866-1872.


LETTER 425. TO JAMES SHAW. Down, February 11th [1866].

I am much obliged to you for your kindness in sending me an abstract of
your paper on beauty. (425/1. A newspaper report of a communication to
the "Dumfries Antiquarian and Natural History Society.") In my opinion
you take quite a correct view of the subject. It is clear that Dr.
Dickson has either never seen my book, or overlooked the discussion
on sexual selection. If you have any precise facts on birds' "courtesy
towards their own image in mirror or picture," I should very much like
to hear them. Butterflies offer an excellent instance of beauty being
displayed in conspicuous parts; for those kinds which habitually display
the underside of the wing have this side gaudily coloured, and this is
not so in the reverse case. I daresay you will know that the males of
many foreign butterflies are much more brilliantly coloured than the
females, as in the case of birds. I can adduce good evidence from two
large classes of facts (too large to specify) that flowers have become
beautiful to make them conspicuous to insects. (425/2. This letter is
published in "A Country Schoolmaster, James Shaw." Edited by Robert
Wallace, Edinburgh, 1899.)

(425/3. Mr. Darwin wrote again to Mr. Shaw in April, 1866:--)

I am much obliged for your kind letter and all the great trouble which
you have taken in sending to all the various and interesting facts on
birds admiring themselves. I am very glad to hear of these facts. I have
just finished writing and adding to a new edition of the "Origin," and
in this I have given, without going into details (so that I shall not be
able to use your facts), some remarks on the subject of beauty.


LETTER 426. TO A.D. BARTLETT. Down, February 16th [1867?]

I want to beg two favours of you. I wish to ascertain whether the
Bower-Bird discriminates colours. (426/1. Mr. Bartlett does not seem to
have supplied any information on the point in question. The evidence for
the Bower-Bird's taste in colour is in "Descent of Man," II., page 112.)
Will you have all the coloured worsted removed from the cage and bower,
and then put all in a row, at some distance from bower, the enclosed
coloured worsted, and mark whether the bird AT FIRST makes any
selection. Each packet contains an equal quantity; the packets had
better be separate, and each thread put separate, but close
together; perhaps it would be fairest if the several colours were put
alternately--one thread of bright scarlet, one thread of brown, etc.,
etc. There are six colours. Will you have the kindness to tell me
whether the birds prefer one colour to another?

Secondly, I very much want several heads of the fancy and
long-domesticated rabbits, to measure the capacity of skull. I want
only small kinds, such as Himalaya, small Angora, Silver Grey, or any
small-sized rabbit which has long been domesticated. The Silver Grey
from warrens would be of little use. The animals must be adult, and the
smaller the breed the better. Now when any one dies would you send me
the carcase named; if the skin is of any value it might be skinned, but
it would be rather better with skin, and I could make a present to
any keeper to whom the skin is a perquisite. This would be of great
assistance to me, if you would have the kindness thus to aid me.


LETTER 427. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER.

(427/1. We are not aware that the experiment here suggested has ever
been carried out.)

Down, March 5th [1867].

I write on the bare and very improbable chance of your being able
to try, or get some trustworthy person to try, the following little
experiment. But I may first state, as showing what I want, that it has
been stated that if two long feathers in the tail of the male Widow-Bird
at the Cape of Good Hope are pulled out, no female will pair with him.

Now, where two or three common cocks are kept, I want to know, if the
tail sickle-feathers and saddle-feathers of one which had succeeded in
getting wives were cut and mutilated and his beauty spoiled, whether he
would continue to be successful in getting wives. This might be tried
with drakes or peacocks, but no one would be willing to spoil for a
season his peacocks. I have no strength or opportunity of watching my
own poultry, otherwise I would try it. I would very gladly repay all
expenses of loss of value of the poultry, etc. But, as I said, I have
written on the most improbable chance of your interesting any one to
make the trial, or having time and inclination yourself to make it.
Another, and perhaps better, mode of making the trial would be to turn
down to some hens two or three cocks, one being injured in its plumage.

I am glad to say that I have begun correcting proofs. (427/2. "The
Variation of Animals and Plants.") I hope that you received safely the
skulls which you so kindly lent me.


LETTER 428. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER. Down, March 30th [1867].

I am much obliged for your note, and shall be truly obliged if you will
insert any question on the subject. That is a capital remark of yours
about the trimmed game cocks, and shall be quoted by me. (428/1.
"Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., page 117. "Mr. Tegetmeier is
convinced that a game cock, though disfigured by being dubbed with his
hackles trimmed, would be accepted as readily as a male retaining all
his natural ornaments.") Nevertheless I am still inclined from many
facts strongly to believe that the beauty of the male bird determines
the choice of the female with wild birds, however it may be under
domestication. Sir R. Heron has described how one pied peacock was extra
attentive to the hens. This is a subject which I must take up as soon as
my present book is done.

I shall be most particularly obliged to you if you will dye with magenta
a pigeon or two. (428/2. "Mr. Tegetmeier, at my request, stained some
of his birds with magenta, but they were not much noticed by the
others."--"Descent of Man" (1901), page 637.) Would it not be better
to dye the tail alone and crown of head, so as not to make too great
difference? I shall be very curious to hear how an entirely crimson
pigeon will be received by the others as well as his mate.

P.S.--Perhaps the best experiment, for my purpose, would be to colour a
young unpaired male and turn him with other pigeons, and observe whether
he was longer or quicker than usual in mating.


LETTER 429. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 29th [1867].

I have been greatly interested by your letter, but your view is not new
to me. (429/1. We have not been able to find Mr. Wallace's letter to
which this is a reply. It evidently refers to Mr. Wallace's belief in
the paramount importance of protection in the evolution of colour. This
is clear from the P.S. to the present letter and from the passages in
the "Origin" referred to. The first reference, Edition IV., page 240,
is as follows: "We can sometimes plainly see the proximate cause of the
transmission of ornaments to the males alone; for a pea-hen with the
long tail of the male bird would be badly fitted to sit on her eggs, and
a coal-black female capercailzie would be far more conspicuous on her
nest, and more exposed to danger, than in her present modest attire."
The passages in Edition I. (pages 89, 101) do not directly bear on the
question of protection.) If you will look at page 240 of the fourth
edition of the "Origin" you will find it very briefly given with
two extreme examples of the peacock and black grouse. A more general
statement is given at page 101, or at page 89 of the first edition,
for I have long entertained this view, though I have never had space to
develop it. But I had not sufficient knowledge to generalise as far as
you do about colouring and nesting. In your paper perhaps you will just
allude to my scanty remark in the fourth edition, because in my Essay
on Man I intend to discuss the whole subject of sexual selection,
explaining as I believe it does much with respect to man. I have
collected all my old notes, and partly written my discussion, and it
would be flat work for me to give the leading idea as exclusively from
you. But, as I am sure from your greater knowledge of Ornithology and
Entomology that you will write a much better discussion than I could,
your paper will be of great use to me. Nevertheless I must discuss the
subject fully in my Essay on Man. When we met at the Zoological Society,
and I asked you about the sexual differences in kingfishers, I had this
subject in view; as I had when I suggested to Bates the difficulty about
gaudy caterpillars, which you have so admirably (as I believe it will
prove) explained. (429/2. See a letter of February 26th, 1867, to Mr.
Wallace, "Life and Letters" III., page 94.) I have got one capital case
(genus forgotten) of a [Australian] bird in which the female has long
tail-plumes, and which consequently builds a different nest from all her
allies. (429/3. Menura superba: see "Descent of Man" (1901), page 687.
Rhynchoea, mentioned a line or two lower down, is discussed in the
"Descent," page 727. The female is more brightly coloured than the male,
and has a convoluted trachea, elsewhere a masculine character. There
seems some reason to suppose that "the male undertakes the duty of
incubation.") With respect to certain female birds being more brightly
coloured than the males, and the latter incubating, I have gone a little
into the subject, and cannot say that I am fully satisfied. I remember
mentioning to you the case of Rhynchoea, but its nesting seems unknown.
In some other cases the difference in brightness seemed to me hardly
sufficiently accounted for by the principle of protection. At the
Falkland Islands there is a carrion hawk in which the female (as I
ascertained by dissection) is the brightest coloured, and I doubt
whether protection will here apply; but I wrote several months ago to
the Falklands to make enquiries. The conclusion to which I have been
leaning is that in some of these abnormal cases the colour happened to
vary in the female alone, and was transmitted to females alone, and that
her variations have been selected through the admiration of the male.

