diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/65779-h/65779-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65779-h/65779-h.htm | 9590 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 9590 deletions
diff --git a/old/65779-h/65779-h.htm b/old/65779-h/65779-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 5fe7f37..0000000 --- a/old/65779-h/65779-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,9590 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> -<head> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> -<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection, by Sir Edward Bagnall Poulton</title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 2.5em; - margin-right: 2.5em; -} - -h1, h2 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; - margin: 2.5em auto 1em auto; - word-spacing: .2em; - max-width: 75%; -} - -h1 {line-height: 1.7; page-break-before: avoid; page-break-after: always;} - -h2+p {margin-top: 1.5em;} -h2 .subhead {display: block; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;} - -.transnote h2 { - margin-top: .5em; - margin-bottom: 1em; -} - -.subhead { - text-indent: 0; - text-align: center; - font-size: .7em; -} - -p { - text-indent: 1.75em; - margin-top: .51em; - margin-bottom: .24em; - text-align: justify; -} -.caption p, .center p, p.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;} - -.p0 {margin-top: 0em;} -.p1 {margin-top: 1em;} -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} -.b1 {margin-bottom: 1em;} -.vspace {line-height: 1.5;} -.vspace3 {line-height: 2;} - -.in0 {text-indent: 0;} -.l2 {padding-right: 2em;} -.l4 {padding-right: 4em;} -.l6 {padding-right: 6em;} - -.xsmall {font-size: 60%;} -.small {font-size: 70%;} -.smaller {font-size: 85%;} -.larger {font-size: 125%;} -.large {font-size: 150%;} -.xlarge {font-size: 175%;} -.xxlarge {font-size: 200%;} - -.center {text-align: center;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} -.firstword {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.bold {font-weight: bold;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin: 4em auto 4em auto; - clear: both; -} - -hr.narrow {width: 6em; margin: 1em auto 1em auto;} -hr.narrow1 {width: 12em; margin: 4em auto .2em auto;} - -.tb { - text-align: center; - padding-top: .76em; - padding-bottom: .24em; - letter-spacing: 1.5em; - margin-right: -1.5em; -} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - max-width: 95%; - border-collapse: collapse; -} - -#toc td {padding-bottom: 1em;} -#toc .small td {padding-bottom: .2em;} - -.tdl { - text-align: justify; - vertical-align: top; - padding-right: 1em; - padding-left: 2.5em; - text-indent: -2.5em; -} - -.tdr { - text-align: right; - vertical-align: bottom; - padding-left: .3em; - white-space: nowrap; -} -.tdr.top { - vertical-align: top; - padding-left: 0; padding-right: 0; - min-width: 5em; -} - -.pagenum { - position: absolute; - right: .25em; - text-indent: 0; - text-align: right; - font-size: 70%; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - font-style: normal; - letter-spacing: normal; - line-height: normal; - color: #acacac; - border: .0625em solid #acacac; - background: #ffffff; - padding: .0625em .125em; -} - -.figcenter { - margin: 2em auto 2em auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - -img { - padding: 0; - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} - -a.ref {text-decoration: none;} - -.caption {text-align: center; margin-top: 0;} -.captionr {text-align: right; font-size: 85%;} - -ul {margin-left: 3em; padding-left: 0;} -li {list-style-type: none; padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2.5em; text-align: left;} - -.sidenote { - text-indent: 0; - text-align: left; - padding: .3em .2em .2em .2em; - clear: both; - margin-top: .7em; - margin-bottom: .3em; - font-size: .8em; - background-color: #cccccc; - border: thin dotted gray; - page-break-after: avoid; -} - -.footnotes { - border: thin dashed black; - margin: 4em 5% 1em 5%; - padding: .5em 1em .5em 1.5em; -} - -.footnote {font-size: .95em;} -.footnote p {text-indent: 1em;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: 60%; - line-height: .7; - font-size: smaller; - text-decoration: none; -} -.footnote .fnanchor {font-size: .8em;} - -a.ref {text-decoration: none;} - -.index {margin-left: 1em;} -ul.index {padding-left: 0;} -li {list-style-type: none;} -li.indx, li.ifrst {list-style-type: none; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em; padding-top: .2em;} -li.isub1 {padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -2em;} -li.ifrst {padding-top: 1em;} - -.blockquot { - margin: 2em 5% 2em 5%; - font-size: 95%; -} - -.transnote { - background-color: #999999; - border: thin dotted; - font-family: sans-serif, serif; - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 5%; - margin-top: 4em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - padding: 1em; -} -.covernote {visibility: hidden; display: none;} - -.sigright { - margin-right: 2em; - text-align: right;} - -.gesperrt {letter-spacing: .2em; margin-right: -.2em;} -.gesperrt1 {letter-spacing: .05em; margin-right: -.05em;} -.wspace {word-spacing: .3em;} - -span.locked {white-space:nowrap;} -.pagenum br {display: none; visibility: hidden;} -.bbox {border: .2em solid black; padding: 1em; margin: 8em auto 8em auto; max-width: 30em; page-break-before: always; page-break-after: always;} -.u {text-decoration: underline;} -.narrow {max-width: 25em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} -#ad p.bold {margin-bottom: 0; font-size: larger; padding-left: 0; text-indent: 0;} -#ad .blockquot {margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;} -#ad .blockquot p {padding-left: 1em; text-indent: 0; margin-top: 0;} -#ad p.hang {padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em;} - -@media print, handheld -{ - body {margin: 0;} - - .chapter, .newpage {page-break-before: always;} - h1.nobreak, h2.nobreak, .nobreak {page-break-before: avoid; padding-top: 0;} - - h1, h2 {max-width: 100%;} - - p { - margin-top: .5em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .25em; - } - - table {width: auto; max-width: 100%; margin: 1em auto 1em auto;} - - .tdl { - padding-left: 1em; - text-indent: -1em; - padding-right: 0; - } - - .figcenter {max-width: 100%; margin: 0 auto 0 auto;} - img {max-height: 80%;} - - hr { - margin-top: .1em; - margin-bottom: .1em; - visibility: hidden; - color: white; - width: .01em; - display: none; - } - - ul {margin-left: 1em; padding-left: 0;} - li {list-style-type: none; padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1.5em;} - - .blockquot {margin: 1.5em 3% 1.5em 3%;} - - .transnote { - page-break-inside: avoid; - margin-left: 2%; - margin-right: 2%; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - padding: .5em; - } - - .bbox {margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0;} - - .index {margin-left: 0;} - - .covernote {visibility: visible; display: block; text-align: center;} -} - - - h1.pgx { text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 190%; - margin-top: 0em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - line-height: 1; } - h2.pgx { text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 135%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - page-break-before: avoid; - line-height: 1; } - h3.pgx { text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 110%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - line-height: 1; } - h4.pgx { text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: bold; - font-size: 100%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - word-spacing: 0em; - letter-spacing: 0em; - line-height: 1; } - hr.pgx { width: 100%; - margin-top: 3em; - margin-bottom: 0em; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - height: 4px; - border-width: 4px 0 0 0; /* remove all borders except the top one */ - border-style: solid; - border-color: #000000; - clear: both; } - </style> -</head> -<body> -<h1 class="pgx" title="">The Project Gutenberg eBook, Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural -Selection, by Sir Edward Bagnall Poulton</h1> -<p>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 <a -href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you are not -located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this ebook.</p> -<p>Title: Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection</p> -<p>Author: Sir Edward Bagnall Poulton</p> -<p>Release Date: July 6, 2021 [eBook #65779]</p> -<p>Language: English</p> -<p>Character set encoding: UTF-8</p> -<p>***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES DARWIN AND THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION***</p> -<p> </p> -<h4 class="pgx" title="">E-text prepared by Fay Dunn, Charlie Howard,<br /> - and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team<br /> - (https://www.pgdp.net)<br /> - from page images generously made available by<br /> - Internet Archive<br /> - (https://archive.org)</h4> -<p> </p> -<table border="0" style="background-color: #ccccff;margin: 0 auto;" cellpadding="10"> - <tr> - <td valign="top"> - Note: - </td> - <td> - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/charlesdarwinthe00poulrich - </td> - </tr> -</table> -<div class="transnote"> -<p class="center larger">Transcriber’s Note</p> -<p>Larger versions of the illustrations may be seen by right-clicking them -and selecting an option to view them separately, or by double-tapping and/or -stretching them.</p> -</div> -<p> </p> -<hr class="pgx" /> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> -<p> </p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_i">i</span></p> - -<div class="center"> -<p class="newpage p4"><i class="u">THE CENTURY SCIENCE SERIES</i></p> - -<p><span class="u"><span class="smcap">Edited by</span> SIR HENRY E. ROSCOE, D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S.</span></p> -</div> - -<h1 class="p4 wspace">CHARLES DARWIN<br /> -<span class="xsmall">AND THE</span><br /> -<span class="smaller">THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION</span> -</h1> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"><div class="bbox" id="ad"> -<p class="center xlarge wspace">The Century Science Series.</p> - -<p class="center smaller">EDITED BY</p> - -<p class="center wspace">SIR HENRY E. ROSCOE, D.C.L., F.R.S.</p> - -<hr class="narrow" /> - -<p class="bold hang">John Dalton and the Rise of Modern Chemistry.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By Sir <span class="smcap">Henry E. Roscoe</span>, F.R.S., &c.</p> -</div> - -<p class="bold hang">Major Rennell, F.R.S., and the Rise of Modern -English Geography.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By Sir <span class="smcap">Clements R. Markham</span>, C.B., F.R.S., President -of the Royal Geographical Society.</p> -</div> - -<p class="bold hang">Justus von Liebig: his Life and Work (1803–1873).</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">W. A. Shenstone</span>, F.I.C., Lecturer on Chemistry in -Clifton College.</p> -</div> - -<p class="bold hang">The Herschels and Modern Astronomy.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Agnes M. Clerke</span>, Author of “A Popular History -of Astronomy during the 19th Century,” &c.</p> -</div> - -<p class="bold hang">Charles Lyell and Modern Geology.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By Professor <span class="smcap">T. G. Bonney</span>, F.R.S., &c.</p> -</div> - -<p class="bold">James Clerk Maxwell and Modern Physics.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">R. T. Glazebrook</span>, F.R.S., Fellow of Trinity College, -Cambridge.</p> -</div> - -<p class="bold hang">Humphry Davy, Poet and Philosopher.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">T. E. Thorpe</span>, LL.D., F.R.S.</p> -</div> - -<p class="bold hang">Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural -Selection.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">Edward B. Poulton</span>, M.A., F.R.S., Hope Professor -of Zoology at the University of Oxford, &c.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>In Preparation.</i></p> - -<p class="bold hang">Michael Faraday: his Life and Work.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By Professor <span class="smcap">Silvanus P. Thompson</span>, F.R.S.</p> -</div> - -<p class="bold hang">Pasteur: his Life and Work.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">M. Armand Ruffer</span>, M.D., Director of the British -Institute of Preventive Medicine.</p> -</div> - -<p class="bold hang">Hermann von Helmholtz.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>By <span class="smcap">A. W. Rücker</span>, F.R.S., Professor of Physics in the -Royal College of Science, London.</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 center">CASSELL & COMPANY, <span class="smcap">Limited</span>, <i>London; Paris & Melbourne</i>.</p> -</div></div> - -<div id="if_i_001" class="figcenter" style="max-width: 30em;"> - <img src="images/i_001.jpg" width="1747" height="2308" alt="" /> - <div class="captionr"> - <i>Photo by Mr. James C. Christie, F.G.S., Glasgow.</i> - </div> - <div class="caption vspace wspace"> - - <p class="p1">STATUE OF CHARLES DARWIN.</p> - - <p class="smaller">(<i>By Boehm.</i>)</p> - - <p class="smaller">CENTRAL HALL OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.</p> -</div></div> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"><div class="newpage p4 center vspace wspace larger"> - -<p><i class="u">THE CENTURY SCIENCE SERIES</i></p> - -<p class="p4 vspace3 wspace"><span class="smcap xxlarge">Charles Darwin</span><br /> -<span class="xsmall">AND THE</span><br /> -<span class="larger">THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION</span></p> - -<p class="p4 vspace"><span class="small">BY</span><br /> -<span class="larger gesperrt">EDWARD B. POULTON</span><br /> -<span class="smaller">M.A., F.R.S., F.G.S., F.L.S., ETC.</span></p> - -<p class="xsmall">HOPE PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD<br /> -CORRESP. MEMB. OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES<br /> -CORRESP. MEMB. OF THE BOSTON SOCIETY OF NAT. HIST.</p> - -<p class="p4"><span class="smcap vspace larger gesperrt1">CASSELL and COMPANY, Limited</span><br /> -<span class="smaller"><i>LONDON, PARIS & MELBOURNE</i></span><br /> -<span class="smaller">1896</span><br /> -<span class="small">ALL RIGHTS RESERVED</span> -</p> -</div></div> - -<hr /> -<div id="if_i_004" class="newpage p4 figcenter" style="max-width: 10em;"> - <img src="images/i_004.png" width="527" height="527" alt="logo" /> -</div> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_v">v</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="INTRODUCTION">INTRODUCTION</h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">In</span> the following pages I have tried to express a sense -of the greatness of my subject by simplicity and -directness of statement. The limits of the work -necessarily prevented any detailed treatment, the -subject of the work prevented originality. We have -had the great “Life and Letters” with us for nine -years, and this I have used as a mine, extracting -what I believed to be the statements of chief importance -for the work in hand, and grouping them -so as to present what I hope is a connected account -of Darwin’s life, when considered in relation to his -marvellous work; and especially to the great central -discovery of Natural Selection and its exposition in -the “Origin of Species.”</p> - -<p>In addition to the invaluable volumes which we -owe to the industry, taste, and skill of Francis -Darwin, an immense number of other works have -been consulted. We live in an age of writing, and -of speeches and addresses; and the many sides of -Darwin’s life and work have again and again inspired -the ablest men of our time to write and speak their -best—a justification for the freedom with which -quotations are spread over the following pages.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_vi">vi</span></p> - -<p>It is my pleasant duty to express my hearty -thanks to many kind friends who have helped in -the production of this little work. Mr. Francis -Darwin has kindly permitted the use of many of -Darwin’s letters, which have not as yet been published, -and he has given me valuable information and -criticism on many points. I have also gained much -by discussion and correspondence with my friends -Dr. A. R. Wallace, Professor E. Ray Lankester, and -Professor Meldola. The latter has freely given me -the use of his valuable series of letters; and I owe -to my friend, Mr. Rowland H. Wedgwood, the opportunity -of publishing a single letter of very great -interest.</p> - -<p>The greater part of the volume formed the subject -of two short courses of lectures delivered in the Hope -Department of the Oxford University Museum in -Michaelmas Term 1894 and Lent Term 1895.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="smcap">Edward B. Poulton.</span> -</p> - -<p class="p0 smaller">Oxford, <i>October, 1896</i>.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_vii">vii</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - -<table id="toc" summary="Contents"> -<tr class="small"> - <td class="tdr">CHAPTER</td> - <td> </td> - <td class="tdr">PAGE</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">I.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Secret of Darwin’s Greatness</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_9">9</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">II.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Boyhood—Edinburgh—Cambridge (1817–31)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_16">16</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">III.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Voyage of the “Beagle” (1831–36)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_21">21</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">IV.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Cambridge—London—Work upon the Collections—Marriage—Geological Work—Journal of the Voyage—Coral Reefs—First Recorded Thoughts on Evolution (1837–42)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_25">25</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">V.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Down—Geology of the Voyage—Work on Cirripedes (1842–54)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_35">35</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">VI.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Growth of the “Origin of Species” (1837–58)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_42">42</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">VII.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Growth of the “Origin”</span> (<i>continued</i>)—<span class="smcap">Correspondence with Friends</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_50">50</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">VIII.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Darwin and Wallace (1858)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_60">60</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">IX.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Darwin’s Section of the Joint Memoir read before the Linnean Society July 1, 1858</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_65">65</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">X.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Wallace’s Section of the Joint Memoir read before the Linnean Society July 1, 1858</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_71">71</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XI.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Comparison of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Sections of the Joint Memoir—Reception of their Views—Their Friendship</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_78">78</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XII.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Growth of Wallace’s Convictions on Evolution and Discovery of Natural Selection—Borneo 1855—Ternate 1858</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_87">87</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_viii">viii</span></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XIII.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Canon Tristram the First Publicly to Accept the Theory of Natural Selection (1859)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_92">92</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XIV.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Preparation of the “Origin of Species” (1858–59)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_95">95</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XV.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Origin of Species (1859)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_100">100</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XVI.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Influence of Darwin upon Lyell (1859–64)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_105">105</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XVII.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Influence of Darwin upon Hooker and Asa Gray—Natural Selection and Design in Nature (1860–68)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_111">111</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XVIII.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Influence of Darwin upon Huxley</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_119">119</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XIX.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Difficulty with which the “Origin” was Understood</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_144">144</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XX.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">The Difficulty with which the “Origin” was Understood</span> (<i>continued</i>)—<span class="smcap">Views on Spontaneous Generation</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_153">153</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XXI.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Variation Of Animals and Plants Under Domestication: Pangenesis (1868)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_161">161</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XXII.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Pangenesis and Continuity of the Germ-Plasm: Darwin’s Confidence in Pangenesis</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_178">178</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XXIII.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Descent of Man—Expression of Emotions—Earth-Worms (1871–81)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_186">186</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XXIV.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Botanical Works (1862–86)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_193">193</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XXV.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">Letters from Darwin to Professor Meldola (1871–82)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_199">199</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr top">XXVI.—</td> - <td class="tdl"><span class="smcap">His Last Illness (1882)</span></td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_219">219</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdl" colspan="2">INDEX</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#toclink_221">221</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_9" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">9</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak vspace" id="Charles_Darwin"><span class="smcap large">Charles Darwin</span><br /> -<span class="small">AND THE</span><br /> -<span class="larger">THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION.</span></h2> -</div> - -<hr class="narrow" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">THE SECRET OF DARWIN’S GREATNESS.</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Charles Robert Darwin</span> was born at Shrewsbury -on February 12th, 1809, the year which witnessed -the birth of Alfred Tennyson, W. E. Gladstone, and -Abraham Lincoln.</p> - -<p>Oliver Wendell Holmes, born in the same year, -delighted to speak of the good company in which -he came into the world. On January 27th, 1894, -I had the great pleasure of sitting next to him at a -dinner of the Saturday Club in Boston, and he then -spoke of the subject with the same enthusiasm with -which he deals with it in his writings; mentioning -the four distinguished names, and giving a brief -epigrammatic description of each with characteristic -felicity. Dr. Holmes further said that he remembered -with much satisfaction an occasion on which he was -able to correct Darwin on a matter of scientific fact. -He could not remember the details, but we may hope<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">10</span> -for their ultimate recovery, for he said that Darwin -had written a courteous reply accepting the correction.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">HIS FAMILY.</div> - -<p>Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin -(1731–1802), was a man of great genius. He -speculated upon the origin of species, and arrived -at views which were afterwards independently enunciated -by Lamarck. He resembled this great zoologist -in fertility of imagination, and also in the boldness -with which he put forward suggestions, many of -which were crude and entirely untested by an appeal -to facts. The poetical form in which a part of -his work was written was, doubtless, largely due -to the traditions and customs of the age in which -he lived.</p> - -<p>Robert Waring (1766–1848), the father of Charles -Darwin, was the second son of Erasmus. He married -a daughter of the great Josiah Wedgwood. Although -his mother died when he was only eight years old, -and Darwin remembered very little of her, there is -evidence that she directed his attention to Nature -(“Autobiography,” p. 28, footnote). Dr. Darwin followed -his father’s profession, commencing a very -successful medical practice at Shrewsbury before he -was twenty-one. He was a man of great penetration, -especially in the discernment of character—a power -which was of the utmost value to him in his profession. -Dr. Darwin had two sons and four daughters: -Charles was the younger son and fourth child, his -brother Erasmus being the third.