It is a very interesting subject, but I shall not be able to go on with
it for the next five or six months, as I am fully employed in correcting
dull proof-sheets. When I return to the work I shall find it much better
done by you than I could have succeeded in doing.

It is curious how we hit on the same ideas. I have endeavoured to show
in my MS. discussion that nearly the same principles account for young
birds not being gaily coloured in many cases, but this is too complex a
point for a note.

On reading over your letter again, and on further reflection, I do not
think (as far as I remember my words) that I expressed myself nearly
strongly enough on the value and beauty of your generalisation (429/4.
See Letter 203, Volume I.), viz., that all birds in which the female
is conspicuously or brightly coloured build in holes or under domes. I
thought that this was the explanation in many, perhaps most cases, but
do not think I should ever have extended my view to your generalisation.
Forgive me troubling you with this P.S.


LETTER 430. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, May 5th [1867].

The offer of your valuable notes is most generous, but it would vex me
to take so much from you, as it is certain that you could work up
the subject very much better than I could. Therefore I earnestly, and
without any reservation, hope that you will proceed with your paper, so
that I return your notes. You seem already to have well investigated the
subject. I confess on receiving your note that I felt rather flat at my
recent work being almost thrown away, but I did not intend to show this
feeling. As a proof how little advance I had made on the subject, I may
mention that though I had been collecting facts on the colouring, and
other sexual differences in mammals, your explanation with respect to
the females had not occurred to me. I am surprised at my own stupidity,
but I have long recognised how much clearer and deeper your insight into
matters is than mine. I do not know how far you have attended to the
laws of inheritance, so what follows may be obvious to you. I have begun
my discussion on sexual selection by showing that new characters often
appear in one sex and are transmitted to that sex alone, and that from
some unknown cause such characters apparently appear oftener in the
male than in the female. Secondly, characters may be developed and be
confined to the male, and long afterwards be transferred to the female.
Thirdly, characters may arise in either sex and be transmitted to both
sexes, either in an equal or unequal degree. In this latter case I have
supposed that the survival of the fittest has come into play with female
birds and kept the female dull-coloured. With respect to the absence of
spurs in the female gallinaceous birds, I presume that they would be
in the way during incubation; at least I have got the case of a German
breed of fowls in which the hens were spurred, and were found to disturb
and break their eggs much. With respect to the females of deer not
having horns, I presume it is to save the loss of organised matter. In
your note you speak of sexual selection and protection as sufficient to
account for the colouring of all animals, but it seems to me doubtful
how far this will come into play with some of the lower animals, such as
sea anemones, some corals, etc., etc. On the other hand Hackel (430/1.
See "Descent of Man" (1901) page 402.) has recently well shown that
the transparency and absence of colour in the lower oceanic animals,
belonging to the most different classes, may be well accounted for on
the principle of protection.

Some time or other I should like much to know where your paper on the
nests of birds has appeared, and I shall be extremely anxious to read
your paper in the "Westminster Review." (430/2. "Westminster Review,"
July, 1867.) Your paper on the sexual colouring of birds will, I have
no doubt, be very striking. Forgive me, if you can, for a touch of
illiberality about your paper.


LETTER 431. TO A.R. WALLACE. March 19th, 1868.

(431/1. "The Variation of Animals and Plants" having been published on
January 30th, 1868, Mr. Darwin notes in his diary that on February 4th
he "Began on Man and Sexual Selection." He had already (in 1864 and
1867) corresponded with Mr. Wallace on these questions--see for
instance the "Life and Letters," III., page 89; but, owing to various
interruptions, serious work on the subject did not begin until 1869. The
following quotations show the line of work undertaken early in 1868.

Mr. Wallace wrote (March 19th, 1868): "I am glad you have got good
materials on sexual selection. It is no doubt a difficult subject.
One difficulty to me is, that I do not see how the constant MINUTE
variations, which are sufficient for Natural Selection to work with,
could be SEXUALLY selected. We seem to require a series of bold and
abrupt variations. How can we imagine that an inch in the tail of the
peacock, or 1/4-inch in that of the Bird of Paradise, would be noticed
and preferred by the female.")

In regard to sexual selection. A girl sees a handsome man, and without
observing whether his nose or whiskers are the tenth of an inch longer
or shorter than in some other man, admires his appearance and says she
will marry him. So, I suppose, with the pea-hen; and the tail has been
increased in length merely by, on the whole, presenting a more gorgeous
appearance. J. Jenner Weir, however, has given me some facts showing
that birds apparently admire details of plumage.


LETTER 432. TO F. MULLER. March 28th [1868].

I am particularly obliged to you for your observations on the
stridulation of the two sexes of Lamellicorns. (432/1. We are unable
to find any mention of F. Muller's observations on this point; but
the reference is clearly to Darwin's observations on Necrophorus and
Pelobius, in which the stridulating rasp was bigger in the males in the
first individuals examined, but not so in succeeding specimens. "Descent
of Man," Edition II., Volume I., page 382.) I begin to fear that I am
completely in error owing to that common cause, viz. mistaking at first
individual variability for sexual difference.

I go on working at sexual selection, and, though never idle, I am able
to do so little work each day that I make very slow progress. I knew
from Azara about the young of the tapir being striped, and about young
deer being spotted (432/2. Fritz Muller's views are discussed in the
"Descent of Man," Edition II., Volume II., page 305.); I have often
reflected on this subject, and know not what to conclude about the loss
of the stripes and spots. From the geographical distribution of the
striped and unstriped species of Equus there seems to be something very
mysterious about the loss of stripes; and I cannot persuade myself
that the common ass has lost its stripes owing to being rendered more
conspicuous from having stripes and thus exposed to danger.


LETTER 433. TO J. JENNER WEIR.

(433/1. Mr. John Jenner Weir, to whom the following letters are
addressed, is frequently quoted in the "Descent of Man" as having
supplied Mr. Darwin with information on a variety of subjects.)

Down, February 27th [1868].

I must thank you for your paper on apterous lepidoptera (433/2.
Published by the West Kent Natural History, Microscopical and
Photographic Society, Greenwich, 1867. Mr. Weir's paper seems chiefly to
have interested Mr. Darwin as affording a good case of gradation in
the degree of degradation of the wings in various species.), which has
interested me exceedingly, and likewise for the very honourable mention
which you make of my name. It is almost a pity that your paper was
not published in some Journal in which it would have had a wider
distribution. It contained much that was new to me. I think the part
about the relation of the wings and spiracles and tracheae might have
been made a little clearer. Incidentally, you have done me a good
service by reminding me of the rudimentary spurs on the legs of the
partridge, for I am now writing on what I have called sexual selection.
I believe that I am not mistaken in thinking that you have attended much
to birds in confinement, as well as to insects. If you could call to
mind any facts bearing on this subject, with birds, insects, or any
animals--such as the selection by a female of any particular male--or
conversely of a particular female by a male, or on the rivalry between
males, or on the allurement of the females by the males, or any such
facts, I should be most grateful for the information, if you would have
the kindness to communicate it.

P.S.--I may give as instance of [this] class of facts, that Barrow
asserts that a male Emberiza (?) at the Cape has immensely long
tail-feathers during the breeding season (433/3. Barrow describes the
long tail feathers of Emberiza longicauda as enduring "but the season
of love." "An Account of Travels into the Interior of Southern Africa":
London, 1801, Volume I., page 244.); and that if these are cut off, he
has no chance of getting a wife. I have always felt an intense wish to
make analogous trials, but have never had an opportunity, and it is not
likely that you or any one would be willing to try so troublesome an
experiment. Colouring or staining the fine red breast of a bullfinch
with some innocuous matter into a dingy tint would be an analogous
case, and then putting him and ordinary males with a female. A
friend promised, but failed, to try a converse experiment with white
pigeons--viz., to stain their tails and wings with magenta or other
colours, and then observe what effect such a prodigious alteration would
have on their courtship. (433/4. See Letter 428.) It would be a fairer
trial to cut off the eyes of the tail-feathers of male peacocks; but who
would sacrifice the beauty of their bird for a whole season to please a
mere naturalist?


LETTER 434. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, February 29th [1868].

I have hardly ever received a note which has interested me more than
your last; and this is no exaggeration. I had a few cases of birds
perceiving slight changes in the dress of their owners, but your facts
are of tenfold value. I shall certainly make use of them, and need not
say how much obliged I should be for any others about which you feel
confident.

Do you know of any birds besides some of the gallinaceae which are
polygamous? Do you know of any birds besides pigeons, and, as it is
said, the raven, which pair for their whole lives?

Many years ago I visited your brother, who showed me his pigeons and
gave me some valuable information. Could you persuade him (but I fear
he would think it high treason) to stain a male pigeon some brilliant
colour, and observe whether it excited in the other pigeons, especially
the females, admiration or contempt?

For the chance of your liking to have a copy and being able to find some
parts which would interest you, I have directed Mr. Murray to send you
my recent book on "Variation under Domestication."

P.S.--I have somewhere safe references to cases of magpies, of which
one of a pair has been repeatedly (I think seven times) killed, and yet
another mate was always immediately found. (434/1. On this subject see
"Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., page 104, where Mr. Weir's
observations were made use of. This statement is quoted from Jenner
("Phil. Trans." 1824) in the "Descent of Man" (1901), page 620.) A
gamekeeper told me yesterday of analogous case. This perplexes me much.
Are there many unmarried birds? I can hardly believe it. Or will one of
a pair, of which the nest has been robbed, or which are barren, always
desert his or her mate for a strange mate with the attraction of a nest,
and in one instance with young birds in the nest? The gamekeeper said
during breeding season he had never observed a single or unpaired
partridge. How can the sexes be so equally matched?

P.S. 2nd.--I fear you will find me a great bore, but I will be as
reasonable as can be expected in plundering one so rich as you.

P.S. 3rd.--I have just received a letter from Dr. Wallace (434/2.
See "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume I., pages 386-401, where
Dr. Wallace's observations are quoted.), of Colchester, about the
proportional numbers of the two sexes in Bombyx; and in this note,
apropos to an incidental remark of mine, he stoutly maintains that
female lepidoptera never notice the colours or appearance of the male,
but always receive the first male which comes; and this appears very
probable. He says he has often seen fine females receive old battered
and pale-tinted males. I shall have to admit this very great objection
to sexual selection in insects. His observations no doubt apply to
English lepidoptera, in most of which the sexes are alike. The brimstone
or orange-tip would be good to observe in this respect, but it is
hopelessly difficult. I think I have often seen several males following
one female; and what decides which male shall succeed? How is this about
several males; is it not so?


LETTER 435. TO J. JENNER WEIR. 6, Queen Anne Street, Cavendish Square,
W. [March 6th, 1868].

I have come here for a few weeks, for a little change and rest. Just as
I was leaving home I received your first note, and yesterday a second;
and both are most interesting and valuable to me. That is a very curious
observation about the goldfinch's beak (435/1. "Descent of Man,"
Edition I., Volume I., page 39. Mr. Weir is quoted as saying that the
birdcatchers can distinguish the males of the goldfinch, Carduelis
elegans, by their "slightly longer beaks."), but one would hardly like
to trust it without measurement or comparison of the beaks of several
male and female birds; for I do not understand that you yourself assert
that the beak of the male is sensibly longer than that of the female. If
you come across any acute birdcatchers (I do not mean to ask you to
go after them), I wish you would ask what is their impression on the
relative numbers of the sexes of any birds which they habitually catch,
and whether some years males are more numerous and some years females.
I see that I must trust to analogy (an unsafe support) for sexual
selection in regard to colour in butterflies. You speak of the brimstone
butterfly and genus Edusa (435/2. Colias Edusa.) (I forget what this is,
and have no books here, unless it is Colias) not opening their wings.
In one of my notes to Mr. Stainton I asked him (but he could or did not
answer) whether butterflies such as the Fritillaries, with wings bright
beneath and above, opened and shut their wings more than Vanessae, most
of which, I think, are obscure on the under surface. That is a most
curious observation about the red underwing moth and the robin (435/3.
"Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume I., page 395. Mr. Weir describes
the pursuit of a red-underwing, Triphoena pronuba, by a robin which was
attracted by the bright colour of the moth, and constantly missed the
insect by breaking pieces off the wing instead of seizing the body. Mr.
Wallace's facts are given on the same page.), and strongly supports a
suggestion (which I thought hardly credible) of A.R. Wallace, viz. that
the immense wings of some exotic lepidoptera served as a protection from
difficulty of birds seizing them. I will probably quote your case.

No doubt Dr. Hooker collected the Kerguelen moth, for I remember he told
me of the case when I suggested in the "Origin," the explanation of
the coleoptera of Madeira being apterous; but he did not know what had
become of the specimens.

I am quite delighted to hear that you are observing coloured birds
(435/4. "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., page 110.), though the
probability, I suppose, will be that no sure result will be gained. I am
accustomed with my numerous experiments with plants to be well satisfied
if I get any good result in one case out of five.

You will not be able to read all my book--too much detail. Some of the
chapters in the second volume are curious, I think. If any man wants to
gain a good opinion of his fellow-men, he ought to do what I am doing,
pester them with letters.


LETTER 436. TO J. JENNER WEIR. 4, Chester Place, Regent's Park, N.W.,
March 13th [1868].

You make a very great mistake when you speak of "the risk of your notes
boring me." They are of the utmost value to me, and I am sure I shall
never be tired of receiving them; but I must not be unreasonable. I
shall give almost all the facts which you have mentioned in your two
last notes, as well as in the previous ones; and my only difficulty
will be not to give too much and weary my readers. Your last note is
especially valuable about birds displaying the beautiful parts of their
plumage. Audubon (436/1. In his "Ornithological Biography," 5 volumes,
Edinburgh, 1831-49.) gives a good many facts about the antics of birds
during courtship, but nothing nearly so much to the purpose as yours.
I shall never be able to resist giving the whole substance of your last
note. It is quite a new light to me, except with the peacock and Bird
of Paradise. I must now look to turkey's wings; but I do not think that
their wings are beautiful when opened during courtship. Its tail is
finely banded. How about the drake and Gallus bankiva? I forget how
their wings look when expanded. Your facts are all the more valuable
as I now clearly see that for butterflies I must trust to analogy
altogether in regard to sexual selection. But I think I shall make out a
strong case (as far as the rather deceitful guide of analogy will serve)
in the sexes of butterflies being alike or differing greatly--in moths
which do not display the lower surface of their wings not having them
gaudily coloured, etc., etc.--nocturnal moths, etc.--and in some male
insects fighting for the females, and attracting them by music.