</p> - -<p>Even in this mere outline there is evidence of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">11</span> -hereditary genius in the Darwin family—evidence -which becomes irresistible when all available details -of every member of the family are brought together, -as they are in the great “Life and Letters.” When -it is further remembered that two of Charles Darwin’s -sons have achieved distinction as scientific investigators, -it will be admitted that the history of the -family affords a most striking example of hereditary -intellectual power.</p> - -<p>There is nothing in this history to warrant the -belief that the nature and direction of hereditary -genius receive any bias from the line of intellectual -effort pursued by a parent. We recognise the -strongest evidence for hereditary capacity, but none -at all for the transmission of results which follow -the employment of capacity. Thus Erasmus inherited -high intellectual power, with a bias entirely different -from that of his younger brother Charles—his interests -being literary and artistic rather than scientific. -The wide difference between the brothers seems to -have made a great impression upon Charles, for he -<span class="locked">wrote:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Our minds and tastes were, however, so different, that I -do not think I owe much to him intellectually. I am inclined -to agree with Francis Galton in believing that education and -environment produce only a small effect on the mind of anyone, -and that most of our qualities are innate” (“Life and -Letters,” 1887, p. 22).</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">Equally significant is the fact that Professor George -Darwin’s important researches in mathematics have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">12</span> -been applied to astronomy—subjects which were -not pursued by his father.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER AND POWERS.</div> - -<p>It appears probable that Charles Darwin’s unique -power was largely due to the inheritance of the -imagination of his grandfather combined with the -acute observation of his father. Although he possessed -an even larger share of both these qualities than his -predecessors, it is probable that he owed more to -their co-operation than to the high degree of their -development.</p> - -<p>It is a common error to suppose that the intellectual -powers which make the poet or the -historian are essentially different from those which -make the man of science. Powers of observation, -however acute, could never make a scientific discoverer; -for discovery requires the creative effort of -the imagination. The scientific man does not stumble -upon new facts or conclusions by accident; he finds -what he looks for. The problem before him is -essentially similar to that of the historian who tries -to create an accurate and complete picture of an -epoch out of scattered records of contemporary impressions -more or less true, and none wholly true. -Fertility of imagination is absolutely essential for -that step from the less to the more perfectly known -which we call discovery.</p> - -<p>But fertility of imagination alone is insufficient -for the highest achievement in poetry, history, or -science; for in all these subjects the strictest self-criticism -and the soundest judgment are necessary in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">13</span> -order to ensure that the results are an advance in the -direction of the truth. A delicately-adjusted balance -between the powers of imagination and the powers -which hold imagination in check, is essential in the -historian who is to provide us with a picture of a -past age, which explains the mistaken impression -gained by a more or less prejudiced observer who -saw but a small part of it from a limited standpoint, -and has handed down his impression to us. A poem -which sheds new light upon the relation between -mind and mind, requires to be tested and controlled -by constant and correct observation, like a hypothesis -in the domain of the natural sciences.</p> - -<p>It is probable, then, that the secret of Darwin’s -strength lay in the perfect balance between his powers -of imagination and those of accurate observation, the -creative efforts of the one being ever subjected to the -most relentless criticism by the employment of the -other. We shall never know, I have heard Professor -Michael Foster say, the countless hypotheses which -passed through the mind of Darwin, and which, however -wild and improbable, were tested by an appeal -to Nature, and were then dismissed for ever.</p> - -<p>Darwin’s estimate of his own powers is given -with characteristic candour and modesty in the concluding -paragraph of his “Autobiography” (“Life and -Letters,” 1887, p. <span class="locked">107):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Therefore my success as a man of science, whatever this -may have amounted to, has been determined, as far as I can -judge, by complex and diversified mental qualities and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">14</span> -conditions. Of these, the most important have been—the love -of science—unbounded patience in long reflecting over any -subject—industry in observing and collecting facts—and a -fair share of invention as well as of common sense. With -such moderate abilities as I possess, it is truly surprising that -I should have influenced to a considerable extent the belief of -scientific men on some important points.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">We also know from other sources that Darwin looked -upon the creative powers as essential to scientific -progress. Thus he wrote to Wallace in 1857: “I -am a firm believer that without speculation there is -no good and original observation.” He also says in -the “Autobiography”: “I have steadily endeavoured -to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, -however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming -one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to -be opposed to it.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">VALUE OF HYPOTHESIS.</div> - -<p>I have thought it worth while to insist thus -strongly on the high value attached by Darwin to -hypothesis, controlled by observation, in view of -certain recent attacks upon this necessary weapon -for scientific advance. Thus Bateson, in his “Materials -for the Study of Variation” (London, 1894), p. 7, -says: “In the old time the facts of Nature were -beautiful in themselves and needed not the rouge of -speculation to quicken their charm, but that was long -ago before Modern Science was born.” The author -does not specify the period in the history of science -when discovery proceeded without hypothesis. A -study of the earlier volumes of the <i>Philosophical -Transactions</i> reveals a far greater interest in speculation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">15</span> -than in the facts of Nature. We can hardly call -those ages anything but speculative which received -with approval the suggestions that geese were developed -from barnacles which grew upon trees; that -swallows hibernated at the bottom of lakes; that the -Trade-winds were due to the breath of a sea-weed. -Bateson’s statement requires to be reversed in order -to become correct. Modern science differs from the -science of long ago in its greater attention to the -facts of Nature and its more rigid control over the -tendency to hypothesis; although hypothesis remains, -and must ever remain, as the guide and inspirer of -observation and the discovery of fact.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">A</a> Although -Darwin has kindled the imagination of hundreds of -workers, and has thus been the cause of an immense -amount of speculation, science owes him an even -larger debt for the innumerable facts discovered -under the guidance of this faculty.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_16" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">16</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">BOYHOOD—EDINBURGH—CAMBRIDGE (1817–31).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Of</span> Darwin’s boyhood and school-life we only know -the facts given in his brief “Autobiography,” written -when he was sixty-seven, together with those collected -by his son Francis and appended in the form of notes. -He first went to Mr. Case’s day-school in Shrewsbury -in 1817, the year of his mother’s death. At this -time, although only eight years old, his interest in -natural history and in collecting was well established. -“The passion for collecting, which leads a man to be -a systematic naturalist, a virtuoso, or a miser, was -very strong in me, and was clearly innate, as none of -my sisters or brother had this taste.”</p> - -<p>In the following year he went to Dr. Butler’s -school in Shrewsbury, where he remained seven years. -He does not appear to have profited much by the -classical instruction which at that time received -almost exclusive attention. His interest seems to -have been chiefly concentrated upon sport; but -whenever a subject attracted him he worked hard -at it, and it is probable that he would have conveyed -a very different impression of his powers to the -masters and his father if scientific subjects had been -taught, as they are now to a moderate extent in -many schools.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">17</span></p> - -<p>That he was a keen observer for his age is clear -from the fact that, when he was only ten, he was -much interested and surprised to notice that the -insects he found on the Welsh coast were different -from those in Shropshire. His most valuable education -was received out of school hours—collecting, -and working at chemistry with his brother Erasmus, -although this latter study drew down upon him -the rebukes of Dr. Butler for wasting time on such -useless subjects.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">AT EDINBURGH.</div> - -<p>He was removed from school early, and in 1825 -went to Edinburgh to study medicine—a subject for -which he seemed to be unfitted by nature. The -methods of instruction by lectures did not benefit -him; he was disgusted at dissection, and could not -endure to witness an operation. And yet here it was -evident, as it became afterwards at Cambridge, that -Darwin—although seeming to be by no means above -the average when judged by ordinary standards—possessed -in reality a very remarkable and attractive -personality. There can be no other explanation of -the impression he made upon distinguished men who -were much older than himself, and the friendships -he formed with those of his own age who were -afterwards to become eminent.</p> - -<p>Thus at Edinburgh he was well acquainted with -Dr. Grant and Mr. Macgillivray, the curator of the -museum, and worked at marine zoology in company -with the former. Here, too, in 1826, he made his -first scientific discovery, and read a paper before the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">18</span> -Plinian Society, proving that so-called eggs of Flustra -were in reality free-swimming larvæ. And it is -evident from his “Autobiography” that he took -every opportunity of hearing and learning about -scientific subjects.</p> - -<p>Darwin’s love of sport remained as keen as ever -at this period and at Cambridge, and he speaks with -especial enthusiasm of his visits in the autumn to -Maer, the home of his uncle, Josiah Wedgwood, who -afterwards exerted so important an influence upon -his life.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">AT CAMBRIDGE.</div> - -<p>After Darwin had been at Edinburgh for two -sessions, his father realised that he did not like the -thought of the medical profession, and suggested -that he should become a clergyman. With this -intention he was sent to Cambridge in the beginning -of 1828, after spending some months in recovering -the classics he had learnt at school.</p> - -<p>He joined Christ’s College, and passed his final -examination in January, 1831, being tenth in the list -of those who do not seek honours. The immense, -and in many respects disastrous, development of the -competitive examination system since that time has -almost banished from our universities the type of -student represented by Darwin—the man who takes -the easiest road to a degree and obtains it with the -minimum of effort, but who all the time is being -benefited by residence, studying, without any thought -of examinations, the subjects which are of special -interest to him, and seeking personal contact with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">19</span> -older men who have reached the highest eminence -in those subjects.</p> - -<p>He seems to have led a somewhat double life at -Cambridge, his intense love of sport taking him into -a pleasure-loving set, while his intellectual interests -made him the intimate friend of Whitley, who became -Senior Wrangler, and of Professor Henslow, to whom -he was introduced by his second cousin, W. Darwin -Fox, who also first interested him in entomology. He -became so keen a collector of beetles that his successes -and experiences in this direction seem to have -impressed him more deeply than anything else at -Cambridge. Entomology, and especially beetles, form -the chief subject of those of his Cambridge letters -which have been recovered.</p> - -<p>Darwin’s friendship with Henslow, which was to -have a most important effect on his life, very soon -deepened. They often went long walks together, so -that he was called “the man who walks with Henslow.” -This fact and the subsequent rapidly formed -intimacy with Professor Adam Sedgwick, indicate -that he was remarkable among the young men of his -standing.</p> - -<p>One of his undergraduate friends, J. M. Herbert, -afterwards County Court Judge for South Wales, -retained the most vivid recollection of Darwin at -Cambridge, and contributed the following impression -of his character to the “Life and <span class="locked">Letters”:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“It would be idle for me to speak of his vast intellectual -powers ... but I cannot end this cursory and rambling<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">20</span> -sketch without testifying, and I doubt not all his surviving -college friends would concur with me, that he was the most -genial, warm-hearted, generous and affectionate of friends; -that his sympathies were with all that was good and true; -and that he had a cordial hatred for everything false, or vile, -or cruel, or mean, or dishonourable. He was not only great, -but pre-eminently good, and just, and loveable.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Two books greatly influenced Darwin—Herschel’s -“Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy,” -which, he said, “stirred up in me a burning zeal to -add even the most humble contribution to the -noble structure of Natural Science”; and Humboldt’s -“Personal Narrative,” which roused in him the -longing to travel—a desire which was soon afterwards -gratified by his voyage in the <i>Beagle</i>.</p> - -<p>“Upon the whole,” he says, “the three years -which I spent at Cambridge were the most joyful in -my happy life; for I was then in excellent health, -and almost always in high spirits.”</p> - -<p>After passing his last examination, Darwin had -still two terms’ residence to keep, and was advised by -Henslow to study geology. To this end Henslow -asked Sedgwick to allow Darwin to go with him on -a geological excursion in North Wales in August, -1831. He thus gained experience which was of the -utmost value during the voyage of the <i>Beagle</i>.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_21" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">21</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">VOYAGE OF THE “BEAGLE” (1831–36).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">About</span> the time of the excursion with Sedgwick (the -exact date is uncertain) Professor Henslow received -a letter from George Peacock (formerly Dean of Ely -and Lowndean Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge) -stating that he had the offer to recommend a young -man as naturalist to accompany Captain Fitzroy on -a surveying expedition to many parts of the world. -Leonard Jenyns (afterwards Blomefield) was evidently -considered to be the most suitable person -for the position, but he was unable to accept it. -Henslow at once wrote (August 24th, 1831) to Darwin, -and advised him to do his utmost to obtain the -position, and Darwin found the letter waiting for him -on his return home after the geological excursion -with Sedgwick. As his father greatly disliked the -idea, Darwin at once wrote (August 30th) and declined, -and the next day went to Maer to be ready for the -shooting on September 1st. Here, however, his -uncle, Josiah Wedgwood, took a very different view -from that adopted by his father, with the result that -both he and Darwin wrote (August 31st) to Shrewsbury -and reopened the question. Darwin’s letter -shows the most touching deference to his father’s -wishes, and the gravest apprehension lest he should<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">22</span> -be rendered “uncomfortable” or “uneasy” by any -further suggestion as to the possibility of the voyage, -although his father had said, “If you can find any -man of common-sense who advises you to go, I will -give my consent.” We also learn from the “Autobiography” -that his uncle sent for him whilst out -shooting and drove him the thirty miles to Shrewsbury, -in order that they might talk with his father, -who then at once consented. This must have been -on September 1st, 1831.</p> - -<p>From this time until he went to Plymouth, on -October 24th—the final start was not until December -27th—his letters show that he had a very busy time -making purchases and preparing for the voyage. -These letters breathe the warmest affection to the -members of his family and his friends, together with -the keenest enthusiasm for Captain Fitzroy, the ship, -and the voyage.</p> - -<p>The voyage of the <i>Beagle</i> lasted from December -27th, 1831, to October 2nd, 1836. Darwin says that -it was “by far the most important event in my life, -and has determined my whole career.... I have -always felt that I owe to the voyage the first real -training or education of my mind” (<i>l. c.</i>, p. 61). He -attributes the greatest share in this training to -geology, among the special sciences, because of the -reasoning involved in making out the structure of -a new and unknown district; but he considers that -the habits of “energetic industry and of concentrated -attention” which he then acquired were of the utmost<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">23</span> -importance, and the secret of all his success in science. -He tells us that the love of sport was present at first -in all its keenness, but that he gradually abandoned -it for scientific work.</p> - -<p>Among his numerous observations and discoveries -during the voyage, those which appear to stand out -in his mind so that he quotes them in his “Autobiography” -are—the explanation of the forms of coral -islands, the geological structure of St. Helena and -other islands, and the relations between the animals -and plants of the several Galapagos islands to each -other and to those of South America. His letters -and the collections which he sent home attracted -much attention; and Sedgwick told Dr. Darwin that -his son would take a place among the leading scientific -men. When Darwin heard this from his sisters, he -says, “I clambered over the mountains of Ascension -with a bounding step, and made the volcanic rocks -resound under my geological hammer.” His letters -during the voyage are full of enthusiasm and of -longing to return to his family and friends.</p> - -<p>There was the same conflict between the naval -and scientific departments of the <i>Beagle</i> on the untidiness -of the decks which was afterwards repeated on -the <i>Challenger</i>, where I have been told that one of the -naval authorities used to say, with resigned disgust, -“Oh, no, we’re not a man-of-war, we’re only a —— -dredger!”</p> - -<p>In the course of the voyage the following countries -and islands were visited in the order given:—The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">24</span> -Cape de Verde Islands, St. Paul’s Rocks, Fernando -Noronha, South America (including the Galapagos -Archipelago, the Falkland Islands, and Tierra del -Fuego), Tahiti, New Zealand, Australia, Tasmania, -Keeling Island, Maldive Coral Atolls, Mauritius, St. -Helena, Ascension. Brazil was then visited again -for a short time, the <i>Beagle</i> touching at the Cape de -Verde Islands and the Azores on the voyage home.</p> - -<p>Darwin says, concerning the intellectual effect of -his work during the <span class="locked">voyage:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“That my mind became developed through my pursuits -during the voyage is rendered probable by a remark made by -my father, who was the most acute observer whom I ever saw, -of a sceptical disposition, and far from being a believer in -phrenology; for on first seeing me after the voyage he turned -round to my sisters, and exclaimed, ‘Why the shape of his -head is quite altered!’” (<i>l. c.</i>, pp. 63, 64).</p> -</div> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_25" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">25</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">CAMBRIDGE—LONDON—WORK UPON THE COLLECTIONS—MARRIAGE—GEOLOGICAL -WORK—JOURNAL OF THE VOYAGE—CORAL REEFS—FIRST RECORDED -THOUGHTS ON EVOLUTION (1837–42).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Darwin</span> reached England October 2nd, 1836, and -was home at Shrewsbury October 5th (according to -his Letters; the 4th is the date given by Francis -Darwin in the “Life and Letters”). The two years -and three months which followed he describes as -the most active ones he ever spent. After visiting -his family, he stayed three months in Cambridge, -working at his collection of rocks, writing his -“Naturalist’s Voyage,” and one or two scientific -papers. He then (March 7th, 1837) took lodgings -in 36, Great Marlborough Street, London, where he -remained until his marriage, January 29th, 1839. -The apathy of scientific men—even those in charge -of museums—caused him much depression, and he -found great difficulty in getting specialists to work -out his collections, although the botanists seem to -have been keener than the zoologists.</p> - -<p>The commencement of his London residence is of -the deepest interest, as the time at which he began -to reflect seriously on the origin of species. Thus he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">26</span> -says in the “Autobiography”:—“In July I opened -my first note-book for facts in relation to the Origin -of Species, about which I had long reflected, and -never ceased working for the next twenty years.” -Furthermore, his pocket-book for 1837 contained -the words:—“In July opened first note-book on -Transmutation of Species. Had been greatly struck -from about the month of previous March” (he was -then just over twenty-eight years old) “on character -of South American fossils, and species on Galapagos -Archipelago. These facts (especially latter) origin of -all my views.” It is, perhaps, worth while to explain -in greater detail the nature of this evidence which -appealed so strongly to Darwin’s mind. The Edentata -(sloths, ant-eaters, armadilloes, etc.) have their metropolis -in South America, and in the later geological -formations of this country the skeletons of gigantic -extinct animals of the same order (Megatherium, -Mylodon, Glyptodon, etc.) are found; and Darwin -was doubtless all the more impressed by discovering -such remains for himself. In his “Autobiography” -he says: “During the voyage of the <i>Beagle</i> I had -been deeply impressed by discovering in the Pampean -formation great fossil animals covered with armour -like that on existing armadilloes;...”</p> - -<p>Darwin was thus led to conclude that there was -some genetic connection between the animals which -have succeeded each other in the same district; for -in a theory of destructive cataclysms, followed by -re-creations—or, indeed, in any theory of special<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">27</span> -creation—there seemed no adequate reason why the -successive forms should belong to the same order. In -his “Naturalist’s Voyage Round the World” he says, -speaking of this subject: “This wonderful relationship -in the same continent between the dead and the -living will, I do not doubt, hereafter throw more light -on the appearance of organic beings on our earth, and -their disappearance from it, than any other class of -facts” (p. 173 in the third edition).</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE GALAPAGOS.</div> - -<p>The other class of evidence which impressed him -even more strongly was afforded by the relations -between the animals and plants of the several islands -of the Galapagos Archipelago and between those of -the Archipelago and of South America, nearly 600 -miles to the East. Although the inhabitants of the -separate islands show an astonishing amount of -peculiarity, the species are nearly related, and also -exhibit American affinities. Concerning this, Darwin -writes in his “Voyage” (p. 398 in the third edition): -“Reviewing the facts here given, one is -astonished at the amount of creative force—if such -an expression may be used—displayed on these -small, barren, and rocky islands; and still more so -at its diverse and yet analogous action on points so -near each other.” Here, too, the facts were unintelligible -on a theory of separate creation of species, but -were at once explained if we suppose that the inhabitants -were the modified descendants of species -which had migrated from South America—the -migrations to the Archipelago and between the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">28</span> -separate islands being rendered extremely rare from -the depth of the sea, the direction of the currents, -and the absence of gales. In this way time for -specific modification was provided before the partially -modified form could interbreed with the parent -species and thus lose its own newly-acquired -characteristics.