My discussion on sexual selection will be a curious one--a mere
dovetailing of information derived from you, Bates, Wallace, etc., etc.,
etc.

We remain at above address all this month, and then return home. In the
summer, could I persuade you to pay us a visit of a day or two, and I
would try and get Bates and some others to come down? But my health is
so precarious, I can ask no one who will not allow me the privilege of
a poor old invalid; for talking, I find by long and dear-bought
experience, tries my head more than anything, and I am utterly incapable
of talking more than half an hour, except on rare occasions.

I fear this note is very badly written; but I was very ill all
yesterday, and my hand shakes to-day.


LETTER 437. TO J. JENNER WEIR. 4, Chester Place, Regent's Park, N.W.,
March 22nd [1868].

I hope that you will not think me ungrateful that I have not sooner
answered your note of the 16th; but in fact I have been overwhelmed both
with calls and letters; and, alas! one visit to the British Museum of an
hour or hour and a half does for me for the whole day.

I was particularly glad to hear your and your brother's statement about
the "gay" deceiver-pigeons. (437/1. Some cock pigeons "called by our
English fanciers gay birds are so successful in their gallantries that,
as Mr. H. Weir informs me, they must be shut up, on account of the
mischief which they cause.") I did not at all know that certain birds
could win the affections of the females more than other males, except,
indeed, in the case of the peacock. Conversely, Mr. Hewitt, I remember,
states that in making hybrids the cock pheasant would prefer certain hen
fowls and strongly dislike others. I will write to Mr. H. in a few days,
and ask him whether he has observed anything of this kind with pure
unions of fowls, ducks, etc. I had utterly forgotten the case of the
ruff (437/2. The ruff, Machetes pugnax, was believed by Montague to be
polygamous. "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume I., page 270.), but now
I remember having heard that it was polygamous; but polygamy with birds,
at least, does not seem common enough to have played an important part.
So little is known of habits of foreign birds: Wallace does not even
know whether Birds of Paradise are polygamous. Have you been a large
collector of caterpillars? I believe so. I inferred from a letter from
Dr. Wallace, of Colchester, that he would account for Mr. Stainton
and others rearing more female than male by their having collected the
larger and finer caterpillars. But I misunderstood him, and he maintains
that collectors take all caterpillars, large and small, for that they
collect the caterpillars alone of the rarer moths or butterflies. What
think you? I hear from Professor Canestrini (437/3. See "Descent of Man"
(1901), page 385.) in Italy that females are born in considerable excess
with Bombyx mori, and in greater excess of late years than formerly!
Quatrefages writes to me that he believes they are equal in France.
So that the farther I go the deeper I sink into the mire. With cordial
thanks for your most valuable letters.

We remain here till April 1st, and then hurrah for home and quiet work.


LETTER 438. TO J. JENNER WEIR. 4, Chester Place, N.W., March 27th
[1868].

I hardly know which of your three last letters has interested me most.
What splendid work I shall have hereafter in selecting and arranging
all your facts. Your last letter is most curious--all about the
bird-catchers--and interested us all. I suppose the male chaffinch
in "pegging" approaches the captive singing-bird, from rivalry or
jealousy--if I am wrong please tell me; otherwise I will assume so. Can
you form any theory about all the many cases which you have given me,
and others which have been published, of when one [of a] pair is killed,
another soon appearing? Your fact about the bullfinches in your garden
is most curious on this head. (438/1. Mr. Weir stated that at Blackheath
he never saw or heard a wild bullfinch, yet when one of his caged males
died, a wild one in the course of a few days generally came and perched
near the widowed female, whose call-note is not loud. "Descent of Man"
(1901), page 623.) Are there everywhere many unpaired birds? What can
the explanation be?

Mr. Gould assures me that all the nightingales which first come over are
males, and he believes this is so with other migratory birds. But this
does not agree with what the bird-catchers say about the common linnet,
which I suppose migrates within the limits of England.

Many thanks for very curious case of Pavo nigripennis. (438/2. See
"Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 306.) I am very glad
to get additional evidence. I have sent your fact to be inserted, if
not too late, in four foreign editions which are now printing. I am
delighted to hear that you approve of my book; I thought every mortal
man would find the details very tedious, and have often repented of
giving so many. You will find pangenesis stiff reading, and I fear will
shake your head in disapproval. Wallace sticks up for the great god Pan
like a man.

The fertility of hybrid canaries would be a fine subject for careful
investigation.


LETTER 439. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, April 4th [1868].

I read over your last ten (!) letters this morning, and made an index
of their contents for easy reference; and what a mine of wealth you
have bestowed on me. I am glad you will publish yourself on gay-coloured
caterpillars and birds (439/1. See "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume
I., page 417, where Mr. Weir's experiments are given; they were made to
test Mr. Wallace's theory that caterpillars, which are protected against
birds by an unpleasant taste, have been rendered conspicuous, so that
they are easily recognised. They thus escape being pecked or tasted,
which to soft-skinned animals would be as fatal as being devoured. See
Mr. Jenner Weir's papers, "Transact. Entomolog. Soc." 1869, page 2;
1870, page 337. In regard to one of these papers Mr. Darwin wrote (May
13th, 1869): "Your verification of Wallace's suggestion seems to me
to amount to quite a discovery."); it seems to me much the best plan;
therefore, I will not forward your letter to Mr. Wallace. I was much
in the Zoological Gardens during my month in London, and picked up
what scraps of knowledge I could. Without my having mentioned your most
interesting observations on the display of the Fringillidae (439/2.
"Descent of Man" (1901), page 738.), Mr. Bartlett told me how the Gold
Pheasant erects his collar and turns from side to side, displaying it
to the hen. He has offered to give me notes on the display of all
Gallinaceae with which he is acquainted; but he is so busy a man that I
rather doubt whether he will ever do so.

I received about a week ago a remarkably kind letter from your brother,
and I am sorry to hear that he suffers much in health. He gave me some
fine facts about a Dun Hen Carrier which would never pair with a bird of
any other colour. He told me, also, of some one at Lewes who paints his
dog! and will inquire about it. By the way, Mr. Trimen tells me that as
a boy he used to paint butterflies, and that they long haunted the same
place, but he made no further observations on them. As far as colour is
concerned, I see I shall have to trust to mere inference from the males
displaying their plumage, and other analogous facts. I shall get
no direct evidence of the preference of the hens. Mr. Hewitt, of
Birmingham, tells me that the common hen prefers a salacious cock, but
is quite indifferent to colour.

Will you consider and kindly give me your opinion on the two following
points. Do very vigorous and well-nourished hens receive the male
earlier in the spring than weaker or poorer hens? I suppose that they
do. Secondly, do you suppose that the birds which pair first in the
season have any advantage in rearing numerous and healthy offspring over
those which pair later in the season? With respect to the mysterious
cases of which you have given me so many, in addition to those
previously collected, of when one bird of a pair is shot another
immediately supplying its place, I was drawing to the conclusion that
there must be in each district several unpaired birds; yet this seems
very improbable. You allude, also, to the unknown causes which keep down
the numbers of birds; and often and often have I marvelled over this
subject with respect to many animals.


LETTER 440. TO A.R. WALLACE.