</p> - -<p>Although Darwin made these observations on the -<i>Beagle</i>, they required, as Huxley has suggested -(Obituary [1888], “Darwiniana”: Collected Essays, -vol. ii., pp. 274–275. London, 1893), careful and -systematic working out before they could be trusted -as a basis on which to speculate; and this could not -be done until the return home. The following letter -written by Darwin to Dr. Otto Zacharias in 1877 -confirms this opinion. It was sent to Huxley by -Francis Darwin, and is printed in “Darwiniana” -(<i>l. c.</i>, p. <span class="locked">275):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“When I was on board the ‘Beagle,’ I believed in the -permanence of species, but, as far as I can remember, vague -doubts occasionally flitted across my mind. On my return -home in the autumn of 1836, I immediately began to prepare -my journal for publication, and then saw how many facts -indicated the common descent of species, so that in July, 1837, -I opened a note-book to record any facts which might bear on -the question. But I did not become convinced that species -were mutable until I think two or three years had elapsed.”</p> -</div> - -<p>It is interesting to note that both the lines of -evidence which appealed to Darwin so strongly, -point to evolution, but not to any causes of -evolution. The majority of mankind were only convinced<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">29</span> -of this process when some conception as to -its causes had been offered to them; Darwin took -the more logical course of first requiring evidence -that the process takes place, and then inquiring for -its causes.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">EARLY NOTES ON SPECIES.</div> - -<p>The first indication of these thoughts in any of -his published letters is in one to his cousin Fox -written in June, 1838, in which, after alluding to -some questions he had previously asked about the -crossing of animals, he says, “It is my prime hobby, -and I really think some day I shall be able to do -something in that most intricate subject—species -and varieties.”</p> - -<p>He is rather more definite in a letter to Sir -Charles Lyell, written September 13th in the same -<span class="locked">year:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I have lately been sadly tempted to be idle—that is, as far -as pure geology is concerned—by the delightful number of new -views which have been coming in thickly and steadily,—on the -classification and affinities and instincts of animals—bearing on -the question of species. Note-book after note-book has been -filled with facts which begin to group themselves <em>clearly</em> -under sub-laws.”</p> -</div> - -<p>On February 16th, 1838, he was appointed -Secretary of the Geological Society, a position which -he retained until February 1st, 1841. During these -two years after the voyage he saw much of Sir -Charles Lyell, whose teachings had been of the -greatest help to him during the voyage, and whose -method of appealing to natural causes rather than -supernatural cataclysms undoubtedly had a most<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">30</span> -important influence on the development of Darwin’s -mind. This influence he delighted to acknowledge, -dedicating to Lyell the second edition of his -“Voyage,” “as an acknowledgment that the chief -part of whatever scientific merit this ‘Journal’ -and the other works of the author may possess has -been derived from studying the well-known and -admirable ‘Principles of Geology.’”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">EARLY WORKS.</div> - -<p>At this period he finished his “Journal,” which -was published in 1839 as Vol. III. of the “Narrative -of the Surveying Voyages of Her Majesty’s Ships -<i>Adventure</i> and <i>Beagle</i>.” A second edition was published -in a separate form in 1845 as the “Journal of -Researches into the Natural History and Geology of -the Countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. -<i>Beagle</i> round the World, under the command of -Captain Fitz-Roy, R.N.”; and a third edition—but -very slightly altered—in 1860, under the title “A -Naturalist’s Voyage: Journal of Researches, etc.” -This book is generally admitted to deserve above all -others the generous description which Darwin gave -to Sir Joseph Hooker of Belt’s admirable “Naturalist -in Nicaragua”—as “the best of all Natural History -journals which have ever been published.”</p> - -<p>A comparison between the first and second -editions indicates, but by no means expresses, his -growing convictions on evolution and natural selection. -Natural selection he had not discovered when -the MS. of the first edition was complete; and if we -had no further evidence we could not, from any<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">31</span> -passage in the work, maintain that he was convinced -of evolution. His great caution in dealing with so -tremendous a problem explains why the second -edition does not reflect the state of his mind at the -time of its publication. He tells us (“Autobiography”) -that in the preparation of this second edition he -“took much pains,” and we may feel confident that -much of this care was given to the decision as to -how much he should reveal and how much withhold -of the thoughts which were occupying his mind, and -the conclusions to which he had at that time arrived. -That he did attribute much importance to the evolutionary -passages added in the second edition is shown -by his letter to Lyell (July, 1845), in which he alludes -to some of them, and specially asks Lyell to read the -pages on the causes of extinction.</p> - -<p>He also edited and superintended the “Zoology -of the Voyage of H.M.S. <i>Beagle</i>,” the special parts of -which were written by various eminent systematists, -and appeared separately between 1839 and 1843.</p> - -<p>He also read several papers before the Geological -Society, including two (1838 and 1840) on the Formation -of Mould by the Action of Earth-Worms—a -subject to which he returned, and upon which his -last volume (published in 1881) was written. He also -read a paper on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy before -the Royal Society (published in the <i>Phil. Trans.</i>, -1839). These wonderful parallel terraces are now -admitted to be due to the changes of level in a lake -following those of an ice-barrier at the mouth of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">32</span> -the valley. At the time Darwin studied them, the -terraces were believed to have been formed by a lake -dammed back by a barrier of rock and alluvium; -this he proved to be wrong, and as no other barrier -was then available—for the evidences of glaciation -had not then been discovered by Agassiz—he was -driven, on the method of exclusion, to the action of -the sea. Upon this subject he says, in the “Autobiography,” -“My error has been a good lesson to -me never to trust in science to the principle of -exclusion.”</p> - -<p>On January 29th, 1839, he married his cousin, -Emma Wedgwood, the daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, -of Maer. They resided at 12, Upper Gower Street -until September 14th, 1842, when they settled at -Down.</p> - -<p>The few graceful and touching words in which -Francis Darwin, in the “Life and Letters,” alludes to -his father’s married life show how deep is the debt of -gratitude which the world owes to Mrs. Darwin; for -without her constant and loving care it would have -been impossible for Darwin to have accomplished his -life-work.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">ON CORAL REEFS.</div> - -<p>During these years in London his health broke -down many times; so that he says, in the “Autobiography”: -“I did less scientific work, though I -worked as hard as I possibly could, than during any -other equal length of time in my life.” He chiefly -worked at his book on “The Structure and Distribution -of Coral Reefs,” published in 1842 (second<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">33</span> -edition in 1874). This work contains an account of -Darwin’s well-known theory upon the origin of the -various coral formations—fringing reefs, barrier reefs, -and atolls—by the upward growth of the reef keeping -pace with the gradual sinking of the island upon -which it is based, so that the living corals always -remain at the surface under the most favourable -conditions, while beneath them is an ever-thickening -reef formed of dead coral, until at length, by continuing -this process, the climax is reached in the -atoll, in which the original island has altogether -disappeared beneath the surface of a central lagoon -enclosed in a ring formed by the living edge of the -reef. This theory, after being accepted for many -years, has recently been disputed, chiefly as the -result of the observations made on the <i>Challenger</i> -expedition. It is contended by Dr. John Murray -“that it is not necessary to call in subsidence to -explain any of the characteristic features of barrier -reefs or atolls, and that all these features would exist -alike in areas of slow elevation, of rest, or of slow -subsidence” (<cite>Nature</cite>, August 12th, 1880, p. 337). -It cannot be said that this controversy is yet settled, -or that the supporters of either theory have proved -that the other does not hold—at any rate, in certain -cases.</p> - -<p>Among his geological papers written at this time -was one describing the glacial phenomena observed -during a tour in North Wales. This paper (<i>Philosophical -Magazine</i>, 1842, p. 352) is placed by Sir<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">34</span> -Archibald Geikie “almost at the top of the long list -of English contributions to the history of the Ice -Age.”</p> - -<p>At this time, too, he was reflecting and collecting -evidence for the great work of his life. Thus in -January, 1841, he writes to his cousin, Darwin Fox, -asking for “all kinds of facts about ‘Varieties and -Species.’”</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_35" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">35</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">DOWN—GEOLOGY OF THE VOYAGE—WORK ON -CIRRIPEDES (1842–54).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">From</span> September 14th, 1842, until his death, Darwin -resided at Down, living a very retired life, and almost -exclusively engaged in his scientific researches. Although -Down is only twenty miles from London, it -is three miles from the nearest railway station (Orpington), -and is only now for the first time receiving -a telegraph office. A home in such a place enabled -Darwin to pursue his work without interruption, -remaining, at the same time, within easy reach of -all the advantages of London. Here, too, he had -no difficulty in avoiding social engagements, which -always injured his very precarious health, and thus -interfered with work; although, at the same time, -he could entertain in his own house at such times -as he felt able to do so.</p> - -<p>In 1844, and again in 1846, he published works -on the geology of the voyage of the <i>Beagle</i>; the first -on the Volcanic Islands visited, the second on South -America. A second edition, in which both were combined -in a single work, appeared in 1876. He seemed -somewhat disappointed at the small amount of attention -they at first attracted, and wrote with much<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">36</span> -humour to J. M. Herbert:—“I have long discovered -that geologists never read each other’s works, and -that the only object in writing a book is a proof of -earnestness, and that you do not form your opinions -without undergoing labour of some kind.” All geologists -were, nevertheless, soon agreed in attaching the -highest value to these researches.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">ON CIRRIPEDES.</div> - -<p>From this time forward his work was almost -exclusively zoological. The four monographs on the -Cirripedia, recent and fossil, occupied eight years—from -October, 1846, to October, 1854. The works on -the recent forms were published by the Ray Society -(1851 and 1854), and those on the fossil forms by the -Palæontographical Society (1851 and 1854). These -researches grew directly out of his observations on -the <i>Beagle</i>, but it is evident that they reached far -greater dimensions than he had at first intended. -Thus, at the very beginning of the work, he wrote -(October, 1846) to <span class="locked">Hooker:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I am going to begin some papers on the lower marine -animals, which will last me some months, perhaps a year, and -then I shall begin looking over my ten-year-long accumulation -of notes on species and varieties, which, with writing, I -dare say will take me five years, and then, when published, I -dare say I shall stand infinitely low in the opinion of all sound -Naturalists—so this is my prospect for the future.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Darwin himself, at any rate towards the end of -his life, when he wrote his “Autobiography,” doubted -“whether this work was worth the consumption of -so much time,” although admitting that it was of -“considerable value” when he had “to discuss in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">37</span> -the ‘Origin of Species’ the principles of a natural -classification.” Sir Joseph Hooker remembers that -Darwin at an earlier time “recognised three stages -in his career as a biologist: the mere collector at -Cambridge; the collector and observer in the <i>Beagle</i> -and for some years afterwards; and the trained -naturalist after, and only after, the Cirripede work” -(Letter to F. Darwin).</p> - -<p>Professor Huxley considers that just as by Darwin’s -practical experience of physical geography, geology, -etc., on the <i>Beagle</i>, “he knew of his own knowledge -the way in which the raw materials of these branches -of science are acquired, and was, therefore, a most -competent judge of the speculative strain they would -bear,” so his Cirripede work fitted him for his subsequent -speculations upon the deepest biological -problems. “It was a piece of critical self-discipline, -the effect of which manifested itself in everything -your father wrote afterwards, and saved him from -endless errors of detail” (Letter to F. Darwin, “Life -and Letters”). The history of Darwin’s career has -often been used as an argument against those who, -not having passed through a similar training as -regards systematic zoological work, have ventured -to concern themselves with the problems of evolution. -Professor Meldola has recently treated of this subject -in his interesting presidential address to the Entomological -Society (1896). He <span class="locked">says:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“It used formerly to be asserted that he only is worthy of -attention who has done systematic, <i>i.e.</i> taxonomic, work. I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">38</span> -do not know whether this view is still entertained by entomologists; -if so, I feel bound to express my dissent. It has been -pointed out that the great theorisers have all done such work—that -Darwin monographed the Cirripedia, and Huxley the -oceanic Hydrozoa, and it has been said that Wallace’s and -Bates’s contributions in this field have been their biological -salvation. I yield to nobody in my recognition of the value -and importance of taxonomic work, but the possibilities of -biological investigation have developed to such an extent since -Darwin’s time that I do not think this position can any -longer be seriously maintained. It must be borne in mind -that the illustrious author of the ‘Origin of Species’ had -none of the opportunities for systematic training in biology -which any student can now avail himself of. To him the -monographing of the Cirripedia was, as Huxley states in a -communication to Francis Darwin, ‘a piece of critical self-discipline,’ -and there can be no reasonable doubt that this -value of systematic work will be generally conceded. That -this kind of work gives the sole right to speculate at the -present time is, however, quite another point.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">Meldola then goes on to argue that the systematic -work of those who know nothing of the living state -of the species they are describing does not specially -fit them for theorising, and he concludes by quoting -the following passage from a letter recently received -from A. R. <span class="locked">Wallace:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I do not think species-describing is of any special use to -the philosophical generaliser, but I do think the collecting, -naming, and classifying some extensive group of organisms is -of great use, is, in fact, almost essential to any thorough grasp -of the whole subject of the evolution of species through -variation and natural selection. I had described nothing when -I wrote my papers on variation, etc. (except a few fishes and -palms from the Amazon), but I had collected and made out -species very largely and had seen to some extent how curiously -useful and protective their forms and colours often were, and -all this was of great use to me.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">39</span></p> - -<p>Towards the end of this long period of hard -taxonomic labour, we know from Darwin’s letters -that he was extremely tired of the work; but with -marvellous resolution—and in spite of the trouble -of his health, which was perhaps worse than at -any other time—he clung to and carried through -this stupendous task, although all the time attracted -away from it by the weightier problems which he -could never thrust aside after they had once made -their claim upon him.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">ON NAMING SPECIES.</div> - -<p>Darwin was evidently greatly disconcerted at the -task of making out those special difficulties which -man has added to the difficulties of Nature herself—the -disheartening tangle of nomenclature. He thought -that the custom of appending the name of the systematist -after that of the species or genus he had -named was injurious to the interests of science—inducing -men to name quickly rather than describe -accurately. Some of his remarks on this subject -indicate the state of his mind. Thus he wrote to -Hooker, October 6th, <span class="locked">1848:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I have lately been trying to get up an agitation ... -against the practice of Naturalists appending for perpetuity -the name of the <em>first</em> describer to species. I look at this as a -direct premium to hasty work, to <em>naming</em> instead of <em>describing</em>. -A species ought to have a name so well known that the -addition of the author’s name would be superfluous, and ... -empty vanity.... Botany, I fancy, has not suffered so -much as zoology from mere <em>naming</em>; the characters, fortunately, -are more obscure.... Why should Naturalists -append their own names to new species, when Mineralogists -and chemists do not do so to new substances?”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">40</span></p> - -<p>And again he wrote to Hugh Strickland, January -29th, <span class="locked">1849:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“I have come to a fixed opinion that the plan of the first -describer’s name, being appended for perpetuity to a species, -has been the greatest curse to Natural History.... I feel sure -as long as species-mongers have their vanity tickled by seeing -their own names appended to a species, because they miserably -described it in two or three lines, we shall have the same <em>vast</em> -amount of bad work as at present, and which is enough to -dishearten any man who is willing to work out any branch -with care and time.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">And in another letter (February 4th) to the same -<span class="locked">correspondent:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“In mineralogy I have myself found there is no rage to -merely name; a person does not take up the subject without -he intends to work it out, as he knows that his <em>only</em> claim to -merit rests on his work being ably done, and has no relation -whatever to <em>naming</em>.... I do not think more credit is due -to a man for defining a species, than to a carpenter for making -a box. But I am foolish and rabid against species-mongers, or -rather against their vanity; it is useful and necessary work -which must be done; but they act as if they had actually -made the species, and it was their own property.”</p> -</div> - -<p>A little later in the same year (1849) his health -seems to have determined him to give up the crusade, -for he writes to Hooker (April <span class="locked">29th):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“With health and vigour, I would not have shewn a white -feather, [and] with aid of half-a-dozen really good Naturalists, -I believe something might have been done against the -miserable and degrading passion of mere species naming.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Anyone whose researches have been among the -species of any much-worked and much-collected -zoological group will quite agree that synonymy is, as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">41</span> -Darwin found it, heart-breaking work; and although -there may be good reasons why the system of appending -the describer’s name must be retained, such -a protest as that raised in these letters cannot fail to -do good in drawing attention to an abuse which is -only too common, and which introduces unnecessary -difficulty and gratuitous confusion into the study of -Nature.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">DEATH OF HIS FATHER.</div> - -<p>His father, Dr. Darwin, died November 13th, -1848, at the age of eighty-three, when he was so -much out of health that he was unable to attend the -funeral. In 1851 he lost his little daughter Annie, -who died at Malvern, April 23rd. A few days after -her death he wrote a most affecting account of her—a -composition of great beauty and pathos.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_42" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">42</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">THE GROWTH OF THE “ORIGIN OF SPECIES” (1837–58).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">In</span> dealing with this subject in his “Autobiography,” -Darwin tells us of his reflections whilst on the voyage -of the <i>Beagle</i>, and here mentions another observation -which deeply impressed him in addition to those which -he again repeats, on the relation between the living -and the dead in the same area and on the productions -of the Galapagos Archipelago—viz. “the manner in -which closely allied animals replace one another in -proceeding southwards over the continent” (of South -America). On the theory of separate creation the -existence of such representative species received no -explanation, although it became perfectly intelligible -on the theory that a single species may be modified -into distinct, although nearly related, species in the -course of its range over a wide geographical area. -Here, too, the evidence is in favour of evolution simply, -and does not point to any cause of evolution.</p> - -<p>He also implies that even at this time he regarded -the beautiful adaptations or contrivances of nature -by which organisms are fitted to their habits of life—“for -instance, a woodpecker or a tree-frog to climb -trees, or a seed for dispersal by hooks or plumes”—as -the most striking and important phenomena of the -organic world, and the one great difficulty in the path<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">43</span> -of any naturalist who should attempt to supply a motive -force for evolution. And he regarded the previous -attempts at an explanation—the direct action of surroundings -and the will of the organism—as inadequate -because they could not account for such adaptations.</p> - -<p>Therefore being convinced of evolution, but as yet -unprovided with a motive cause which in any way -satisfied him, he began in July, 1837, shortly after his -return home from the <i>Beagle</i>, to collect all facts which -bore upon the modifications which man has induced in -the animals and plants which he has subjugated, following, -as he tells us, the example of Lyell in geology. -He goes on to say in his <span class="locked">“Autobiography”:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I soon perceived that selection was the key-stone of man’s -success in making useful races of animals and plants. But -how selection could be applied to organisms living in a state of -nature remained for some time a mystery to me.”</p> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">COLLECTION OF NOTES.</div> - -<p>We see indications in the extracts from his note-book -at this period (viz. between July, 1837, and -February, 1838), and before he had arrived at the -conception of Natural Selection, that he had the idea -of “laws of change” affecting species to some extent -like the laws of change which compel the individuals -of every species to work out their own development, -the extinction of the one corresponding in a measure -to the death of the other. Thus he says, “It is a wonderful -fact, horse, elephant, and mastodon dying out -about the same time in such different quarters. Will -Mr. Lyell say that some [same?] circumstance killed -it over a tract from Spain to South America?<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">44</span> -Never.” We know that a few months later he would -have himself accepted the view he imputes to Lyell, and -would have regarded the extinction as due to some circumstance -affecting the competition for food or some -other relationship with the organic life of the same -district. It is probable that the above quotation from -his Diary was written in connection with the conclusion -of Chapter IX. of the first edition of the “Journal of -the Voyage” (pp. 211, 212); for the latter is a fuller -exposition of the same argument.<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">B</a></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“One is tempted to believe,” he says, “in such simple relations, -as variation of climate and food, or introduction of -enemies, or the increased numbers of other species, as the cause -of the succession of races. But it may be asked whether it is -probable that [“than” is an evident misprint in the original] any -such cause should have been in action during the same epoch -over the whole northern hemisphere, so as to destroy the -<i>Elephas primigenius</i> on the shores of Spain, on the plains of -Siberia, and in Northern America.... These cases of -extinction forcibly recall the idea (I do not wish to draw any -close analogy) of certain fruit-trees, which, it has been asserted, -though grafted on young stems, planted in varied situations, -and fertilized by the richest manures, yet at one period have -all withered away and perished. A fixed and determined length -of life has in such cases been given to thousands and thousands -of buds (or individual germs), although produced in long -succession.”</p> -</div> - -<p>He then concludes that the animals of one species, -although “each individual appears nearly independent -of its kind,” may be bound together by common laws.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">45</span> -He ends by arguing that the adaptations of animals -confined to certain areas cannot be related to the -peculiarities of climate or country, because other -animals introduced by man are often so much more -successful than the aborigines. As to the causes of -extinction, “all that at present can be said with certainty -is that, as with the individual, so with the -species, the hour of life has run its course, and is -spent.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">EARLY VIEWS.</div> - -<p>At this time he had the conception—as we see in -the succeeding extracts from his Diary—of species -being so constituted that they must give rise to other -species; or, if not, that they must die out, just as an -individual dies unrepresented if it has no offspring; -that change—and evidently change in some fixed -direction—or extinction, is inevitable in the history -of a species after a certain period of time. With this -view, which presented much resemblance to that of -the author of the “Vestiges,” and which seemed uppermost -in his mind at this time, there are traces of others. -Thus in one extract the “wish of parents” was thought -of as a very doubtful explanation of adaptation, while -in another we meet a tolerably clear indication of -natural selection, a variety which is not well adapted -being doomed to extinction, while a favourable one -is perpetuated, the death of a species being regarded -as “a consequence ... of non-adaptation of circumstances.”</p> - -<p>It seems certain that for fifteen months after -July, 1837, he was keenly considering the various<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">46</span> -causes of evolution which were suggested to him by -the facts of nature, and that some general idea of -natural selection presented itself to him at times, -although without any of the force and importance -it assumed in his mind at a later time.</p> - -<p>In October, 1838, he read “Malthus on Population,” -and as he <span class="locked">says:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for -existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued -observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once -struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations -would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be -destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new -species. Here then I had a theory by which to work.”</p> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">SKETCH OF THE “ORIGIN.”</div> - -<p class="in0">In June, 1842, he wrote a brief account of the theory, -occupying thirty-five pages. In Lyell’s and Hooker’s -introduction to the joint paper by Darwin and -Wallace in the Linnean Society’s Journal (1858) it -is stated that the first sketch was made in 1839, but -Francis Darwin shows (“Life and Letters,” 1887, -Vol. II. pp. 11, 12) that in all probability this is an -error—a note of Darwin’s referring to the first complete -grasp of the theory after reading Malthus, being -mistaken for a reference to the first written account.</p> - -<p>In 1844 the sketch was enlarged to a written -essay occupying 231 pages folio—“a surprisingly -complete presentation of the argument afterwards -familiar to us in the ‘Origin of Species’” published -fifteen years later. Professor Huxley, after reading -this essay, observed that “much more weight is -attached to the influence of external conditions in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">47</span> -producing variation, and to the inheritance of acquired -habits than in the ‘Origin,’” while Professor Newton -pointed out that the remarks on the migration of -birds anticipate the views of later writers.<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">C</a></p> - -<p>The explanation of divergence of species during -modification (divergence of character) had not then -occurred to him, and he tells us in the <span class="locked">“Autobiography”:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my -carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me; and -this was long after I had come to Down. The solution, as I -believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominant and -increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highly -diversified places in the economy of nature.”</p> -</div> - -<p>A good example of this tendency is seen in -the relations of three great vertebrate classes—mammals, -birds, and fishes—to the environments -for which they are respectively fitted: earth, air, -and water. Competition is most severe between -forms most nearly alike, and hence some measure -of relief from competition is afforded when certain -members of each of these classes enter the domain -of one of the others. Hence, we observe that although -mammals as a whole are terrestrial, a small minority -are aërial and aquatic; although birds are aërial, a -minority are terrestrial and aquatic; although fishes -are aquatic, a minority tend to be, at any rate largely, -terrestrial and aërial.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">48</span></p> - -<p>Huxley considered it “curious that so much -importance should be attached to this supplementary -idea. It seems obvious that the theory of the origin -of species by natural selection necessarily involves the -divergence of the forms selected” (“Obituary,” 1888, -reprinted in “Darwiniana,” 1893; see pp. 280, 281). -But Darwin showed that divergence might be a great -advantage in itself, and would then be directly (and -not merely incidentally and indirectly) encouraged -and increased by natural selection.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">RESOLVE TO PUBLISH.</div> - -<p>As soon as the 1844 sketch was finished, Darwin -wrote a letter (July 5th) as his “solemn and last -request” that his wife would, in the case of his -death, devote £400, or if necessary £500, in publishing -it, and would take trouble in promoting it. He suggests -Lyell as the best editor, then Edward Forbes, then -Henslow (“quite the best in many respects”), then -Hooker (“would be <em>very</em> good”), then Strickland. -After Strickland he had thought of Owen as “very -good,” but added, “I presume he would not undertake -such a work.” If no editor could be obtained, -he requested that the essay should be published as -it was—stating that it was not intended for publication -in its present form. In August, 1854, he wrote -on the back of the letter: “Hooker by far best man -to edit my Species volume.”</p> - -<p>All this shows how certain he felt that he -was on firm ground, and that his theory of -natural selection was of vast importance to science. -This same strong conviction appears clearly in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">49</span> -first edition of the “Origin,” and is undoubtedly one -of the secrets of its power to move the minds of men. -Although the author is above all others fair-minded; -although he is most keen to discover and to bring -forward all opposing evidence, and to criticise most -minutely everything favourable; nevertheless, looking -at the evidence as a whole, he has no doubt as to -its bearing, and feels, and shows that he feels, a -magnificent confidence in the truth and the importance -of his theory.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_50" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">50</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">GROWTH OF THE “ORIGIN” (<i>continued</i>)—CORRESPONDENCE -WITH FRIENDS.</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">The</span> great periods of Darwin’s scientific career are -marked by intimate friendships, which must be -taken into account in attempting to trace his mental -development. Henslow was his intimate friend at -Cambridge and during the voyage of the <i>Beagle</i>. -The influence of Lyell, through his writings, was of -the utmost importance during the voyage, and was -deepened by the close personal contact which took -place on Darwin’s return. Sir Joseph Hooker was -his most intimate friend during the growth of the -“Origin of Species.”</p> - -<p>Although Hooker met Darwin in 1839, their -friendship did not begin until four years later, when -the former returned from the Antarctic Expedition. -On January 11th, 1844, Darwin wrote admitting his -conclusions on the question of evolution:—“At last -gleams of light have come,” he says, “and I am -almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I -started with) that species are not (it is like confessing -a murder) immutable” (“Life and Letters,” -Vol. II. p. 23).</p> - -<div class="sidenote">INQUIRIES AND EXPERIMENTS.</div> - -<p>From this point onwards his letters, especially to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">51</span> -Hooker, indicate the course he was following and the -various problems he was considering as they arose. -Thus we find that he had finished reading Wollaston’s -“Insecta Maderensia” in 1855 (writing March 7th), -and had been struck with the very large proportion -of wingless beetles, and had interpreted the observation, -viz. “that powers of flight would be -injurious to insects inhabiting a confined locality, -and expose them to be blown to the sea.” It is of -great interest thus to witness the origin of a theory -which has since been universally accepted, and -has received confirmation from many parts of the -world.</p> - -<p>On April 11th of the same year he is experimenting -on the powers of resistance to immersion in salt -water possessed by seeds, and he writes an account of -it to Hooker. The object of these experiments was -to throw light on the means by which plants have -been transported to islands.</p> - -<p>In the same year began his correspondence with -Asa Gray, who soon became one of his warmest -friends. He had numerous questions to ask about -the geographical range of plants, and in 1857 he -wrote explaining in some detail the views at which -he had arrived as to the causes of evolution.</p> - -<p>My friend Rowland H. Wedgwood, a nephew of -Darwin, has given me the following interesting -letter to his father, which was written, he believes, -probably before 1855. By kind permission, it is here -published for the first time. The letter is of great<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">52</span> -interest, as throwing light upon his work, and also -because of this early reference to <span class="locked">Huxley:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="sigright">“Down, <i>Sept. 5</i>.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Harry</span>,—I am very much obliged for the -Columbine seed and for your note which made us laugh -heartily.</p> - -<p>“I had no idea what trouble the counting must have been, -I had not the least conception that there would have been so -many pods. I am very much interested on this point, and -therefore to make assurance sure, I repeat your figures viz. -560 and 742 pods on two plants and 7200 on another. Does -the latter number really mean pods and not seeds? Upon -my life I am sorry to give so much trouble, but I should be -<span class="allsmcap">VERY MUCH</span> obliged for a few <em>average</em> size pods, put up -separately that I may count the seeds in each pod: for -though I counted the seeds in the pods sent before, I hardly -dare trust them without counting more. Moreover I sadly -want more seed itself for one of my experiments.</p> - -<p>“The young cabbages are coming up already. Thank you -much about the asparagus seeds; as it is so rare a plant, you -are my only chance.</p> - -<p>“We have been grieved to hear about poor Anne and -Tom.—Your affect<sup>te</sup> screw</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -“<span class="smcap">C. Darwin.</span> -</p> - -<p>“Have you been acquainted with Mr. Huxley; I think -you would find him a pleasant acquaintance. He is a very -clever man.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Mr. Francis Darwin believes that the asparagus -and cabbage seeds were for the experiments to determine -the time during which immersion in salt water -could be endured. The object of such experiments -was to throw light on the means by which plants are -distributed over the earth’s surface. He also informs -me that the use of the word “screw” is unique and -incomprehensible.</p> - -<p>Darwin tells us in the “Autobiography” that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">53</span> -“early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my -views pretty fully, and I began at once to do so on a -scale three or four times as extensive as that which -was afterwards followed in my ‘Origin of Species.’” -This work he began on May 14th, and, after working -steadily until June, 1858, had written about half the -book, in ten chapters, when he received the celebrated -letter from Wallace, which altered everything.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">ON THE “ATLANTIS” THEORY.</div> - -<p>At this period we get interesting evidence of his -extraordinary insight in the strong protests he makes -against the Atlantis hypothesis of Edward Forbes, -and the other vast continental extensions which -naturalists did not hesitate to make in order to -explain the existence of species common to countries -separated by wide tracts of the ocean. These lost -continents were as generally accepted as they were -freely proposed. And yet we find that, even then, -one thinker far ahead of his time saw clearly enough—as -the <i>Challenger</i> Expedition twenty years later -proved beyond all doubt—that the geological evidence -is against such extension, and that the means -of distribution possessed by animals are such as to -render the supposition unnecessary.</p> - -<p>In June, 1856, he writes to Lyell: “My blood gets -hot with passion and turns cold alternately at the -geological strides, which many of your disciples are -taking”; and after mentioning the extension of -continents proposed by many leading naturalists, he -says: “If you do not stop this, if there be a lower -region for the punishment of geologists, I believe, my<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">54</span> -great master, you will go there. Why, your disciples -in a slow and creeping manner beat all the old -Catastrophists who ever lived! You will live to be -the great chief of the Catastrophists.” Lyell wrote -disagreeing on the subject of continental extension; -and hence, on June 25th, 1856, Darwin replied in a -long letter, giving in detail his reasons for rejecting -the hypothesis. He argued (1) that the supposed extension -of continents and fusion of islands would be -vast changes, giving the earth a new aspect, but that -recent and tertiary molluscs, etc., are distinct on -opposite sides of the existing continents; so that, -although he did not doubt <em>great</em> changes of level -in parts of continents, he concluded that “<em>fundamentally</em> -they stood as barriers to the sea where -they now stand” ever since the appearance of living -species; (2) that if a continent were nearly submerged, -the last remaining peaks would by no means -always be volcanic, as are, almost without exception, -the oceanic islands; (3) that the amount of subsidence -which took place in continental areas during -the Silurian and Carboniferous periods—viz. during -one tolerably uniform set of beings—would not be -enough to account for the depth of the ocean over -some parts of the site of the supposed submerged -continents; (4) that the supposed extensions are -not consistent with the <em>absence</em> of many groups of -animals—<i>e.g.</i> mammals, frogs, etc.—from islands.</p> - -<p>These arguments did not convince Lyell; and they -have only received an almost universal acceptance<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">55</span> -after the confirmatory evidence afforded by the -voyage of the <i>Challenger</i>. Dredgings over many -parts of the ocean showed that all the continental -deposits are collected on a fringing shelf not more -than 200 miles wide, and that beyond this in the -ocean bed proper an entirely different kind of deposit -is accumulating, composed of the shells, bones, and -teeth of swimming or floating organisms, or the -products of their decomposition, of volcanic and -cosmic dust, and the products—<i>e.g.</i> manganese dioxide—of -the decomposition of these and of floating -pumice. Hence, the depths of the ocean afford no -indications of a lost continental area, but are covered -by a peculiar deposit unknown among the rocks of -continents which were formed in comparatively -shallow water round and not far from coasts, or in -land-locked or nearly land-locked seas like the -Mediterranean.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">EARLY CORRESPONDENCE.</div> - -<p>On July 20th, 1856, he wrote to Asa Gray, giving -some account of his views, and stating his belief in -evolution, but only hinting at natural selection.</p> - -<p>About this time we meet with evidence of the -great difficulty with which Darwin’s ideas were -thoroughly understood, even by his intimate friends, -to whom he often wrote on the subject. Later on, -when the “Origin of Species” was published, although -the arguments in favour of natural selection -were given in considerable detail, many years passed -before the theory itself was understood by the -great body of naturalists. This particular case of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">56</span> -misunderstanding is of such great interest that it -is desirable to consider it in detail.</p> - -<p>In the origin of new species by natural selection, -the stress of competition determines the survival -of favourable individual variations, and these, when -by the continued operation of the process they have -become constant, are added to those pre-existing -characters of the species which are inherited from -a remote past, and are witnesses of the operation of -natural selection from age to age under ever-changing -conditions of competition and variation. It follows, -therefore, that the origin of a species can only take -place once; for it is infinitely improbable that the -same variation would be independently submitted -under the same conditions of competition, and added -to the mass of inherited characters independently -gained in two distinct lines by natural selection -acting in the same manner upon the same variations -in the same order through all ages. Not only is -it inconceivable that the same species could arise by -natural selection from distinct lines of ancestry, but -it is extremely improbable that the same species -could arise independently in more than one centre -among the individuals of a changing species; for in -this case, too, it is most unlikely that the same -conditions of competition would co-exist with the -same favourable variations in the areas inhabited -by independent colonies of the same species.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">EARLY CRITICISM.</div> - -<p>Under other theories of evolution—direct action -of environment, supposed inherited effects of use and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">57</span> -disuse, etc.—an independent origin, even from quite -distinct lines, would be probable; and we find, -accordingly, that those who would advance such -theories believe in what is called the “polyphyletic” -origin of species (<i>e.g.</i> the horse), and in the principle -of “convergence” carried far enough to produce the -same complex character (<i>e.g.</i> vertebrate teeth) twice -over without any genetic connection between the -forms in which the character appears.</p> - -<p>Under natural selection, however, such a result -would be infinitely improbable, and hence this theory -strongly supports, and indeed explains, the theory -of “specific centres,” viz. that each species has arisen -in one area only, and has spread from that into the -other areas over which it now occurs. This view was -strongly held by Lyell and Hooker after an exhaustive -study of the facts then known as to the -geographical distribution of plants and animals; and -yet both of these distinguished naturalists seem to -have feared that Darwin, in advancing a theory -which was entirely consistent with their convictions -and utterly inconsistent with any other views upon -the same subject, was in some way undermining -the conclusions at which they had arrived.</p> - -<p>Thus Lyell wrote (July 25th, 1856) to <span class="locked">Hooker:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I fear much that if Darwin argues that species are -phantoms, he will also have to admit that single centres of -dispersion are phantoms also, and that would deprive me of -much of the value which I ascribe to the present provinces -of animals and plants, as illustrating modern and tertiary -changes in physical geography.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">58</span></p> - -<p class="in0">And on August 5th of the same year Darwin replied -to Hooker, who had apparently argued that the origin -of species by direct action of climate, etc., would mean -independent and multiple specific <span class="locked">centres:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I see from your remarks that you do not understand my -notions (whether or no worth anything) about modification; -I attribute very little to the direct action of climate, etc. I -suppose, in regard to specific centres, we are at cross purposes; -I should call the kitchen garden in which the red cabbage -was produced, or the farm in which Bakewell made the -Shorthorn cattle, the specific centre of these <em>species</em>! And -surely this is centralisation enough!”</p> -</div> - -<p>As I have argued above, Darwin was all the time -affording the strongest support to the theory of -specific centres: support which was entirely wanting -in the theory of separate creation, in which the origin -of each species is wrapped in mystery, so that we can -form no opinion as to whether it took place at one -centre or at many.</p> - -<p>At this time, when the views set forth in the -“Origin” were gaining shape and expression, we -cannot estimate too highly the value of the correspondence -with Hooker. In after years, when the -“Origin” had to stand the fire of adverse criticism, -and at first of very general disapproval, it was of -inestimable advantage that every idea contained in -it should have been minutely discussed beforehand -with one who was more critical and more learned -than the greatest of those who afterwards objected. -Darwin tells us in his <span class="locked">“Autobiography”:—</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">59</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I think that I can say with truth that in after years, -though I cared in the highest degree for the approbation of -such men as Lyell and Hooker, who were my friends, I did -not care much about the general public.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">But, although Darwin cared nothing for it, it is -nevertheless true that the approbation of minds such -as these was a sure indication of the general approbation -of the intellect of the country, and of the -world, which was to follow as soon as the new ideas -were absorbed.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">VALUE OF THE DISCUSSION.</div> - -<p>And the value which Darwin himself placed on -these discussions appears again and again in his -letters. To take a single example, he writes to -Hooker November 23rd, <span class="locked">1856:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I fear I shall weary you with letters, but do not answer -this, for in truth and without flattery, I so value your letters, -that after a heavy batch, as of late, I feel that I have been -extravagant and have drawn too much money, and shall -therefore have to stint myself on another occasion.”</p> -</div> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_60" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">60</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">DARWIN AND WALLACE (1858).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">The</span> history of Darwin’s friendship with Alfred -Russel Wallace is of quite unique interest, being -brought about by the fact that both naturalists saw -in evolution and its causes the great questions of the -immediate future, and by the agreement in the -interpretations which they independently offered. -Wallace was collecting and observing in the Malay -Archipelago, and wrote to Darwin as the one man -most likely to sympathise with and understand his -views and to offer valuable criticism.</p> - -<p>In the “Annals and Magazine of Natural History” -for 1855, Wallace published a paper “On the Law -that has Regulated the Introduction of New -Species,” and in this and a letter written from the -Malay Archipelago Darwin recognised the similarity -of their views, although the completeness of this -agreement was to be brought before him with -startling force a year after his sympathetic reply, -written May 1st, 1857. He then <span class="locked">wrote:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“By your letter and even still more by your paper in the -Annals, a year or more ago, I can plainly see that we have -thought much alike and to a certain extent have come to -similar conclusions. In regard to the Paper in the Annals, -I agree to the truth of almost every word of your paper; and -I dare say that you will agree with me that it is very rare to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">61</span> -find oneself agreeing pretty closely with any theoretical paper; -for it is lamentable how each man draws his own different -conclusions from the very same facts.”