(440/1. The following refers to Mr. Wallace's article "A Theory of
Birds' Nests," in Andrew Murray's "Journal of Travel," Volume I., page
73. He here treats in fuller detail the view already published in the
"Westminster Review," July 1867, page 38. The rule which Mr. Wallace
believes, with very few exceptions, to hold good is, "that when both
sexes are of strikingly gay and conspicuous colours, the nest is...such
as to conceal the sitting bird; while, whenever there is a striking
contrast of colours, the male being gay and conspicuous, the female dull
and obscure, the nest is open, and the sitting bird exposed to view."
At this time Mr. Wallace allowed considerably more influence to sexual
selection (in combination with the need of protection) than in his later
writings. The following extract from a letter from Mr. Wallace to Darwin
(July 23rd, 1877) fixes the period at which the change in his views
occurred: "I am almost afraid to tell you that in going over the subject
of the colours of animals, etc., etc., for a small volume of essays,
etc., I am preparing, I have come to conclusions directly opposed to
voluntary sexual selection, and believe that I can explain (in a general
way) all the phenomena of sexual ornaments and colours by laws of
development aided by simple 'Natural Selection.'" He finally rejected
Mr. Darwin's theory that colours "have been developed by the preference
of the females, the more ornamented males becoming the parents of each
successive generation." "Darwinism," 1889, page 285. See also Letters
442, 443, 449, 450, etc.)

Down, April 15th, [1868].

I have been deeply interested by your admirable article on birds' nests.
I am delighted to see that we really differ very little,--not more than
two men almost always will. You do not lay much or any stress on new
characters spontaneously appearing in one sex (generally the male), and
being transmitted exclusively, or more commonly only in excess, to that
sex. I, on the other hand, formerly paid far too little attention to
protection. I had only a glimpse of the truth; but even now I do not
go quite as far as you. I cannot avoid thinking rather more than you
do about the exceptions in nesting to the rule, especially the partial
exceptions, i.e., when there is some little difference between the sexes
in species which build concealed nests. I am not quite satisfied about
the incubating males; there is so little difference in conspicuousness
between the sexes. I wish with all my heart I could go the whole length
with you. You seem to think that male birds probably select the most
beautiful females; I must feel some doubt on this head, for I can find
no evidence of it. Though I am writing so carping a note, I admire the
article thoroughly.

And now I want to ask a question. When female butterflies are more
brilliant than their males you believe that they have in most cases, or
in all cases, been rendered brilliant so as to mimic some other species,
and thus escape danger. But can you account for the males not having
been rendered equally brilliant and equally protected? (440/2. See
Wallace in the "Westminster Review," July, 1867, page 37, on the
protection to the female insect afforded by its resemblance either to an
inanimate object or to another insect protected by its unpalatableness.
The cases are discussed in relation to the much greater importance (to
the species as a whole) of the preservation of the female insect with
her load of eggs than the male who may safely be sacrificed after
pairing. See Letter 189, note.) Although it may be most for the welfare
of the species that the female should be protected, yet it would be some
advantage, certainly no disadvantage, for the unfortunate male to enjoy
an equal immunity from danger. For my part, I should say that the female
alone had happened to vary in the right manner, and that the beneficial
variations had been transmitted to the same sex alone. Believing in
this, I can see no improbability (but from analogy of domestic animals
a strong probability) that variations leading to beauty must often have
occurred in the males alone, and been transmitted to that sex alone.
Thus I should account in many cases for the greater beauty of the male
over the female, without the need of the protective principle. I should
be grateful for an answer on the point.


LETTER 441. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, April 18th [1868].

You see that I have taken you at your word, and have not (owing to heaps
of stupid letters) earlier noticed your three last letters, which as
usual are rich in facts. Your letters make almost a little volume on my
table. I daresay you hardly knew yourself how much curious information
was lying in your mind till I began the severe pumping process. The case
of the starling married thrice in one day is capital, and beats the
case of the magpies of which one was shot seven times consecutively. A
gamekeeper here tells me that he has repeatedly shot one of a pair of
jays, and it has always been immediately replaced. I begin to think that
the pairing of birds must be as delicate and tedious an operation as
the pairing of young gentlemen and ladies. If I can convince myself that
there are habitually many unpaired birds, it will be a great aid to me
in sexual selection, about which I have lately had many troubles, and
am therefore rejoiced to hear in your last note that your faith keeps
staunch. That is a curious fact about the bullfinches all appearing to
listen to the German singer (441/1. See Letter 445, note.); and this
leads me to ask how much faith may I put in the statement that male
birds will sing in rivalry until they injure themselves. Yarrell
formerly told me that they would sometimes even sing themselves to
death. I am sorry to hear that the painted bullfinch turns out to be a
female; though she has done us a good turn in exhibiting her jealousy,
of which I had no idea.

Thank you for telling me about the wildness of the hybrid canaries:
nothing has hardly ever surprised me more than the many cases of
reversion from crossing. Do you not think it a very curious subject? I
have not heard from Mr. Bartlett about the Gallinaceae, and I daresay I
never shall. He told me about the Tragopan, and he is positive that the
blue wattle becomes gorged with blood, and not air.

Returning to the first of the last three letters. It is most curious the
number of persons of the name of Jenner who have had a strong taste for
Natural History. It is a pity you cannot trace your connection with the
great Jenner, for a duke might be proud of his blood.

I heard lately from Professor Rolleston of the inherited effects of an
injury in the same eye. Is the scar on your son's leg on the same side
and on exactly the same spot where you were wounded? And did the wound
suppurate, or heal by the first intention? I cannot persuade myself
of the truth of the common belief of the influence of the mother's
imagination on the child. A point just occurs to me (though it does
not at present concern me) about birds' nests. Have you read Wallace's
recent articles? (441/2. A full discussion of Mr. Wallace's views is
given in "Descent of Man," Edition I., Volume II., Chapter XV. Briefly,
Mr. Wallace's point is that the dull colour of the female bird is
protective by rendering her inconspicuous during incubation. Thus the
relatively bright colour of the male would not simply depend on sexual
selection, but also on the hen being "saved, through Natural Selection,
from acquiring the conspicuous colours of the male" (loc. cit., page
155).) I always distrust myself when I differ from him; but I cannot
admit that birds learn to make their nests from having seen them
whilst young. I must think it as true an instinct as that which leads a
caterpillar to suspend its cocoon in a particular manner. Have you had
any experience of birds hatched under a foster-mother making their nests
in the proper manner? I cannot thank you enough for all your kindness.


LETTER 442. TO A.R. WALLACE.

(442/1. Dr. Clifford Allbutt's view probably had reference to the fact
that the sperm-cell goes, or is carried, to the germ-cell, never vice
versa. In this letter Darwin gives the reason for the "law" referred
to. Mr. A.R. Wallace has been good enough to give us the following
note:--"It was at this time that my paper on 'Protective Resemblance'
first appeared in the 'Westminster Review,' in which I adduced the
greater, or rather, the more continuous, importance of the female
(in the lower animals) for the race, and my 'Theory of Birds' Nests'
('Journal of Travel and Natural History,' No. 2) in which I applied this
to the usually dull colours of female butterflies and birds. It is
to these articles as well as to my letters that Darwin chiefly
refers."--Note by Mr. Wallace, May 27th, 1902.)

Down, April 30th [1868].