</p> -</div> - -<p>On December 22nd he replied to another letter -from Wallace, again expressing agreement with all -his conclusions except that upon the supposed continental -extension to oceanic islands, on which, -alluding to his previous discussion, he <span class="locked">says:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“You will be glad to hear that neither Lyell nor Hooker -thought much of my arguments. Nevertheless, for once in my -life, I dare withstand the almost preternatural sagacity of -Lyell.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">And he concludes with the <span class="locked">wish—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“May all your theories succeed, except that on Oceanic -Islands, on which subject I will do battle to the death.”</p> -</div> - -<p>He also said, as regards Wallace’s conclusions: “I -believe I go much further than you; but it is too -long a subject to enter on my speculative notions.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">WALLACE’S ESSAY.</div> - -<p>Finally, on June 18th, 1858, Darwin received from -Wallace a manuscript essay bearing the title “On the -Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the -Original Type.” Upon this essay he wanted Darwin’s -opinion, and asked him, if he thought well of it, to -forward it to Lyell. Darwin was startled to find in -the essay a complete account of his own views. That -very day he wrote to Lyell, enclosing the essay. In -the letter he <span class="locked">said:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Your words have come true with a vengeance—that I -should be forestalled. You said this, when I explained to you -here very briefly my views of ‘Natural Selection’ depending<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">62</span> -on the struggle for existence. I never saw a more striking -coincidence; if Wallace had my MS. sketch written out in -1842, he could not have made a better short abstract! Even -his terms now stand as heads of my chapters.”</p> -</div> - -<p>A few days later (June 25th) he again wrote to -Lyell, <span class="locked">saying—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I should be extremely glad now to publish a sketch of my -general views in about a dozen pages or so; but I cannot -persuade myself that I can do so honourably. Wallace says -nothing about publication, and I enclose his letter. But as -I had not intended to publish any sketch, can I do so -honourably, because Wallace has sent me an outline of his -doctrine? I would far rather burn my whole book, than that -he or any other man should think that I had behaved in a -paltry spirit.”</p> -</div> - -<p>He also asked Lyell to send the letter on to -Hooker, “for then I shall have the opinion of my two -best and kindest friends.” He was so much distressed -at the idea of being unfair to Wallace that he -wrote again the next day to put the case against -himself in an even stronger light. This must have -been one of the most trying times in Darwin’s life, -for, in addition to the cause of trouble and perplexity -described above, one of his children died of scarlet -fever, and there was the gravest fear lest the others -should be attacked.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">BOTH ESSAYS PUBLISHED.</div> - -<p>Thus appealed to, Lyell and Hooker took an -extremely wise and fair course. They asked Darwin -for an abstract of his work, and, accepting the whole -responsibility, communicated it and Wallace’s essay -in a joint paper to the Linnean Society, giving an -account of the circumstances of the case in a preface,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">63</span> -which took the form of a letter to the Secretary of -the Society. In this letter they introduced to the -Society “the results of the investigations of the -indefatigable naturalists, Mr. Charles Darwin and -Mr. Alfred Wallace.”</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“These gentlemen having, independently and unknown to -one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to -account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and -of specific forms on our planet, may both fairly claim the -merit of being original thinkers in this important line of -enquiry; but neither of them having published his views, -though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly -urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly -placed their papers in our hands, we think it would -best promote the interests of science that a selection from -them should be laid before the Linnean Society.”</p> -</div> - -<p>After giving a list of these selections, they say of -Wallace’s <span class="locked">essay—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“This was written at Ternate<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">D</a> in February, 1858, for the -perusal of his friend and correspondent Mr. Darwin, and sent -to him with the expressed wish that it should be forwarded to -Sir Charles Lyell, if Mr. Darwin thought it sufficiently novel -and interesting. So highly did Mr. Darwin appreciate the -value of the views therein set forth, that he proposed, in a -letter to Sir Charles Lyell, to obtain Mr. Wallace’s consent to -allow the Essay to be published as soon as possible. Of this -step we highly approved, provided Mr. Darwin did not withhold -from the public, as he was strongly inclined to do (in -favour of Mr. Wallace), the memoir which he had himself -written on the same subject, and which, as before stated, one -of us had perused in 1844, and the contents of which we had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">64</span> -both of us been privy to for many years. On representing -this to Mr. Darwin, he gave us permission to make what use -we thought proper of his memoir, &c.; and in adopting our -present course, of presenting it to the Linnean Society, we -have explained to him that we are not solely considering the -relative claims to priority of himself and his friend, but the -interests of science generally; for we feel it to be desirable -that views founded on a wide deduction from facts, and -matured by years of reflection, should constitute at once a -goal from which others may start, and that, while the scientific -world is waiting for the appearance of Mr. Darwin’s complete -work, some of the leading results of his labours, as well as -those of his able correspondent, should together be laid before -the public.”</p> -</div> - -<p>The title of the joint paper was “On the Tendency -of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation -of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.” -It was read July 1st, 1858.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_65" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">65</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IX">CHAPTER IX.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">DARWIN’S SECTION OF THE JOINT MEMOIR READ -BEFORE THE LINNEAN SOCIETY JULY 1, 1858.</span></h2> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">FIRST PUBLISHED ESSAY.</div> - -<p>The first section of Darwin’s communication consisted -of extracts from the Second Chapter of the First -Part of his manuscript essay of 1844. The Part was -entitled “The Variation of Organic Beings under -Domestication, and in their Natural State,” and the -Second Chapter was headed “On the Variation of -Organic Beings in a State of Nature; on the Natural -Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic -Races and True Species.” The extracts first deal -with the tendency towards rapid multiplication and -the consequent struggle for life. The average constancy -of the numbers of individuals is traced to the average -constancy of the amount of food, “whereas the -increase of all organisms tends to be geometrical.” -Practical illustrations are given in the enormous -increase of the mice in La Plata during the drought -which killed millions of cattle, and in the well-known -and rapid increase of the animals and plants introduced -by man into a new and favourable country.</p> - -<p>The checks which operate when the country is -stocked and the species reaches its average are most -difficult to detect, but none the less certain. If any -check is lightened in the case of any organism it will<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">66</span> -at once tend to increase. “Nature may be compared -to a surface on which rest ten thousand sharp wedges -touching each other and driven inward by incessant -blows.” Darwin meant by this image to express -that just as any single wedge would instantly rise -above the rest when the blows on it were in any -way lessened as compared with those on the other -wedges, so it would be with the proportionate number -of any species when the checks to which it is subjected -are in any way relaxed.</p> - -<p>If the external conditions alter, and the changes -continue progressing, the inhabitants will be less well -adapted than formerly. The changed conditions -would act on the reproductive system and render the -organisation plastic. Now, can it be doubted, from -the struggle each individual has to obtain subsistence, -that any minute variation in structure, habits, or -instincts adapting that individual better to the new -conditions would tell upon its vigour and health? -“Yearly more are bred than can survive; the smallest -grain in the balance, in the long run, must tell on -which death shall fall, and which shall survive.” If -this went on for a thousand generations who will deny -its effect “when we remember what, in a few years, -Bakewell effected in cattle, and Western in sheep, by -this identical principle of selection?”</p> - -<p>He gives an imaginary example of a canine animal -preying on rabbits and hares. If the rabbits, constituting -its chief food, gradually became rarer, -and the hares more plentiful, the animal would be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">67</span> -driven to try and catch more hares, and hence would -be selected in the direction of speed and sharp eyesight. -“I can see no more reason to doubt that these -cases in a thousand generations would produce a -marked effect, and adapt the form of the fox or dog -to the catching of hares instead of rabbits, than that -greyhounds can be improved by selection and careful -breeding.” So also with plants having seeds with -rather more down, leading to wider dissemination. -Darwin here added this note: “I can see no more -difficulty in this, than in the planter improving his -varieties of the cotton plant. C. D. 1858.”</p> - -<p>Then follows a brief sketch of sexual selection and -a comparison with natural selection, and the conclusion -is reached—“this kind of selection, however, -is less vigorous than the other; it does not require -the death of the less successful, but gives to them -fewer descendants. The struggle falls, moreover, at a -time of year when food is generally abundant, and -perhaps the effect chiefly produced would be the -modification of the secondary sexual characters, -which are not related to the power of obtaining food, -or to defence from enemies, but to fighting with or -rivalling other males.”</p> - -<p>The second section was entitled “Abstract of a -Letter from C. Darwin, Esq., to Professor Asa Gray, -Boston, U.S., dated Down, September 5th, 1857.” To -this letter Darwin attached great importance as a -convenient and brief account of the essentials of his -theory, written and sent to Asa Gray many months<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">68</span> -before he received Wallace’s essay. A tolerably full -abstract of the letter, which is itself a very brief -abstract, is therefore printed below. The epitome -here given is taken from the letter itself, and is in -certain respects more full than that published in the -Linnean Journal.</p> - -<p>In the introductory parts Darwin explained that -“the facts which kept me longest scientifically -orthodox are those of adaptation—the pollen-masses -in asclepias—the mistletoe, with its pollen carried by -insects, and seed by birds—the woodpecker, with its -feet and tail, beak and tongue, to climb the tree and -secure insects. To talk of climate or Lamarckian -habit producing such adaptations to other organic -beings is futile. This difficulty I believe I have -surmounted.” Having then stated that the reasons -which induced him to accept evolution were “general -facts in the affinities, embryology, rudimentary organs, -geological history, and geographical distribution of -organic beings,” he proceeds to give a brief account -of his “notions on the means by which Nature -makes her species.” The following is an abstract of -the account he <span class="locked">gives:—</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">SUMMARY OF THE ESSAY.</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>I. The success with which selection has been applied by -man in making his breeds of domestic animals and plants: -and this even in ancient times when the selection was unconscious, -viz. when breeding was not thought of, but the most -useful animals and plants were kept and the others destroyed. -“Selection acts only by the accumulation of very slight or -greater variations,” and man in thus accumulating “<em>may be -said</em> to make the wool of one sheep good for carpets, and -another for cloth, &c.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">69</span></p> - -<p>II. Slight variations of all parts of the organism occur in -nature, and if a being could select with reference to the whole -structure, what changes might he not effect in the almost -unlimited time of which geology assures us.</p> - -<p>III. Animals increase so fast that, but for extermination, -the earth would not hold the progeny of even the slowest -breeding animal. Only a few in each generation can live; hence -the struggle for life, which has never yet been sufficiently -appreciated. “What a trifling difference must often determine -which shall survive and which perish!” Thus is supplied the -“unerring power” of “<em>Natural Selection</em> ... which selects -exclusively for the good of each organic being.”</p> - -<p>IV. If a country were changing the altered conditions -would tend to cause variation, “not but what I believe most -beings vary at all times enough for selection to act on.” -Extermination would expose the remainder to “the mutual -action of a different set of inhabitants, which I believe to be -more important to the life of each being than mere climate.” -In the infinite complexity of the struggle for life “I cannot -doubt that during millions of generations individuals of a -species will be born with some slight variation profitable to -some part of its economy; such will have a better chance of -surviving and propagating this variation, which again will -be slowly increased by the accumulative action of natural -selection; and the variety thus formed will either coexist with, -or more commonly will exterminate its parent form.” Thus -complex adaptations like those of woodpecker or mistletoe may -be produced.</p> - -<p>V. Numerous difficulties can be answered satisfactorily -in time. The supposed changes are only very gradual, and very -slow, “only a few undergoing change at any one time.” The -imperfection of the geological record accounts for deficient -direct evidence of change.</p> - -<p>VI. Divergence during evolution will be an advantage. -“The same spot will support more life if occupied by very -diverse forms.” Hence during the increase of species into its -offspring—varieties, or sub-species, or true species, the latter -“will try (only few will succeed) to seize on as many and as -diverse places in the economy of nature as possible,” and so<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">70</span> -will tend to “exterminate its less well-fitted parent.” This -explains classification, in which the organic beings “always -<em>seem</em> to branch and sub-branch like a tree from a common -trunk; the flourishing twigs destroying the less vigorous—the -dead and lost branches rudely representing extinct genera -and families.”</p> -</div> - -<p>In a postscript he <span class="locked">says:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“This little abstract touches only the accumulative power -of natural selection, which I look at as by far the most important -element in the production of new forms. The laws -governing the incipient or primordial variation (unimportant -except as the groundwork for selection to act on, in which -respect it is all important), I shall discuss under several heads, -but I can come, as you may well believe, only to very partial -and imperfect conclusions.”</p> -</div> - -<p>It is, I think, of especial interest to find Darwin -at this early period arguing in a most convincing -manner for the creative power of natural selection. -The selective power becomes, by accumulation, of -such paramount importance in the process, as compared -with the variations, that, although these latter -are absolutely essential, man may be said to <em>make</em> -his domestic breeds and Nature her species. The -man who argued thus had been through and had -left behind the difficulty that, even now, is often -raised—that “before anything can be selected it -must be,” and therefore that selection is of small -account as compared with variation.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_71" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">71</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_X">CHAPTER X.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">WALLACE’S SECTION OF THE JOINT MEMOIR READ -BEFORE THE LINNEAN SOCIETY JULY 1, 1858.</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">The</span> communication by Alfred Russel Wallace was -entitled “On the Tendency of Varieties to depart -indefinitely from the Original Type.” An abstract -of it is given below.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">WALLACE’S ESSAY.</div> - -<p><em>Varieties</em> produced in domesticity are more or -less unstable, and often tend to return to the parent -form. This is usually thought to be true for all -varieties, and to be a strong argument for the original -and permanent distinctness of species.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, races forming “permanent -or true varieties” are well known, and there are -generally no means of determining which is the -<em>variety</em> and which the original <em>species</em>. The hypothesis -of a “permanent invariability of species” is -satisfied by supposing that, while such varieties -cannot diverge from the species beyond a certain -fixed limit, they may return to it.</p> - -<p>This argument is founded on the assumption -that <em>varieties</em> in nature are in all respects identical -with those of domestic animals. The object of the -paper is to show that this is false, and “that there -is a general principle in nature which will cause<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">72</span> -many <em>varieties</em> to survive the parent species and -to give rise to successive variations departing further -and further from the original type.” The same -principle explains the tendency of domestic animals -to return to the parent form.</p> - -<p>“The life of wild animals is a struggle for -existence.” To procure food and escape enemies -are the primary conditions of existence, and determine -abundance and rarity, frequently seen in -closely allied species.</p> - -<p>“Large animals cannot be so abundant as small -ones; the carnivora must be less numerous than the -herbivora,” eagles and lions than pigeons and antelopes. -Fecundity has little or nothing to do with -this. The least prolific animals would increase -rapidly if unchecked. But wild animals do not -increase beyond their average; hence there must -be an immense amount of destruction. The abundance -of species in individuals bears no relation -whatever to their fertility. Thus the excessively -abundant passenger pigeon of the United States -lays only one or two eggs. Its abundance is explained -by the widespread supply of food rendered -available by its powers of flight. The food-supply -“is almost the sole condition requisite for ensuring -the rapid increase of a given species.” This explains -why the sparrow is more abundant than the red-breast, -why aquatic species of birds are specially -numerous in individuals, why the wild cat is rarer -than the rabbit. “So long as a country remains<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">73</span> -physically unchanged, the numbers of its animal -population cannot materially increase.” If one species -does so, others must diminish. In the immense -amount of destruction the weakest must die, “while -those that prolong their existence can only be the -most perfect in health and vigour—those who are -best able to obtain food regularly and to avoid their -numerous enemies. It is, as we commenced by remarking, -‘a struggle for existence,’ in which the -weakest and least perfectly organised must always -succumb.”</p> - -<p>This tendency must apply to species as well as -individuals, the best adapted becoming abundant, the -others scarce or even extinct. If we knew the whole -of the conditions and powers of a species “we might -be able even to calculate the proportionate abundance -of individuals, which is the necessary result.”</p> - -<p>Hence, first, <em>the animal population of a country -is generally stationary (due to food and other -checks)</em>; second, <em>comparative abundance or scarcity -of individuals is entirely due to organisation and -resulting habits, the varying measure of success in -the struggle being balanced by a varying population -in a given area</em>.</p> - -<p>Variations from type must nearly always affect -habits or capacities. Even changes of colour may -promote concealment, while changes in the limbs -or any external organs would affect the mode of -procuring food, etc. “An antelope with shorter or -weaker legs must necessarily suffer more from the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">74</span> -attacks of the feline carnivora”; the passenger pigeon -with less powerful wings could not always procure -sufficient food. Hence species thus modified would -gradually diminish; but, on the other hand, if -modified in the direction of increased powers, would -become more numerous. Varieties will fall under -these two classes—those which will never rival, and -those which will eventually outnumber, the parent -species. If, then, some alteration in conditions -occurred making existence more difficult to a certain -species, first the less favourable variety would suffer -and become extinct, then the parent species, while -the superior variety would alone remain, “and on a -return to favourable circumstances would rapidly -increase in numbers and occupy the place of the -extinct species and variety.”</p> - -<p>The superior <em>variety</em> would thus replace the -<em>species</em>, to which it <em>could not</em> return, for the latter -could never compete with the former. Hence a -tendency to revert would be checked. But the -superior variety, when established, would in time give -rise to new varieties, some of which would become -predominant. Hence <em>progression and continued -divergence</em> would follow, but not invariably, for the -criteria of success or failure would vary, and would -sometimes render a race which was under other -conditions the most favoured now the least so. -Variations without any effect on the life-preserving -powers might also occur. But it is contended that -certain varieties must, on the average, tend to persist<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">75</span> -longer than the parent species, while the scale on -which nature works is so vast that an average -tendency must in the end attain its full result.</p> - -<p>Comparing domestic with wild animals, the very -existence of the latter depends upon their senses and -physical powers. Not so with the former, which are -defended and fed by man.</p> - -<p>Any favourable variety of a domestic animal is -utterly useless to itself; while any increase of the -powers and faculties of wild animals is immediately -available, creating, as it were, a new and superior -animal.</p> - -<p>Again, with domestic animals all variations have -an equal chance, and those which would be extremely -injurious in a wild state are, under the artificial -conditions, no disadvantage. Our domestic breeds -could never have come into existence in a wild state, -and if turned wild “<em>must</em> return to something near -the type of the original wild stock, <em>or become -altogether extinct</em>.”<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">E</a></p> - -<p>Hence we cannot argue from domestic to wild -animals, the conditions of life in the two being -completely opposed.</p> - -<p>Lamarck’s hypothesis of change produced by the -attempts of animals to increase the development of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">76</span> -their own organs has been often refuted, but the view -here proposed depends upon the action of principles -constantly working in nature. Retractile talons of -falcons and cats have not been developed by volition, -but by <em>the survival of those which had the greatest -facilities for seizing prey</em>. The long neck of the -giraffe was not produced by constant stretching, but -by the success which any increase in the length of -neck ensured to its possessors. Even colours, especially -of insects, are explained in the same way, for -among the varieties of many tints, those “having -colours best adapted to concealment ... would inevitably -survive the longest.” We can similarly -explain deficiency of some organs with compensating -development of others, “great velocity making up for -the absence of defensive weapons,” etc. Varieties -with an unbalanced deficiency could not long survive. -The action of the principle is like the governor of a -steam-engine, checking irregularities almost before -they become evident. Such a view accords well with -“the many lines of divergence from a central type”; -the increasing efficiency of a particular organ in a -series of allied species; the persistence of unimportant -parts when important ones have changed; the “more -specialised structure,” said by Owen to be characteristic -of recent as compared with extinct forms.</p> - -<p>Hence there is a tendency of certain classes of -<em>varieties</em> to progress further and further from the -original type, and there is no reason for assigning any -limit to this progression. Such gradual changes<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">77</span> -“may, it is believed, be followed out so as to agree -with all the phenomena presented by organised -beings, their extinction and succession in past ages, -and all the extraordinary modifications of form, -instinct, and habits which they exhibit.”</p> - -<p>Wallace’s Essay has been reprinted without -any alteration in his “Essays on Natural Selection,” -recently re-issued combined with “Tropical Nature.”</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_78" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">78</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XI">CHAPTER XI.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">COMPARISON OF DARWIN’S AND WALLACE’S SECTIONS -OF THE JOINT MEMOIR—RECEPTION OF THEIR -VIEWS—THEIR FRIENDSHIP.</span></h2> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">WALLACE AND DARWIN.</div> - -<p>Comparing the essays of these two naturalists, we -observe that Darwin here first makes public the -phrase “natural selection,” Wallace the “struggle for -existence”; although so closely do their lines of -thought converge that Darwin, using practically the -same words, speaks of the “struggle for life.” Both -show, by examples, the tendency of all animals to -multiply at an enormous rate, and both show that -their tolerably constant numbers are due to the -constant supply of food.</p> - -<p>Both treat of domesticated animals, but in very -different ways. Darwin uses them as the practical -illustration of selection, and argues that if man by -selection can make such forms, Nature can make her -species by the same means. Wallace disposes of the -argument that the reversion of domesticated varieties -to the wild form is a proof of the permanent distinctness -of species, by showing in some detail that the -former are “abnormal, irregular, artificial.”</p> - -<p>Neither of them draws any distinction between -instinct and other qualities, but assumes that the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">79</span> -former is, like the latter, operated upon by natural -selection.</p> - -<p>Wallace makes a special point of protective -resemblances in the colours of insects, etc.</p> - -<p>The important principle of “divergence of character,” -and the relatively unimportant one of “sexual -selection,” are both clearly explained by Darwin.</p> - -<p>Neither writer speaks of the direct effect of -external conditions—except as a cause of plasticity -by Darwin—or the inherited effects of use and disuse. -Lamarck is mentioned only to be dismissed by -Wallace. The evolution of the giraffe’s long neck is -explained by Wallace on the principle of natural -selection, which is contrasted with Lamarck’s original -explanation of the same character. This contrast, -which has been so often drawn, was therefore -originally contained in the first public statement of -natural selection.</p> - -<p>As has been indicated above, Darwin suggested a -cause of variation in the direct effect of changed -external conditions on the reproductive system.</p> - -<p>In comparing the two essays it is not unnatural -to conclude, as Professor Osborn has done (“From -the Greeks to Darwin,” 1894, p. 245), that the two -writers held different views upon the material -utilised by natural selection in the production of -new species, Darwin relying upon the usual slight -differences which separate individuals and upon -variations in single characters, Wallace upon fully -formed varieties—viz. individuals which departed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">80</span> -conspicuously from the type of the species, and -which may exist singly or in considerable numbers -side by side with the parent form.</p> - -<p>Professor Osborn’s actual words are as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Darwin dwells upon <em>variations in single characters</em>, as -taken hold of by Selection; Wallace mentions variations, but -dwells upon <em>full-formed varieties</em>, as favourably or unfavourably -adapted. It is perfectly clear that with Darwin the -struggle is so intense that the chance of survival of each -individual turns upon a single and even slight variation. -With Wallace, varieties are already presupposed by causes -which he does not discuss, a change in the environment occurs, -and those varieties which happen to be adapted to it survive. -There is really a wide gap between these two statements and -applications of the theory.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Further consideration tends to obliterate this -supposed distinction. Although Wallace used the -term “variety” as contrasted with “species,” the -whole context proves that he, equally with Darwin, -recognised the importance of individual variations -and of variations in single characters. This becomes -clear when we remember his argument about the -neck of the giraffe, the changes of colour and hairiness, -the shorter legs of the antelope, and the less -powerful wings of the passenger pigeon. Wallace -has kindly written to me (May 12th, 1896) stating -the case as I have given it, and he further <span class="locked">explains—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I used the term ‘varieties’ because ‘varieties’ were alone -recognised at that time, individ<sup>l</sup> variability being ignored -or thought of <em>no importance</em>. My ‘varieties’ therefore included -‘individual variations.’”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">81</span></p> - -<p>On the other hand, Darwin certainly included -large single variations (in other words, “varieties”) as -well as ordinary individual differences, among the -material for natural selection, and he did not abandon -the former until he was convinced by the powerful -reasoning of Fleeming Jenkin (<i>North British Review</i>, -June, 1867), who argued that single large differences -of a sudden and conspicuous kind (Darwin’s “variations”) -would certainly be swamped by intercrossing. -Upon this review of the “Origin” Francis Darwin -says (“Life and <span class="locked">Letters”)—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“It is not a little remarkable that the criticisms which my -father, as I believe, felt to be the most valuable ever made on -his views should have come, not from a professed naturalist -but from a Professor of Engineering.”</p> -</div> - -<p>After reading this review, Darwin wrote to -Wallace (January 22nd, <span class="locked">1869):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I always thought individual differences more important -than single variations, but now I have come to the conclusion -that they are of paramount importance, and in this I believe -I agree with you. Fleeming Jenkin’s arguments have convinced -me.”</p> -</div> - -<p>The ambiguity of this sentence evidently misled -Wallace into believing that the single variations were -considered of paramount importance. Darwin therefore -wrote again (February <span class="locked">2nd):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I must have expressed myself atrociously; I meant to say -exactly the reverse of what you have understood. F. Jenkin -argued in the ‘North British Review’ (June 1867) against<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">82</span> -single variations ever being perpetuated, and has convinced me, -though not in quite so broad a manner as here put. I always -thought individual differences more important; but I was -blind and thought single variations might be preserved much -oftener than I now see is possible or probable. I mentioned -this in my former note merely because I believed that you -had come to a similar conclusion, and I like much to be in -accord with you. I believe I was mainly deceived by single -variations offering such simple illustrations, as when man -selects.”</p> -</div> - -<p>From these two letters to Wallace we see that the -latter was the first to give up the larger variations in -favour of ordinary individual differences.</p> - -<p>Darwin also wrote to Victor Carus on May 4th, -<span class="locked">1869:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I have been led to ... infer that single variations -are even of less importance, in comparison with individual -differences, than I formerly thought.”</p> -</div> - -<p>There has been much misconception on this -point, and a theory of evolution by the selection of -large single variations—a view held by many, but -not by Darwin—has been passed off as the Darwinian -theory of natural selection. It is surprising that -this old mistake should have been repeated at so -recent a date, and on so important an occasion as -the Presidential Address to the British Association -at Oxford on August 8th, 1894, and that so ill-aimed -a criticism should have been quoted with approval -in a leading article in the <i>Times</i> of the following -day. The following extracts from Lord Salisbury’s -address unfortunately leave no doubt on the matter:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">83</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">LORD SALISBURY’S CRITICISM.</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“What is to secure that the two individuals of opposite sexes -in the primeval forest, who have been both accidentally blessed -with the same advantageous variation shall meet, and transmit -by inheritance that variation to their successors?... The biologists -do well to ask for an immeasurable expanse of time, if -the occasional meetings of advantageously varied couples from -age to age are to provide the pedigree of modifications which -unite us to our ancestor the jelly-fish.... There would be -nothing but mere chance to secure that the advantageously -varied bridegroom at one end of the wood should meet the -bride, who by a happy contingency had been advantageously -varied in the same direction at the same time at the other end -of the wood. It would be a mere chance if they ever knew of -each other’s existence—a still more unlikely chance that they -should resist on both sides all temptations to a less advantageous -alliance. But unless they did so, the new breed would -never even begin, let alone the question of its perpetuation -after it had begun.”</p> -</div> - -<p>It is of interest to reproduce Lord Salisbury’s -words in close proximity to Darwin’s real statements -on the subject, as shown in the letters to -his friends—statements which are also expressed in -many places in his published works.</p> - -<p>The joint paper was read before the Linnean -Society on July 1st, 1858, about a fortnight -after Wallace’s essay had been received by Darwin. -There was no discussion, but the interest and -excitement at the meeting were very great, -owing in large part to the influential support with -which the new theory came before the scientific -world. Darwin appreciated the importance of this -support at its true value, for he wrote to Hooker, -July <span class="locked">5th:—</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">84</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“You must know that I look at it, as very important, for -the reception of the view of species not being immutable, the -fact of the greatest Geologist and Botanist in England taking -<em>any sort of interest</em> in the subject: I am sure it will do much -to break down prejudices.”</p> -</div> - -<p>In the following January Darwin received a letter -from Wallace, and his reply (on the 25th) shows how -much relieved and pleased he was at its generous -spirit. Alluding to Lyell’s and Hooker’s action in his -“Autobiography” Darwin says:—“I was at first very -unwilling to consent, as I thought Mr. Wallace -might consider my doing so unjustifiable, for I did -not then know how generous and noble was his -disposition.” It was this letter which conveyed the -knowledge to him and set his mind at rest on the -subject.</p> - -<p>Thus ended one of the most interesting and -memorable episodes in the history of science. It was -sufficiently remarkable that two naturalists in widely-separated -lands should have independently arrived -at the theory which was to be the turning-point in -the history of biology and of many other sciences—although -such simultaneous discoveries have been -known before; it was still more remarkable that one -of the two should unknowingly have chosen the -other to advise him upon the theory which was to -be for ever associated with both their names. It -was a magnificent answer to those who believed that -the progress of scientific discovery implies continual -jealousy and bitterness, that the conditions attending<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">85</span> -the first publication of the theory of natural selection -were the beginning of a life-long friendship and of -mutual confidence and esteem.<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">F</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">FRIENDSHIP WITH WALLACE.</div> - -<p>It is justifiable to speak of this episode as the -<em>beginning</em> of Darwin’s and Wallace’s friendship, for -the latter writes (February, <span class="locked">1895):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I had met him <em>once</em> only for a few minutes at the Brit. -Mus. before I went to the East.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Later on Darwin, in his letters to Wallace, more -than once alluded to the simultaneous publication of -their essays. Thus he wrote, April 18th, 1869, congratulating -Wallace on his article in the <cite>Quarterly -Review</cite> for that <span class="locked">month:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I was also much pleased at your discussing the difference -between our views and Lamarck’s. One sometimes sees the -odious expression, ‘Justice to myself compels me to say,’ &c., -but you are the only man I ever heard of who persistently -does himself an injustice, and never demands justice. Indeed, -you ought in the review to have alluded to your paper in the -‘Linnean Journal,’ and I feel sure all our friends will agree -in this. But you cannot ‘Burke’ yourself however much you -may try, as may be seen in half the articles which appear.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">86</span></p> - -<p>And again, on April 20th of the following year, -he <span class="locked">wrote:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I hope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect—and very few -things in my life have been more satisfactory to me—that we -have never felt any jealousy towards each other, though in -one sense rivals. I believe that I can say this of myself with -truth, and I am absolutely sure that it is true of you.”</p> -</div> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_87" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">87</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XII">CHAPTER XII.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">THE GROWTH OF WALLACE’S CONVICTIONS ON EVOLUTION -AND DISCOVERY OF NATURAL SELECTION—BORNEO -1855—TERNATE 1858.</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">We</span> have already seen in the earlier part of this -volume, the gradual development of the theory of -Natural Selection in the mind of Darwin, and the long -succession of experiments and observations which he -undertook before he could bring himself to publish anything -upon the subject, as well as the conditions which -forced him to a hurried publication in the end. It -is of the deepest interest to compare with this the -account which Wallace has given us of the mental -process by which he arrived at the same conclusions.</p> - -<p>This deeply interesting personal history has only -been known during the last few years; in 1891 Wallace -republished his “Essays on Natural Selection” in -one volume, combined with “Tropical Nature,” and -he has added (on pp. 20, 21) the following introductory -note to Chapter II., viz. the reprint of his Linnean -Society Memoir “On the Tendencies of Varieties to -depart indefinitely from the Original Type.” The -note is here reprinted in <span class="locked">full:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“As this chapter sets forth the main features of a theory -identical with that discovered by Mr. Darwin many years<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">88</span> -before but not then published, and as it has thus an -historical interest, a few words of personal statement may -be permissible. After writing the preceding paper [“On -the Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New -Species”] the question of <em>how</em> changes of species could have -been brought about was rarely out of my mind, but no -satisfactory conclusion was reached till February 1858. At -that time I was suffering from a rather severe attack of -intermittent fever at Ternate in the Moluccas, and one day, -while lying on my bed during the cold fit, wrapped in -blankets, though the thermometer was at 88° Fahr., the -problem again presented itself to me, and something led me to -think of the ‘positive checks’ described by Malthus in his -‘Essay on Population,’ a work I had read several years -before, and which had made a deep and permanent impression -on my mind. These checks—war, disease, famine and the like—must, -it occurred to me, act on animals as well as man. Then -I thought of the enormously rapid multiplication of animals, -causing these checks to be much more effective in them than -in the case of man; and while pondering vaguely on this fact -there suddenly flashed upon me the <em>idea</em> of the survival of the -fittest—that the individuals removed by these checks must be -on the whole inferior to those that survived. In the two hours -that elapsed before my ague fit was over I had thought out -almost the whole of the theory, and the same evening I -sketched the draft of my paper, and in the two succeeding -evenings wrote it out in full, and sent it by the next post to -Mr. Darwin. Up to this time the only letters I had received -from him were those printed in the second volume of his -<i>Life and Letters</i> (vol. ii., pp. 95 and 108), in which he speaks -of its being the twentieth year since he ‘opened his first -note-book on the question how and what way do species and -varieties differ from each other,’ and after referring to oceanic -islands, the means of distribution of land-shells, &c., added: -‘My work, on which I have now been at work more or less for -twenty years, <em>will not fix or settle anything</em>; but I hope it -will aid by giving a large collection of facts, with one definite -end.’ The words I have italicised, and the whole tone of his -letters, led me to conclude that he had arrived at no definite -view as to the origin of species, and I fully anticipated that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">89</span> -my theory would be new to him, because it seemed to me to -settle a great deal. The immediate result of my paper was -that Darwin was induced at once to prepare for publication his -book on the <i>Origin of Species</i> in the condensed form in which -it appeared, instead of waiting an indefinite number of years to -complete a work on a much larger scale which he had partly -written, but which in all probability would not have carried -conviction to so many persons in so short a time. I feel much -satisfaction in having thus aided in bringing about the publication -of this celebrated book, and with the ample recognition -by Darwin himself of my independent discovery of ‘natural -selection.’ (See <i>Origin of Species</i>, 6th ed., introduction, -p. 1, and Life and Letters, vol. ii, chap. iv., pp. 115–129 -and 145).”</p> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">ORIGIN OF WALLACE’S ESSAY.</div> - -<p>A very similar account, differing in a few unimportant -details from that quoted above, was written -December 3rd, 1887, by Wallace to Professor Newton, -and is published in the abridged “Life and Letters of -Charles Darwin” (1892; pp. 189, 190). At the conclusion -Wallace <span class="locked">says:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“... I <em>had</em> the idea of working it out, so far as I was -able, when I returned home, not at all expecting that Darwin -had so long anticipated me. I can truly say <em>now</em>, as I said -many years ago, that I am glad it was so; for I have not the -love of <em>work</em>, <em>experiment</em> and <em>detail</em> that was so pre-eminent in -Darwin, and without which anything I could have written -would never have convinced the world.”</p> -</div> - -<p>It is of great interest to learn that Wallace as well -as Darwin was directed to natural selection by Malthus’ -Essay. Hence, as the late Professor Milnes Marshall -has pointed out (Lectures on the Darwinian Theory, -pp. 212, 213), the laws of the multiplication and -extinction of man suggested to both naturalists<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">90</span> -those more general laws by which it was possible to -understand the development of the whole animal and -vegetable worlds.</p> - -<p>There is a tremendous contrast between these two -discoverers, in the speed with which they respectively -developed their ideas on the subject into a shape -which satisfied them as suitable for publication. -Wallace, after the inspiration which followed his -reflections upon Malthus, had “thought out almost -the whole of the theory” in two hours, and in three -evenings had completed his essay. Darwin, receiving -the same inspiration from the same source, in October -1838, wrote a brief account of it after four years’ -reflection and work, and finished a longer account two -years later, but was not prepared to give anything to -the public until he was compelled to do so fourteen -years later in 1858. All this delay was of the greatest -advantage when a full exposition of the theory finally -came before the world in the “Origin of Species”; for -all difficulties had been fully considered and answered -beforehand, while the wealth of new facts by which it -was supported compelled a respectful hearing for the -theory itself.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">WALLACE’S VIEWS.</div> - -<p>Wallace, like Darwin, was convinced of evolution -before he discovered any principle which supplied a -motive cause for the process. This conviction is -expressed very clearly in his interesting essay already -alluded to “On the Law which has regulated the -Introduction of New Species” (Ann. and Mag., Nat. -Hist., 1855, p. 184; reprinted without alteration in his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">91</span> -Essays on Natural Selection). The law he states in -these <span class="locked">words:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Every species has come into existence coincident both in -time and space with a pre-existing closely allied species,”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">a law which, as he justly claims for it,</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“connects together and renders intelligible a vast number of -independent and hitherto unexplained facts. The natural -system of arrangement of organic beings, their geographical -distribution, their geological sequence, the phenomena of -representative and substituted groups in all their modifications, -and the most singular peculiarities of anatomical -structure, are all explained and illustrated by it, in perfect -accordance with the vast mass of facts which the researches -of modern naturalists have brought together, and, it is -believed, not materially opposed to any of them. It also -claims a superiority over previous hypotheses, on the ground -that it not merely explains, but necessitates what exists. -Granted the law, and many of the most important facts in -Nature could not have been otherwise, but are almost as -necessary deductions from it, as are the elliptic orbits of the -planets from the law of gravitation.”</p> -</div> - -<p>This important essay is dated by Wallace from -Sarawak, Borneo, February, 1855.</p> - -<p>The conclusions remind us of the words Darwin -wrote in his note-book in 1837. “Led to comprehend -true affinities. My theory would give zest to recent -and Fossil comparative Anatomy.” By his theory -Darwin here means evolution and not natural selection, -which was not discovered by him until the end -of 1838.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_92" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">92</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XIII">CHAPTER XIII.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">CANON TRISTRAM THE FIRST PUBLICLY TO ACCEPT THE -THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION (1859).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Although</span> the historic meeting at the Linnean -Society appeared to produce but little effect, one -distinguished naturalist publicly accepted the theory -of natural selection before the publication of “The -Origin of Species,” and therefore as the direct result -of Darwin’s and Wallace’s joint paper. This great -distinction belongs to Canon Tristram, as Professor -Newton has pointed out in his Presidential Address -to the Biological Section of the British Association at -Manchester in 1887 (“Reports,” p. 727), at the same -time expressing the hope “that thereby the study of -Ornithology may be said to have been lifted above -its fellows.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CANON TRISTRAM’S SUPPORT.</div> - -<p>Canon Tristram’s paper, “On the Ornithology of -Northern Africa” (Part iii., The Sahara, continued), -was published in <i>The Ibis</i>, vol. i., October, 1859. The -important conclusions alluded to above are contained -at the end of the section upon the species of desert -larks (pp. 429–433):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Writing with a series of about 100 larks of various species -from the Sahara before me, I cannot help feeling convinced -of the truth of the views set forth by Messrs. Darwin and -Wallace in their communications to the Linnean Society, to -which my friend Mr. A. Newton last year directed my attention.... -It is hardly possible, I should think, to illustrate -this theory better than by the larks and chats of North Africa.