Your letter, like so many previous ones, has interested me much. Dr.
Allbutt's view occurred to me some time ago, and I have written a short
discussion on it. It is, I think, a remarkable law, to which I have
found no exception. The foundation lies in the fact that in many cases
the eggs or seeds require nourishment and protection by the mother-form
for some time after impregnation. Hence the spermatozoa and antherozoids
travel in the lower aquatic animals and plants to the female, and pollen
is borne to the female organ. As organisms rise in the scale it seems
natural that the male should carry the spermatozoa to the female in his
own body. As the male is the searcher, he has required and gained more
eager passions than the female; and, very differently from you, I look
at this as one great difficulty in believing that the males select the
more attractive females; as far as I can discover, they are always ready
to seize on any female, and sometimes on many females. Nothing would
please me more than to find evidence of males selecting the more
attractive females. I have for months been trying to persuade myself of
this. There is the case of man in favour of this belief, and I know in
hybrid unions of males preferring particular females, but, alas, not
guided by colour. Perhaps I may get more evidence as I wade through my
twenty years' mass of notes.

I am not shaken about the female protected butterflies. I will grant
(only for argument) that the life of the male is of very little
value,--I will grant that the males do not vary, yet why has not the
protective beauty of the female been transferred by inheritance to the
male? The beauty would be a gain to the male, as far as we can see, as
a protection; and I cannot believe that it would be repulsive to the
female as she became beautiful. But we shall never convince each other.
I sometimes marvel how truth progresses, so difficult is it for one man
to convince another, unless his mind is vacant. Nevertheless, I myself
to a certain extent contradict my own remark, for I believe far more in
the importance of protection than I did before reading your articles.

I do not think you lay nearly stress enough in your articles on what
you admit in your letters: viz., "there seems to be some production of
vividness...of colour in the male independent of protection." This I
am making a chief point; and have come to your conclusion so far that
I believe that intense colouring in the female sex is often checked by
being dangerous.

That is an excellent remark of yours about no known case of male alone
assuming protective colours; but in the cases in which protection has
been gained by dull colours, I presume that sexual selection would
interfere with the male losing his beauty. If the male alone had
acquired beauty as a protection, it would be most readily overlooked, as
males are so often more beautiful than their females. Moreover, I grant
that the life of the male is somewhat less precious, and thus there
would be less rigorous selection with the male, so he would be less
likely to be made beautiful through Natural Selection for protection.
(442/2. This does not apply to sexual selection, for the greater the
excess of males, and the less precious their lives, so much the better
for sexual selection. [Note in original.]) But it seems to me a good
argument, and very good if it could be thoroughly established. I do not
know whether you will care to read this scrawl.


LETTER 443. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, May 5th [1868?].

I am afraid I have caused you a great deal of trouble in writing to me
at such length. I am glad to say that I agree almost entirely with
your summary, except that I should put sexual selection as an equal,
or perhaps as even a more important agent in giving colour than Natural
Selection for protection. As I get on in my work I hope to get clearer
and more decided ideas. Working up from the bottom of the scale, I have
as yet only got to fishes. What I rather object to in your articles is
that I do not think any one would infer from them that you place sexual
selection even as high as No. 4 in your summary. It was very natural
that you should give only a line to sexual selection in the summary to
the "Westminster Review," but the result at first to my mind was that
you attributed hardly anything to its power. In your penultimate
note you say "in the great mass of cases in which there is great
differentiation of colour between the sexes, I believe it is due almost
wholly to the need of protection to the female." Now, looking to the
whole animal kingdom, I can at present by no means admit this view; but
pray do not suppose that because I differ to a certain extent, I do not
thoroughly admire your several papers and your admirable generalisation
on birds' nests. With respect to this latter point, however, although,
following you, I suspect that I shall ultimately look at the whole case
from a rather different point of view.

You ask what I think about the gay-coloured females of Pieris. (443/1.
See "Westminster Review," July, 1867, page 37; also Letter 440.) I
believe I quite follow you in believing that the colours are wholly due
to mimicry; and I further believe that the male is not brilliant from
not having received through inheritance colour from the female, and from
not himself having varied; in short, that he has not been influenced by
selection.

I can make no answer with respect to the elephants. With respect to
the female reindeer, I have hitherto looked at the horns simply as the
consequence of inheritance not having been limited by sex.

Your idea about colour being concentrated in the smaller males seems
good, and I presume that you will not object to my giving it as your
suggestion.


LETTER 444. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, May 7th [1868].

I have now to thank you for no less than four letters! You are so kind
that I will not apologise for the trouble I cause you; but it has lately
occurred to me that you ought to publish a paper or book on the habits
of the birds which you have so carefully observed. But should you do
this, I do not think that my giving some of the facts for a special
object would much injure the novelty of your work. There is such a
multitude of points in these last letters that I hardly know what to
touch upon. Thanks about the instinct of nidification, and for your
answers on many points. I am glad to hear reports about the ferocious
female bullfinch. I hope you will have another try in colouring males.
I have now finished lepidoptera, and have used your facts about
caterpillars, and as a caution the case of the yellow-underwings. I
have now begun on fishes, and by comparing different classes of facts my
views are getting a little more decided. In about a fortnight or three
weeks I shall come to birds, and then I dare say that I shall be extra
troublesome. I will now enclose a few queries for the mere chance of
your being able to answer some of them, and I think it will save you
trouble if I write them on a separate slip, and then you can sometimes
answer by a mere "no" or "yes."

Your last letter on male pigeons and linnets has interested me much, for
the precise facts which you have given me on display are of the utmost
value for my work. I have written to Mr. Bartlett on Gallinaceae, but I
dare say I shall not get an answer. I had heard before, but am glad to
have confirmation about the ruffs being the most numerous. I am greatly
obliged to your brother for sending out circulars. I have not heard from
him as yet. I want to ask him whether he has ever observed when several
male pigeons are courting one female that the latter decides with which
male she will pair. The story about the black mark on the lambs must be
a hoax. The inaccuracy of many persons is wonderful. I should like to
tell you a story, but it is too long, about beans growing on the wrong
side of the pod during certain years.

Queries:

Does any female bird regularly sing?

Do you know any case of both sexes, more especially of the female,
[being] more brightly coloured whilst young than when come to maturity
and fit to breed? An imaginary instance would be if the female
kingfisher (or male) became dull coloured when adult.

Do you know whether the male and female wild canary bird differ in
plumage (though I believe I could find this out for myself), and do any
of the domestic breeds differ sexually?

Do you know any gallinaceous bird in which the female has well developed
spurs?

It is very odd that my memory should fail me, but I cannot remember
whether, in accordance with your views, the wing of Gallus bankiva (or
Game-Cock, which is so like the wild) is ornamental when he opens and
scrapes it before the female. I fear it is not; but though I have often
looked at wing of the wild and tame bird, I cannot call to mind the
exact colours. What a number of points you have attended to; I did
not know that you were a horticulturist. I have often marvelled at the
different growth of the flowering and creeping branches of the ivy; but
had no idea that they kept their character when propagated by cuttings.
There is a S. American genus (name forgotten just now) which differs
in an analogous manner but even greater degree, but it is difficult to
cultivate in our hot-house. I have tried and failed.


LETTER 445. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, May 30th [1868].

I am glad to hear your opinion on the nest-making instinct, for I am
Tory enough not to like to give up all old beliefs. Wallace's view
(445/1. See Letter 440, etc.) is also opposed to a great mass of
analogical facts. The cases which you mention of suddenly reacquired
wildness seem curious. I have also to thank you for a previous valuable
letter. With respect to spurs on female Gallinaceae, I applied to Mr.
Blyth, who has wonderful systematic knowledge, and he tells me that the
female Pavo muticus and Fire-back pheasants are spurred. From various
interruptions I get on very slowly with my Bird MS., but have already
often and often referred to your volume of letters, and have used
various facts, and shall use many more. And now I am ashamed to say
that I have more questions to ask; but I forget--you told me not to
apologise.