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">93</span> -In all these birds we trace gradual modifications of coloration -and of anatomical structure, deflecting by very gentle gradations -from the ordinary type; but when we take the extremes, -presenting most marked differences.”</p> -</div> - -<p>These differences, he <span class="locked">concludes—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“have a very direct bearing on the ease or difficulty with -which the animal contrives to maintain its existence.”</p> -</div> - -<p>He then points out, upon the uniform surface of -the desert it is absolutely necessary that animals shall -be protected by their colour:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Hence, without exception, the upper plumage of every -bird, whether Lark, Chat, Sylvian, or Sandgrouse, and also the -fur of all the small mammals, and the skin of all the Snakes -and Lizards, is of one uniform isabelline or sand colour. It is -very possible that some further purpose may be served by -the prevailing colours, but this appears of itself a sufficient -explanation. There are individual varieties in depth of hue -among all creatures. In the struggle for life which we know -to be going on among all species, a very slight change for the -better, such as improved means of escaping from its natural -enemies (which would be the effect of an alteration from a -conspicuous colour to one resembling the hue of the surrounding -objects), would give the variety that possessed it a decided -advantage over the typical or other forms of the species. -Now in all creatures, from Man downwards, we find a -tendency to transmit individual varieties or peculiarities to -the descendants. A peculiarity either of colour or form soon -becomes hereditary when there are no counteracting causes, -either from change of climate or admixture of other blood. -Suppose this transmitted peculiarity to continue for some -generations, especially when manifest advantages arise from -its possession, and the variety becomes not only a race, with its -variations still more strongly imprinted upon it, but it becomes -the typical form of that country.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Canon Tristram then points out the manner in -which he imagines that one of the crested larks of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">94</span> -the desert has been produced by the survival of -the lightest coloured individuals, <i>Galerida abyssinica</i> -only differing in this respect from <i>G. cristata</i> of -Europe. Short-billed species of the same genus -inhabiting hard rocky districts, and long-billed -inhabiting loose sandy tracts have, he believes, been -produced by the survival in each case of the forms of -bill most suited to procure food:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Here are only two causes enumerated which might serve -to <em>create</em> as it were a new species from an old one, yet they -are perfectly natural causes, and such as, I think, must have -occurred, and are possibly occurring still. We know so very -little of the causes which in the majority of cases make species -rare or common, that there may be hundreds of others at -work, some even more powerful than these, which go to -perpetuate and eliminate certain forms ‘according to natural -means of selection.’ But even these superficial causes appear -sufficient to explain the marked features of the Desert races, -which frequently approach so very closely the typical form, -and yet possess such invariably distinctive characteristics, that -naturalists seem agreed to elevate them to the rank of -species.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Although the author also declares his belief in the -special creation of many species—a view put forward -as possible by Darwin in the “Origin”<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">G</a>—and also -believed in some direct influence of locality, climate, -etc., the above quoted passages are a most complete -acceptance of natural selection, at the same time -affording excellent examples of its operation.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_95" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">95</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XIV">CHAPTER XIV.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">THE PREPARATION OF “THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES” -(1858–59).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Almost</span> immediately after the Linnean Society meeting, -and evidently earlier than September, the time -mentioned in his “Autobiography,” Darwin began -to prepare a longer and more complete account of -his work on evolution and natural selection. This -account was at first intended for the Linnean Society, -but it was soon found to be too long, and he then -decided to publish it as an independent volume. In -thus preparing the manuscript for what afterwards -became the “Origin of Species,” Darwin tells us -(“Autobiography”) he acted under “the strong -advice of Lyell and Hooker,” and his letters also -show the great interest that they were taking in -the work.</p> - -<p>Darwin seems to have found the “Origin”—or his -“Abstract,” as he always calls it—very hard work, -and he ends his letter to Wallace (January 25th, -1859) with the words:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I look at my own career as nearly run out. If I can -publish my Abstract and perhaps my greater work on the -same subject, I shall look at my course as done.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">At the same time, so great was his enthusiasm and -interest, in spite of the hard work and ill-health, that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">96</span> -all through this period he was making fresh observations -whenever an opportunity occurred. Thus we -find him writing to Hooker about the thistle-down -blown out to sea and then back to shore again; about -the migrations of slave-making ants which he had -been watching; about the bending of the pistil into -the line of the gangway leading to the honey when -this latter “is secreted at one point of the circle of -the corolla,” etc. And on March 2nd, 1859, he writes -about “an odd, though very little, fact”:—Large nuts -had been found in the crops of some nestling Petrels -at St. Kilda, which he suspected the parent birds had -picked up from the Gulf Stream. He arranged for -one of these to be sent, and asked Hooker for the -name and country. He asks forgiveness for the -trouble, “for it is a funny little fact after my own -heart.” The nuts turned out to be West Indian.</p> - -<p>When the proposal for publication had been accepted -by Murray and the manuscript was assuming its -final form, the letters to Hooker were more frequent -than ever. Writing on May 11th, 1859, Darwin again -raises the question of the relative importance of variation -and selection.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I imagine from some expressions ... that you look at -variability as some necessary contingency with organisms, -and further that there is some necessary tendency in the -variability to go on diverging in character or degree. <em>If you -do</em>, I do not agree.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Darwin’s splendid confidence in the future appears -in a letter written about this time (September 2, 1859)<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">97</span> -in which he begs Lyell not to commit himself “to go -a certain length and no further; for,” he says, “I am -deeply convinced that it is absolutely necessary to -go the whole vast length, or stick to the creation of -each separate species.” He asks Lyell to remember -that his verdict will probably be of more importance -than the book itself in influencing the present acceptance -or rejection of the views. “In the future,” he -continues, “I cannot doubt about their admittance, -and our posterity will marvel as much about the current -belief as we do about fossil shells having been -thought to have been created as we now see them.” -And again writing to Lyell a few days later (September -20th), he says, “I cannot too strongly express my -conviction of the general truth of my doctrines, and -God knows I have never shirked a difficulty.”</p> - -<p>I have thought it well to bring strong evidence of -Darwin’s entire confidence in his conclusions, because -his writings were so extraordinarily balanced and -judicial, and the weight he gives to opposing considerations -so great, that a superficial student might -imagine that he wrote and argued without any very -strong convictions.</p> - -<p>The letters to Mr. John Murray, the publisher, are -eminently characteristic, in the expressions of regret -for trouble given, and of pleasure at the work done, in -the scrupulous care to prevent the publisher from feeling -committed, if on further acquaintance with the -manuscript he did not wish to accept it, and in the -offer to contribute towards the cost of corrections.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">98</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE “ORIGIN” PUBLISHED.</div> - -<p>The first edition of “The Origin of Species” was -published November 24th, 1859. The edition consisted -of 1,250 copies, all of which were sold on the -day of issue.</p> - -<p>The full title of this volume, of which Darwin justly -says (“Autobiography”), “It is no doubt the chief -work of my life,” is reproduced below.</p> - -<p class="newpage p4 vspace3 wspace center"> -ON<br /> - -<span class="xxlarge">THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES</span><br /> - -BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION,<br /> - -<span class="small">OR THE</span><br /> - -PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE<br /> -FOR LIFE.<br /> - -<span class="smcap">By</span> CHARLES DARWIN, M.A.,</p> - -<p class="p1 xsmall vspace3 wspace center">FELLOW OF THE ROYAL, GEOLOGICAL, LINNEAN, ETC., SOCIETIES;<br /> -AUTHOR OF “JOURNAL OF RESEARCHES DURING H.M.S. ‘BEAGLE’S’ VOYAGE<br /> -ROUND THE WORLD.” -</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">99</span></p> - -<p class="p2">This title is of interest, as has been pointed out by -Professor E. Ray Lankester, in relation to the controversy -upon the exact meaning of the word -“Darwinism.” Some writers have argued that the -term “Darwinism” includes the whole of the causes of -evolution accepted by Darwin—the supposed inherited -effects of use and disuse and the direct influence of -environment, which find a subordinate place in the -“Origin,” as well as natural selection, which is the real -subject of the book and which is fully defined in the -title. It would seem appropriate to use the term -“Darwinism,” as Wallace uses it, to indicate the causes -of evolution which were suggested by Darwin himself, -excluding these supposed causes which had been -previously brought forward by earlier writers, and -especially by Lamarck. The causes of evolution proposed -by Lamarck are seriously disputed, and it is -possible that they may be ultimately abandoned. If -so, the integrity of “Darwinism,” as interpreted by -some controversialists, would be impaired; and this, -it will be generally admitted, would be most unfortunate, -as well as most unfair to the memory of Darwin.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_100" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">100</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XV">CHAPTER XV.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES (1859).</span></h2> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.</div> - -<p>It is very interesting to separate the two arguments -which occur interwoven in the “Origin”—the argument -for evolution and the argument for natural -selection. The paramount importance of Darwin’s -contributions to the evidences of organic evolution -are often forgotten in the brilliant theory which -he believed to supply the motive cause of descent -with modification. Organic evolution had been -held to be true by certain thinkers during many -centuries; but not only were its adherents entirely -without a sufficient motive cause, but their evidences -of the process itself were erroneous or extremely -scanty. It was Darwin who first brought together a -great body of scientific evidence which placed the process -of evolution beyond dispute, whatever the causes -of evolution may have been. And accordingly we find -that, even at first, natural selection was attacked far -more generally than the doctrine of descent with -modification.</p> - -<p>In Chapter I., Variation under Domestication and -man’s power of selection in forming breeds of animals -and plants are discussed; in Chapter II., Variation -under Nature; in Chapter III., the Struggle for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">101</span> -Existence; in Chapter IV., which Darwin, in writing -to his publisher, called “the Keystone of my Arch,” -the three preceding chapters are carried to their conclusion, -and the operation of natural selection is -explained and discussed. Hence, these four chapters -deal almost exclusively with this process.</p> - -<p>Chapter V. has for its subject the Laws of Variation, -and explains causes of modification (external -conditions, use and disuse, correlation, reversion, etc.) -other than natural selection and the relation of the -latter to the former.</p> - -<p>In Chapter VI. difficulties are considered—partly -those in the way of a belief in evolution and partly -those which, at first sight, seem to be incapable of -explanation on the theory of natural selection. -Chapter VII. deals with a special difficulty of the -latter kind, viz. Instinct, and shows how it can be -accounted for by natural selection acting upon variation, -although allowing some weight to the inheritance -of habit. Chapter VIII. deals with Hybridism, the -sterility of first crosses and of hybrids being considered -as an objection to the doctrine of Descent -with Modification. Chapter IX. treats of the Imperfection -of the Geological Record as the explanation of -the apparently insufficient evidence of evolution during -past ages. Chapter X., on the Geological succession -of Organic Beings, shows that, allowing for this -Imperfection of Record, the facts brought to light by -Geology support a belief in evolution and in some -cases even in natural selection. Hence these five<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">102</span> -chapters deal partly with difficulties in the way of an -acceptance of organic evolution and partly with those -encountered by natural selection.</p> - -<p>Of the three remaining chapters before the XIVth, -and last, which contains the Recapitulation and -Conclusion, two—XI. and XII.—are concerned with -Geographical distribution, while the XIIIth deals with -Classification, Morphology, Embryology and Rudimentary -Organs. These three chapters are almost -entirely devoted to the proof that the facts of Nature -with which they deal are not inconsistent with, but -rather support, and often strongly support, a belief in -Organic Evolution.</p> - -<p>Hence we see that this, incomparably the greatest -work which the biological sciences have seen, begins -with an explanation and defence and definition of -the sphere of natural selection—then passes to consider -difficulties which are partly those of natural -selection, and partly of organic evolution—while it -finally treats of the evidences of the latter process -and the difficulties which a belief in it encounters.</p> - -<p>This arrangement was a very wise one for a book -which was intended to convince a large circle of -readers; for the human mind so craves after an -explanation, that it was of more importance for the -success of the work to show first that an intelligible -cause of evolution had been proposed, than to follow -the more logical order of first setting forth the -evidences of evolution.</p> - -<p>The second edition (fifth thousand) was issued in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">103</span> -January, 1860, the third (seventh thousand) in 1861, -the fourth (eighth thousand) in 1866, the fifth (tenth -thousand) in 1869, the sixth in 1872: in 1887 the -twenty-fourth thousand was reached.</p> - -<p>A note to the last edition states that the second -“was little more than a reprint of the first. The -third edition was largely corrected and added to, and -the fourth and fifth still more largely.” The sixth -edition also contains “numerous small corrections,” -and is about one-fourth larger than the first edition, -although this material is, owing to the smaller print -and more crowded lines, compressed into a smaller -number of pages. The sixth edition also differs from -the first in containing a glossary, an historical sketch, -and a note and list of the chief corrections.</p> - -<p>The titles of Chapters I., II., and III. remain the -same in the first and last editions. Herbert Spencer’s -phrase is added to Darwin’s term, as the heading of -Chapter IV., which accordingly becomes in the last -edition “Natural Selection; or the Survival of the -Fittest.” This change was certainly introduced in -order to help readers to grasp the meaning of Darwin’s -title, which had been very generally misunderstood. -The heading of Chapter V. remains the same, while -in Chapter VI.—“Difficulties on Theory”—“on” is -replaced by “of the.” This chapter is, in the last -edition, succeeded by a new one dealing with many -of the difficulties which had been raised or had -occurred to Darwin in the interval between the two -editions; it is headed “Miscellaneous Objections to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">104</span> -the Theory of Natural Selection.” The titles of the -remaining eight chapters are unchanged.</p> - -<p>The first part of the title of the first edition—“On -the Origin of Species”—becomes “The Origin -of Species” in the last edition, and is still further -shortened to “Origin of Species” on the outside -of the volume.</p> - -<p>The form of the earlier editions was admirably -suited for the purpose of attracting, and—so far as was -possible with so difficult a subject—convincing, a -large number of readers. When the subject was new -and strange, the more numerous details of the last -edition, and the smaller print which became necessary, -would have acted as a hindrance to the complete -success of the work. Authors and publishers are -sometimes apt to forget that the form of a book -has a great deal to do with the absorption of the -ideas contained in it, especially when the argument -is from the nature of the case difficult to follow, and -the subject a new one. Francis Darwin in the “Life -and Letters” justly condemns the unattractive form -of the sixth edition of the work.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_105" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">105</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XVI">CHAPTER XVI.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">THE INFLUENCE OF DARWIN UPON LYELL (1859–64).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">In</span> considering the reception of the “Origin of -Species,” it will be well first to show its effect -upon Darwin’s intimate scientific friends, most -of whom had been familiar with his work for -many years, and then to deal with its effects upon -biologists generally, especially those of Darwin’s own -country.</p> - -<p>The gradual strengthening of Darwin’s influence -over his old teacher Lyell, is one of the most interesting -episodes in the personal history of the -scientific men of this century.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">LYELL’S SLOW CONVERSION.</div> - -<p>Lyell, after reading the proof-sheets of the -“Origin,” wrote on October 3rd, 1859, praising the -work very warmly, and suggesting a few improvements, -some of which were adopted. Lyell hesitated -to accept the theory, because he saw clearly that it -would be impossible to stop short at the human -species, while a common origin of men and beasts -was distasteful to him. Thus, he <span class="locked">said:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I have long seen most clearly that if any concession is -made, all that you claim in your concluding pages will follow. -It is this which has made me so long hesitate, always feeling -that the case of man and his races, and of other animals, and -that of plants is one and the same, and that if a ‘vera causa’ be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">106</span> -admitted for one, instead of a purely unknown and imaginary -one, such as the word ‘Creation,’ all the consequences -must follow.”</p> -</div> - -<p>To this letter Darwin replied (October 11th) at -great length, in a most instructive letter, arguing -in considerable detail on all the points alluded to -by Lyell. He evidently thought that Lyell’s opinion -was of the utmost importance for the success of -Natural Selection. “If ever you are [perverted],” he -wrote at the end of the letter, “I shall know that -the theory of Natural Selection is, in the main, -safe.”</p> - -<p>About this time Darwin seems to have heard -that Lyell had made up his mind to admit the -doctrine of evolution into a new edition of the -“Manual,” and he wrote (November <span class="locked">23rd):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the -position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, -and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much -doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">Lyell’s public confession of faith was, however, not -to be made for some years, and Darwin’s letter was -a little premature.</p> - -<p>Space will not permit me to quote from the long -correspondence with Lyell in the years following the -appearance of the “Origin,” although these letters -are of the deepest interest, and deal in the most -luminous manner with the difficulties of natural -selection and evolution, as they appeared to one of -the acutest intellects of that time. The letters soon<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">107</span> -began to produce an effect, and Darwin wrote -(September 26th, 1860) to Asa <span class="locked">Gray:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I can perceive in my immense correspondence with Lyell, -who objected to much at first, that he has, perhaps unconsciously -to himself, converted himself very much during -the last six months, and I think this is the case even with -Hooker. This fact gives me far more confidence than any -other fact.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Later on Darwin evidently became a little annoyed -that Lyell still delayed to declare his belief one way -or the other. Thus he wrote to Asa Gray (May 11th, -<span class="locked">1863):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“You speak of Lyell as a judge; now what I complain of -is that he declines to be a judge.... I have sometimes almost -wished that Lyell had pronounced against me. When I say -‘me,’ I only mean <em>change of species by descent</em>. That seems to -me the turning-point. Personally, of course, I care much about -Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly unimportant, -compared to the question of Creation <em>or</em> Modification.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Shortly before this date, on February 24th, he -wrote to Hooker in much the same style. These -communications were called forth by the appearance -of “The Antiquity of Man,” and it is clear that -Darwin’s disappointment at Lyell’s suspended judgment -was due to their correspondence, which had -encouraged him to expect some definite opinion on -the question. “From all my communications with -him, I must ever think that he has really entirely -lost faith in the immortality of species,” he wrote -in his letter to Hooker. On March 6th he wrote to -Lyell himself, expressing his disappointment, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">108</span> -again a few days later, rather complaining that his -work was treated as a modification of <span class="locked">Lamarck’s:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“This way of putting the case ... closely connects Wallace’s -and my views with what I consider, after two deliberate -readings, as a wretched book, and one from which (I well -remember my surprise) I gained nothing.”</p> -</div> - -<p>When the second edition of “The Antiquity of -Man” appeared in a few months, there was a significant -change in one <span class="locked">sentence:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Yet we ought by no means to undervalue the importance -of the step which will have been made, should it hereafter -become the generally received opinion of men of science (as I -fully expect it will) that the past changes of the organic world -have been brought about by the subordinate agency of such -causes as Variation and Natural Selection.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">The words in parentheses had been added, and -constituted Lyell’s first public expression of an -opinion in favour of Darwin’s views.</p> - -<p>About this time an article appeared in the -<i>Athenæum</i> (March 28th, 1863), attacking the opinions -in favour of evolution contained in Dr. Carpenter’s -work on Foraminifera, and supporting spontaneous -generation. This was one of the rare occasions on -which Darwin entered into controversy, and he wrote -attacking spontaneous generation, and pointing out -the numerous classes of facts which are connected -by an intelligible thread of reasoning by means of -his theory. In this letter he quoted the altered -sentence from the second edition of the “Antiquity.” -Darwin’s letter was answered in an article (May 2nd) -in which it was argued that <em>any</em> theory of descent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">109</span> -would connect the various classes of facts equally -well. To this Darwin replied in a characteristic -letter. It was evident that he was most reluctant -to continue the controversy, but thought it fair to -admit publicly the force of his opponent’s arguments.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">ACCESSION OF LYELL.