1. In your letter of April 14th you mention the case of about twenty
birds which seemed to listen with much interest to an excellent piping
bullfinch. (445/2. Quoted in the "Descent of Man" (1901), page 564. "A
bullfinch which had been taught to pipe a German waltz...when this bird
was first introduced into a room where other birds were kept and he
began to sing, all the others, consisting of about twenty linnets and
canaries, ranged themselves on the nearest side of their cages, and
listened with the greatest interest to the new performer.") What kind of
birds were these twenty?

2. Is it true, as often stated, that a bird reared by foster-parents,
and who has never heard the song of its own species, imitates to a
certain extent the song of the species which it may be in the habit of
hearing?

Now for a more troublesome point. I find it very necessary to make
out relation of immature plumage to adult plumage, both when the sexes
differ and are alike in the adult state. Therefore, I want much to learn
about the first plumage (answering, for instance, to the speckled state
of the robin before it acquires the red breast) of the several varieties
of the canary. Can you help me? What is the character or colour of the
first plumage of bright yellow or mealy canaries which breed true to
these tints? So with the mottled-brown canaries, for I believe that
there are breeds which always come brown and mottled. Lastly, in the
"prize-canaries," which have black wing- and tail-feathers during their
first (?) plumage, what colours are the wings and tails after the first
(?) moult or when adult? I should be particularly glad to learn this.
Heaven have mercy on you, for it is clear that I have none. I am going
to investigate this same point with all the breeds of fowls, as Mr.
Tegetmeier will procure for me young birds, about two months old, of all
the breeds.

In the course of this next month I hope you will come down here on the
Saturday and stay over the Sunday. Some months ago Mr. Bates said
he would pay me a visit during June, and I have thought it would be
pleasanter for you to come here when I can get him, so that you would
have a companion if I get knocked up, as is sadly too often my bad habit
and great misfortune.

Did you ever hear of the existence of any sub-breed of the canary in
which the male differs in plumage from the female?


LETTER 446. TO F. MULLER. Down, June 3rd [1868].

Your letter of April 22nd has much interested me. I am delighted that
you approve of my book, for I value your opinion more than that of
almost any one. I have yet hopes that you will think well of pangenesis.
I feel sure that our minds are somewhat alike, and I find it a great
relief to have some definite, though hypothetical view, when I reflect
on the wonderful transformations of animals, the re-growth of parts, and
especially the direct action of pollen on the mother form, etc. It often
appears to me almost certain that the characters of the parents are
"photographed" on the child, only by means of material atoms derived
from each cell in both parents, and developed in the child. I am sorry
about the mistake in regard to Leptotes. (446/1. See "Animals and
Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page 134, where it is stated that
Oncidium is fertile with Leptotes, a mistake corrected in the 2nd
edition.) I daresay it was my fault, yet I took pains to avoid such
blunders. Many thanks for all the curious facts about the unequal number
of the sexes in crustacea, but the more I investigate this subject
the deeper I sink in doubt and difficulty. Thanks, also, for the
confirmation of the rivalry of Cicadae. (446/2. See "Descent of Man,"
Edition I., Volume I., page 351, for F. Muller's observations; and for
a reference to Landois' paper.) I have often reflected with surprise on
the diversity of the means for producing music with insects, and still
more with birds. We thus get a high idea of the importance of song in
the animal kingdom. Please to tell me where I can find any account of
the auditory organs in the orthoptera? Your facts are quite new to me.
Scudder has described an annectant insect in Devonian strata, furnished
with a stridulating apparatus. (446/3. The insect is no doubt Xenoneura
antiquorum, from the Devonian rocks of New Brunswick. Scudder compared
a peculiar feature in the wing of this species to the stridulating
apparatus of the Locustariae, but afterwards stated that he had been led
astray in his original description, and that there was no evidence in
support of the comparison with a stridulating organ. See the "Devonian
Insects of New Brunswick," reprinted in S.H. Scudder's "Fossil Insects
of N. America," Volume I., page 179, New York, 1890.) I believe he is to
be trusted, and if so the apparatus is of astonishing antiquity. After
reading Landois' paper I have been working at the stridulating organ in
the lamellicorn beetles, in expectation of finding it sexual, but I have
only found it as yet in two cases, and in these it was equally developed
in both sexes. I wish you would look at any of your common lamellicorns
and take hold of both males and females and observe whether they make
the squeaking or grating noise equally. If they do not, you could
perhaps send me a male and female in a light little box. How curious
it is that there should be a special organ for an object apparently so
unimportant as squeaking. Here is another point: have you any Toucans?
if so, ask any trustworthy hunter whether the beaks of the males, or of
both sexes, are more brightly coloured during the breeding season than
at other times of the year? I have also to thank you for a previous
letter of April 3rd, with some interesting facts on the variation of
maize, the sterility of Bignonia and on conspicuous seeds. Heaven knows
whether I shall ever live to make use of half the valuable facts which
you have communicated to me...


LETTER 447. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, June 18th [1868].

Many thanks. I am glad that you mentioned the linnet, for I had much
difficulty in persuading myself that the crimson breast could be due to
change in the old feathers, as the books say. I am glad to hear of the
retribution of the wicked old she-bullfinch. You remember telling me how
many Weirs and Jenners have been naturalists; now this morning I have
been putting together all my references about one bird of a pair being
killed, and a new mate being soon found; you, Jenner Weir, have given
me some most striking cases with starlings; Dr. Jenner gives the most
curious case of all in "Philosophical Transactions" (447/1. "Phil.
Trans." 1824.), and a Mr. Weir gives the next most striking in
Macgillivray. (447/2. Macgillivray's "History of British Birds," Volume
I., page 570. See "Descent of Man" (1901), page 621.) Now, is this not
odd? Pray remember how very glad we shall be to see you here whenever
you can come.

Did some ancient progenitor of the Weirs and Jenners puzzle his brains
about the mating of birds, and has the question become indelibly fixed
in all your minds?


LETTER 448. TO A.R. WALLACE. August 19th [1868].

I had become, before my nine weeks' horrid interruption of all work,
extremely interested in sexual selection, and was making fair progress.
In truth it has vexed me much to find that the farther I get on the more
I differ from you about the females being dull-coloured for protection.
I can now hardly express myself as strongly, even, as in the "Origin."
This has much decreased the pleasure of my work. In the course of
September, if I can get at all stronger, I hope to get Mr. J. Jenner
Weir (who has been wonderfully kind in giving me information) to pay
me a visit, and I will then write for the chance of your being able to
come, and I hope bring with you Mrs. Wallace. If I could get several of
you together it would be less dull for you, for of late I have found
it impossible to talk with any human being for more than half an hour,
except on extraordinary good days.

(448/1. On September 16th Darwin wrote to Wallace on the same
subject:--)

You will be pleased to hear that I am undergoing severe distress about
protection and sexual selection; this morning I oscillated with joy
towards you; this evening I have swung back to the old position, out of
which I fear I shall never get.


LETTER 449. TO A.R. WALLACE.

(449/1. From "Life and Letters," Volume III., page 123.)

Down, September 23rd [1868].

I am very much obliged for all your trouble in writing me your long
letter, which I will keep by me and ponder over. To answer it would
require at least 200 folio pages! If you could see how often I have
rewritten some pages you would know how anxious I am to arrive as near
as I can to the truth. I lay great stress on what I know takes place
under domestication; I think we start with different fundamental
notions on inheritance. I find it is most difficult, but not, I think,
impossible to see how, for instance, a few red feathers appearing on the
head of a male bird, and which are at first transmitted to both sexes,
would come to be transmitted to males alone. It is not enough that
females should be produced from the males with red feathers, which
should be destitute of red feathers; but these females must have a
latent tendency to produce such feathers, otherwise they would cause
deterioration in the red head-feathers of their male offspring. Such
latent tendency would be shown by their producing the red feathers when
old, or diseased in their ovaria. But I have no difficulty in making the
whole head red if the few red feathers in the male from the first tended
to be sexually transmitted. I am quite willing to admit that the female
may have been modified, either at the same time or subsequently,
for protection by the accumulation of variations limited in their
transmission to the female sex. I owe to your writings the consideration
of this latter point. But I cannot yet persuade myself that females
alone have often been modified for protection. Should you grudge the
trouble briefly to tell me, whether you believe that the plainer head
and less bright colours of female chaffinch, the less red on the head
and less clean colours of female goldfinch, the much less red on the
breast of the female bullfinch, the paler crest of golden-crested wren,
etc., have been acquired by them for protection? I cannot think so, any
more than I can that the considerable differences between female and
male house-sparrow, or much greater brightness of male Parus caeruleus
(both of which build under cover) than of female Parus, are related to
protection. I even misdoubt much whether the less blackness of female
blackbird is for protection.

Again, can you give me reasons for believing that the moderate
differences between the female pheasant, the female Gallus bankiva,
the female of black grouse, the pea-hen, the female partridge, have all
special references to protection under slightly different conditions? I,
of course, admit that they are all protected by dull colours, derived,
as I think, from some dull-ground progenitor; and I account partly for
their difference by partial transference of colour from the male, and by
other means too long to specify; but I earnestly wish to see reason
to believe that each is specially adapted for concealment to its
environment.

I grieve to differ from you, and it actually terrifies me and makes me
constantly distrust myself. I fear we shall never quite understand each
other. I value the cases of bright-coloured, incubating male fisher, and
brilliant female butterflies, solely as showing that one sex may be made
brilliant without any necessary transference of beauty to the other sex;
for in these cases I cannot suppose that beauty in the other sex was
checked by selection.

I fear this letter will trouble you to read it. A very short answer
about your belief in regard to the female finches and Gallinaceae would
suffice.


LETTER 450. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. 9, St. Mark's Crescent,
N.W., September 27th, 1868.

Your view seems to be that variations occurring in one sex are
transmitted either to that sex exclusively or to both sexes equally, or
more rarely partially transferred. But we have every gradation of
sexual colours, from total dissimilarity to perfect identity. If this is
explained solely by the laws of inheritance, then the colours of one or
other sex will be always (in relation to the environment) a matter of
chance. I cannot think this. I think selection more powerful than laws
of inheritance, of which it makes use, as shown by cases of two, three
or four forms of female butterflies, all of which have, I have little
doubt, been specialised for protection.

To answer your first question is most difficult, if not impossible,
because we have no sufficient evidence in individual cases of slight
sexual difference, to determine whether the male alone has acquired his
superior brightness by sexual selection, or the female been made duller
by need of protection, or whether the two causes have acted. Many of the
sexual differences of existing species may be inherited differences from
parent forms, which existed under different conditions and had greater
or less need of protection.

I think I admitted before, the general tendency (probably) of males to
acquire brighter tints. Yet this cannot be universal, for many female
birds and quadrupeds have equally bright tints.

To your second question I can reply more decidedly. I do think the
females of the Gallinaceae you mention have been modified or been
prevented from acquiring the brighter plumage of the male, by need of
protection. I know that the Gallus bankiva frequents drier and more open
situations than the pea-hen of Java, which is found among grassy and
leafy vegetation, corresponding with the colours of the two. So the
Argus pheasant, male and female, are, I feel sure, protected by their
tints corresponding to the dead leaves of the lofty forest in which
they dwell, and the female of the gorgeous fire-back pheasant Lophura
viellottii is of a very similar rich brown colour.

I do not, however, at all think the question can be settled by
individual cases, but by only large masses of facts. The colours of the
mass of female birds seem to me strictly analogous to the colours of
both sexes of snipes, woodcocks, plovers, etc., which are undoubtedly
protective.

Now, supposing, on your view, that the colours of a male bird become
more and more brilliant by sexual selection, and a good deal of that
colour is transmitted to the female till it becomes positively injurious
to her during incubation, and the race is in danger of extinction; do
you not think that all the females who had acquired less of the male's
bright colours, or who themselves varied in a protective direction,
would be preserved, and that thus a good protective colouring would soon
be acquired?

If you admit that this could occur, and can show no good reason why it
should not often occur, then we no longer differ, for this is the main
point of my view.

Have you ever thought of the red wax-tips of the Bombycilla beautifully
imitating the red fructification of lichens used in the nest, and
therefore the FEMALES have it too? Yet this is a very sexual-looking
character.

If sexes have been differentiated entirely by sexual selection the
females can have no relation to environment. But in groups when both
sexes require protection during feeding or repose, as snipes, woodcock,
ptarmigan, desert birds and animals, green forest birds, etc., arctic
birds of prey, and animals, then both sexes are modified for protection.
Why should that power entirely cease to act when sexual differentiation
exists and when the female requires protection, and why should the
colour of so many FEMALE BIRDS seem to be protective, if it has not been
made protective by selection.

It is contrary to the principles of "Origin of Species," that colour
should have been produced in both sexes by sexual selection and
never have been modified to bring the female into harmony with the
environment. "Sexual selection is less rigorous than Natural Selection,"
and will therefore be subordinate to it.

I think the case of female Pieris pyrrha proves that females alone can
be greatly modified for protection. (450/1. My latest views on this
subject, with many new facts and arguments, will be found in the later
editions of my "Darwinism," Chapter X. (A.R.W.))


LETTER 451. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(451/1. On October 4th, 1868, Mr. Wallace wrote again on the same
subject without adding anything of importance to his arguments of
September 27th. We give his final remarks:--)

October 4th, 1868.

I am sorry to find that our difference of opinion on this point is a
source of anxiety to you. Pray do not let it be so. The truth will come
out at last, and our difference may be the means of setting others to
work who may set us both right. After all, this question is only an
episode (though an important one) in the great question of the "Origin
of Species," and whether you or I are right will not at all affect the
main doctrine--that is one comfort.

I hope you will publish your treatise on "Sexual Selection" as a
separate book as soon as possible; and then, while you are going on with
your other work, there will no doubt be found some one to battle with me
over your facts on this hard problem.


LETTER 452. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, October 6th [1868].

Your letter is very valuable to me, and in every way very kind. I will
not inflict a long answer, but only answer your queries. There are
breeds (viz. Hamburg) in which both sexes differ much from each other
and from both sexes of Gallus bankiva; and both sexes are kept constant
by selection. The comb of the Spanish male has been ordered to be
upright, and that of Spanish female to lop over, and this has been
effected. There are sub-breeds of game fowl, with females very distinct
and males almost identical; but this, apparently, is the result of
spontaneous variation, without special selection. I am very glad to hear
of case of female Birds of Paradise.

I have never in the least doubted possibility of modifying female birds
alone for protection, and I have long believed it for butterflies. I
have wanted only evidence for the female alone of birds having had their
colour modified for protection. But then I believe that the variations
by which a female bird or butterfly could get or has got protective
colouring have probably from the first been variations limited in their
transmission to the female sex. And so with the variations of the
male: when the male is more beautiful than the female, I believe the
variations were sexually limited in their transmission to the males.


LETTER 453. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, October 31st, 1868.

(453/1. A short account of the Periodical Cicada (C. septendecim) is
given by Dr. Sharp in the Cambridge Natural History, Insects II., page
570. We are indebted to Dr. Sharp for calling our attention to Mr. C.L.
Marlatt's full account of the insect in "Bulletin No. 14 [NS.] of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture," 1898. The Cicada lives for long periods
underground as larva and pupa, so that swarms of the adults 

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/2740