</div> - -<p>In 1864 the Copley Medal of the Royal Society -was given to Darwin. At the anniversary dinner of -the Society, after the meeting at which the medals -are presented by the President, Sir Charles Lyell in -his speech made a “confession of faith” as to the -“Origin.” Darwin was prevented by illness from -receiving the medal in person and from being present -at the dinner.</p> - -<p>The tenth edition of the “Principles” was published -in 1867 and 1868, and in it Lyell clearly stated -his belief in evolution. Sir Joseph Hooker, in his -presidential address to the British Association at -Norwich in 1868, eloquently spoke of the “new -foundation” with which Lyell had under-pinned -the edifice he had raised, and had thus rendered it -“not only more secure, but more harmonious in its -proportion than it was before.” Wallace, too, in an -article in the <i>Quarterly Review</i> (April, 1869), spoke -with equal eloquence and force of the significance -of Lyell’s change of opinion.</p> - -<p>Lyell’s death took place in 1875, eleven years -after his definite acceptance of Darwin’s views. -Darwin, in writing to Miss Arabella Buckley (now -Mrs. Fisher, formerly secretary to Sir Charles Lyell), -fully acknowledged the deep debt which he owed to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">110</span> -Lyell’s teachings: “I never forget that almost -everything which I have done in science I owe to -the study of his great works.” Huxley says in his -obituary of Charles Darwin (reprinted in “Darwiniana,” -1893, p. 268): “It is hardly too much -to say that Darwin’s greatest work is the outcome -of the unflinching application to Biology of the leading -idea and the method applied in the ‘Principles’ -to Geology.” Every biologist who realises—as who -can help realising?—the boundless opportunities -which Darwin’s work has opened for him, will feel -that he too owes a deep personal debt to Darwin’s -great teacher.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_111" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">111</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XVII">CHAPTER XVII.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">INFLUENCE OF DARWIN UPON HOOKER AND ASA GRAY—NATURAL -SELECTION AND DESIGN IN NATURE -(1860–68).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Hooker</span> wrote on November 21st, speaking of the -“glorious book” in the warmest terms. Later on in -the year he wrote again in the same spirit, but -speaking of the difficulty he found in assimilating the -immense mass of details: “It is the very hardest -book to read, to full profits, that I ever tried—it is so -cram-full of matter and reasoning.” Hooker must, -however, have been familiar with the arguments and -proofs, and for this reason did not attempt any -detailed discussion. It is unnecessary to say more of -Hooker’s reception of the “Origin.” During their -long friendship Darwin had discussed the difficulties -and the evidences of his theory more fully with him -than with any other man; and, as “a man sharpeneth -the countenance of his friend,” the influence of -Hooker was one of the most potent forces under -which Darwin produced the greatest work of his -life.</p> - -<p>Many years later, when Hooker was awarded, in -1887, the Copley Medal of the Royal Society, reviewing -his past experiences and work in his speech<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">112</span> -at the anniversary dinner, he concluded by telling -us that his long and intimate friendship with -Charles Darwin was the great event of his scientific -career.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">ASA GRAY.</div> - -<p>In sending a copy to Asa Gray, he wrote -(November <span class="locked">11th):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I fully admit that there are very many difficulties not -satisfactorily explained by my theory of descent with modification, -but I cannot possibly believe that a false theory would -explain so many classes of facts as I think it certainly does -explain. On these grounds I drop my anchor, and believe -that the difficulties will slowly disappear.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Asa Gray’s reply was contained in a letter to -Hooker, written January 5th, 1860, four days after -reading the “Origin.” He asks that Darwin may be -told of what he had written. He says that the book -“is done in a <em>masterly manner</em>. It might well have -taken twenty years to produce it.” He expressed the -intention of reviewing the book, and seeing that -Darwin and Hooker had fair play in America. A -little later (January 23rd) he wrote to Darwin about -the American reprint, etc., and spoke of the work -itself in somewhat greater <span class="locked">detail:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“The <em>best part</em>, I think, is the <em>whole</em>, <i>i.e.</i> its <em>plan</em> and -<em>treatment</em>, the vast amount of facts and acute inferences -handled as if you had a perfect mastery of them.... Then -your candour is worth everything to your cause. It is refreshing -to find a person with a new theory who frankly confesses -that he finds difficulties.... The moment I understood your -premisses, I felt sure you had a real foundation to hold on.... -I am free to say that I never learnt so much from one book as -I have from yours.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">113</span></p> - -<p class="in0">He considered that the attempt to account for -the formation of organs such as eyes by natural -selection, was the weakest point in the book. This -view is to be explained by his strong teleological -convictions.</p> - -<p>Although Asa Gray was the great exponent of the -“Origin” in America, he could not agree with Darwin -on one important point—viz. on the exclusion of the -ordinary conceptions of design in nature by the -principle of natural selection. He believed that the -two conceptions could be reconciled, and that design -in some way worked in and through natural selection. -By design is here meant what Huxley called “the -commoner and coarser form of teleology,” and which -he believed to be now refuted—“the teleology which -supposes that the eye, such as we see it in man or -one of the higher vertebrata, was made with the -precise structure it exhibits for the purpose of -enabling the animal which possesses it to see, has -undoubtedly received its death-blow.” Huxley goes -on to point out that there is a “wider teleology, -which ... is actually based upon the fundamental -proposition of evolution ... that the whole world ... -is the result of the mutual interaction, according to -definite laws, of the forces possessed by the molecules -of which the primitive nebulosity of the universe was -composed.” Therefore, “a sufficient intelligence -could, from a knowledge of the properties of the -molecules of that vapour, have predicted, say, the -state of the fauna of Britain in 1869, with as much<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">114</span> -certainty as one can say what will happen to the -vapour of the breath on a cold winter’s day.” -(“Genealogy of Animals,” <i>The Academy</i>, 1869, reprinted -in “Critiques and Addresses,” and quoted in -his chapter “On the Reception of the ‘Origin of -Species’” in the “Life and Letters,” Vol. II.)</p> - -<p>But at the time of the appearance of the “Origin,” -many who sympathised with the general drift of the -argument were not yet prepared for the “wider -teleology.” Of these Asa Gray may be taken as the -representative; and it will be of interest to follow the -controversy between him and Darwin as regards -design and natural selection. The recently published -“Letters of Asa Gray to Charles Darwin” (Macmillan) -enable us to follow the correspondence from the side -of the great American evolutionist.</p> - -<p>Writing November 26th, 1860, Darwin refers to -one of Asa Gray’s articles on the <span class="locked">“Origin”:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as you do -about Design. I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless -muddle. I cannot think that the world, as we see it, is the -result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing -as the result of Design. To take a crucial example, you lead -me to infer—that you believe ‘that variation has been led -along certain beneficial lines.’ I cannot believe this; and I -think you would have to believe, that the tail of the Fantail -was led to vary in the number and direction of its feathers in -order to gratify the caprice of a few men. Yet if the Fantail -had been a wild bird, and had used its abnormal tail for some -special end, as to sail before the wind, unlike other birds, -everyone would have said, ‘What a beautiful and designed -adaptation.’ Again, I say I am, and shall ever remain, in a -hopeless muddle.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">115</span></p> - -<p class="in0">Elsewhere Darwin suggested that the pouter pigeon, -if it occurred wild, and used its inflated crop as a -float, would be considered as a striking example of -design.</p> - -<p>This controversy between them continued for -many years. We find Asa Gray referring to the -argument of the pigeons three years later. Thus he -wrote (September 1st, <span class="locked">1863):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I will consider about fantastic variation of pigeons. I -see afar trouble enough ahead quoad design in nature, but -have managed to keep off the chilliness by giving the knotty -questions a rather wide berth. If I rather avoid, I cannot -ignore the difficulties ahead. But if I adopt your view boldly, -can you promise me any less difficulties?”</p> -</div> - -<p>Writing the concluding paragraphs of the “Variations -of Animals and Plants under Domestication,” -Darwin evidently bore in mind his controversies on -the subject with Asa Gray and Lyell, and the attacks -of the Duke of Argyll and others. Sending advanced -sheets to Asa Gray, he wrote on October 16th, -<span class="locked">1867:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I finish my book with a semi-theological paragraph, in -which I quote and differ from you; what you will think of it, -I know not.”</p> -</div> - -<p>In relation to this interesting controversy, I think -it well to quote, almost in full, the metaphor by -which Darwin enforced his argument that the origin -of species by natural selection precluded a belief in -design in nature as it was ordinarily conceived at the -time.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">116</span></p> - -<p>This metaphor forms an important part of the -conclusion of the work in question (“Variation of -Animals and Plants,” etc.):</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“The long-continued accumulation of beneficial variations -will infallibly have led to structures as diversified, as beautifully -adapted for various purposes and as excellently co-ordinated, -as we see in the animals and plants around us. -Hence I have spoken of selection as the paramount power, -whether applied by man to the formation of domestic breeds, -or by nature to the production of species. I may recur to the -metaphor given in a former chapter: if an architect were to -rear a noble and commodious edifice, without the use of cut -stone, by selecting from the fragments at the base of a precipice -wedged-formed stones for his arches, elongated stones for his -lintels, and flat stones for his roof, we should admire his skill -and regard him as the paramount power. Now, the fragments -of stone, though indispensable to the architect, bear to the edifice -built by him the same relation which the fluctuating variations -of organic beings bear to the varied and admirable structures -ultimately acquired by their modified descendants.</p> - -<p>“Some authors have declared that natural selection explains -nothing, unless the precise cause of each slight individual -difference be made clear. If it were explained to a savage -utterly ignorant of the art of building, how the edifice had -been raised stone upon stone, and why wedge-formed fragments -were used for the arches, flat stones for the roof, &c.; and if -the use of each part and of the whole building were pointed -out, it would be unreasonable if he declared that nothing had -been made clear to him, because the precise cause of the shape -of each fragment could not be told. But this is a nearly -parallel case with the objection that selection explains -nothing, because we know not the cause of each individual -difference in the structure of each being.”</p> - -<div class="tb">* * * * *</div> - -<p>“The shape of the fragments of stone at the base of our -precipice may be called accidental, but this is not strictly -correct; for the shape of each depends on a long sequence of -events, all obeying natural laws.... But in regard to the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">117</span> -use to which the fragments may be put, their shape may be -strictly said to be accidental....”</p> -</div> - -<p>In his article in the <cite>Nation</cite> (March 19th, 1868), -Asa Gray criticised the metaphor as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“But in Mr. Darwin’s parallel, to meet the case of nature -according to his own view of it, not only the fragments of -rock (answering to variation) should fall, but the edifice -(answering to natural selection) should rise, irrespective of will -or choice!”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">This passage is quoted in the “Life and Letters” -(Vol. III., p. 84), and Francis Darwin makes the -convincing <span class="locked">reply:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“But my father’s parallel demands that natural selection -shall be the architect, not the edifice—the question of design -only comes in with regard to the form of the building -materials.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Darwin’s reply was contained in his letter to -Asa Gray dated May 8th, <span class="locked">1868:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“You give a good slap at my concluding metaphor: undoubtedly -I ought to have brought in and contrasted natural -and artificial selection; but it seemed so obvious to me that -natural selection depended on contingencies even more complex -than those which must have determined the shape of each fragment -at the base of my precipice. What I wanted to show was -that, in reference to pre-ordainment, whatever holds good in -the formation of an English pouter-pigeon holds good in the -formation of a natural species of pigeon. I cannot see that -this is false. If the right variations occurred, and no others, -natural selection would be superfluous.”</p> -</div> - -<p>To this, Asa Gray replied in his letter of May -<span class="locked">25th:—</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">118</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“As to close of my article, to match close of your book,—you -see plainly I was put on the defence by your reference to -an old hazardous remark of mine. I found your stone-house -argument unanswerable in substance (for the notion of design -must after all rest mostly on faith, and on accumulation of -adaptations, &c.); so all I could do was to find a vulnerable -spot in the shaping of it, fire my little shot, and run away -in the smoke.</p> - -<p>“Of course I understand your argument perfectly, and feel -the might of it.”</p> -</div> - -<p>From this last letter I think we may conclude -that Asa Gray’s feelings on this subject rested, as -he says, “on faith,” and that, intellectually, he saw -no way of meeting Darwin’s arguments.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_119" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">119</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XVIII">CHAPTER XVIII.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">INFLUENCE OF DARWIN UPON HUXLEY.</span></h2> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">HUXLEY AND NATURAL SELECTION.</div> - -<p>It is of the utmost interest to trace the influence -of Darwin upon Huxley, his great General in the -numerous controversial battles which had to be -fought before the new views were to secure a fair -hearing and, at length, complete success. Now that -we are quietly enjoying the fruit of his many victories, -we are apt to forget how much we owe to -Huxley, not only for evolution, but for that perfect -freedom in the expression of thought and opinion -which we enjoy. For Huxley fought on wider issues -than those raised by evolution, wide as these are; and -with a success so great that it is inconceivable that -any new and equally illuminating thought which the -future may hold in store for us, will meet with a -reception like that accorded to the “Origin of -Species.”</p> - -<p>At first sight it seems a simple matter to describe -the effect of the “Origin” upon Huxley, considering -that he, more than any other man, expounded it, and -defended it from the most weighty of the attacks -made upon it. Hence, it is only natural to believe, -as many have done, that he was in entire agreement -with the conclusions of the book as regards natural<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">120</span> -selection as well as evolution. On the other hand, -the opinion has often been expressed that Huxley, -although agreeing with the “Origin” for some -years after its first appearance, changed his mind -in later years, and no longer supported Darwin’s -views.</p> - -<p>I shall give reasons for rejecting both these -opinions about Huxley, although the first is far -nearer the truth than the second. The latter is -clearly untenable, and was probably merely an inference -from the fact that after a time Huxley ceased -to enter into Darwinian controversies. But this was -because he had done his work with entire success, -and therefore turned his attention in other directions. -Whenever he was called on to write or speak about -Darwinism, as he was on two occasions within -a few months of his death, his writings and -speeches left no doubt about his thoughts on -the subject. Furthermore, in the Preface to -“Darwiniana,” written in 1893, he expressly denied -that he had recanted or changed his opinions about -Darwin’s views.</p> - -<p>In order to appreciate the influence of Darwin -upon Huxley, we must find out the beliefs of the -latter upon the “species question” before the appearance -of the “Origin.” In his chapter “On the -Reception of the ‘Origin of Species’” (“Life and -Letters,” Vol. II.) Huxley says that, before 1858, he -took up an agnostic position as regards evolution -“... upon two grounds: firstly, that up to that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">121</span> -time, the evidence in favour of transmutation was -wholly insufficient; and, secondly, that no suggestion -respecting the causes of the transmutation assumed, -which had been made, was in any way adequate -to explain the phenomena.” It is obvious that these -two grounds are entirely distinct, and that the logical -foundation of the first is far more secure than that of -the second.</p> - -<p>The effect of the “Origin” was completely to -convince Huxley on the first ground: from that -time he never doubted the truth of evolution, however -it may have been brought about. With regard -to the second ground, it is quite clear that Huxley -had a very high opinion of natural selection: he -thought it incomparably the best suggestion upon -the subject that had ever been made, and he firmly -believed that it accounted for something—that it may -even have taken a dominant part in bringing about -evolution. On the other hand, he never felt quite -confident about the entire sufficiency of the evidence -in its favour. It is probable that he was far more -interested in the establishment of evolution as a -fact than in natural selection as an explanation of -it. He saw the vast amount of research in all kinds -of new or almost neglected lines, which would be -directly inspired by evolution. And his own investigations -in some of these lines soon afforded -some of the most weighty evidence in favour of the -doctrine. Natural selection had not the same personal -interest for him; no one has expounded it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">122</span> -better or defended it more vigorously and successfully, -but Huxley’s own researches never lay in directions -which would have made them available as a test -of the theory. Of natural selection he might have -used the words of Mercutio—it may not be “so deep -as a well, nor so wide as a church door,” to contain -the whole explanation of evolution, “but ’tis enough -’twill serve”; it will, at any rate, prevent him from -feeling the second ground on which he had maintained -an agnostic position.</p> - -<p>I believe that he maintained these views with -inflexible consistency throughout his life, the only -indications of change being in the last year, when -the contrast between his certainty of evolution -and his uncertainty of natural selection, as expressed -in the two speeches quoted on <a href="#Page_140">pp. 140, 141</a>, -was, perhaps, more sharply marked than at any -other period.</p> - -<p>It is now proposed to support this conclusion by -many extracts from Huxley’s writings, as well as -from his speeches, which have been alluded to above. -The deep interest of the subject, and the wide differences -of opinion with regard to it, justify, and -indeed demand, copious quotations selected from -works and speeches, written and spoken at many -different times during the years between 1858 and -1894.</p> - -<p>It may not be out of place to emphasise the fact -that the sole responsibility for the conclusions here -drawn rests with the author of this volume, and that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">123</span> -the evidence on which the conclusions rest is supplied -in full.</p> - -<p>About a month before the “Origin” was published, -Darwin wrote to Professor Huxley asking for the -names of foreigners to whom to send his book. -This communication is of great interest as being the -earliest letter, accessible to the public, which he -wrote to Huxley. In it he says: “I shall be <em>intensely</em> -curious to hear what effect the book produces -on you”; but he evidently thought that Huxley would -disagree with much in it, and must have been surprised -as well as gratified at the way in which it -was received. In his chapter “On the Reception of -the ‘Origin of Species’” (“Life and Letters,” Vol. II.), -Huxley writes: “My reflection, when I first made -myself master of the central idea of the ‘Origin,’ -was, ‘How extremely stupid not to have thought -of that.’”</p> - -<p>Huxley replied on November 23rd, 1859—the day -before the publication of the “Origin”—saying that -he had finished the book on the previous day. His -letter was a complete acceptance of evolution as -apart from any theory which may account for it; -and a thorough agreement with natural selection -as a “true cause for the production of species.” At -no time in his life did he state how far he considered -natural selection to be a sufficient cause. He was -only “prepared to go to the stake, if requisite, in -support of” the chapters which marshal the evidence -for evolution (ix., and most parts of x., xi., and xii.).</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">124</span></p> - -<p>With regard to the earlier chapters, which propound -the theory of natural selection, his exact -words <span class="locked">are:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“As to the first four chapters, I agree thoroughly and fully -with all the principles laid down in them. I think you have -demonstrated a true cause for the production of species, and -have thrown the <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">onus probandi</i>, that species did not arise in -the way you suppose, on your adversaries.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">Darwin replied with much warmth, and expressed -himself as “Now contented and able to sing my -<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">Nunc Dimittis</i>.”</p> - -<p>In the <i>Times</i> of December 26th, 1859, appeared -a masterly article upon the “Origin,” and, after a -time, it became known that Huxley was its author. -Volume II. of the “Life and Letters” explains the -circumstances under which the review was written. -The article is reprinted as the first essay (“The -Darwinian Hypothesis,” I.) in “Darwiniana” (Vol. -II. of the “Collected Essays of Professor Huxley,” -London, 1893). The following quotation (pp. 19, -20) shows the attitude he took up with regard to -natural <span class="locked">selection:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“That this most ingenious hypothesis enables us to give a -reason for many apparent anomalies in the distribution of -living beings in time and space, and that it is not contradicted -by the main phenomena of life and organisation appear to us -to be unquestionable; and, so far, it must be admitted to have -an immense advantage over any of its predecessors. But it -is quite another matter to affirm absolutely either the truth or -falsehood of Mr. Darwin’s views at the present stage of the -enquiry. Goethe has an excellent aphorism defining that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">125</span> -state of mind which he calls “Thätige Skepsis”—active doubt. -It is doubt which so loves truth that it neither dares rest in -doubting, nor extinguish itself by unjustified belief; and we -commend this state of mind to students of species, with -respect to Mr. Darwin’s or any other hypothesis as to their -origin. The combined investigations of another twenty years -may, perhaps, enable naturalists to say whether the modifying -causes and the selective power, which Mr. Darwin has satisfactorily -shewn to exist in Nature, are competent to produce -all the effects he ascribes to them; or whether, on the other -hand, he has been led to over-estimate the value of the principle -of natural selection, as greatly as Lamarck over-estimated -his <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">vera causa</i> of modification by exercise.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Of all the statements about natural selection -made by Huxley, this one seems to me the nearest -to the spirit of the two speeches he made in 1894, -in which it became evident that the intervening -thirty-five years had not brought the increased -confidence he had hoped for. Furthermore, in the -Preface to “Darwiniana” (1893) he expressly stated -that he had not changed his mind as regards this -article and the next which will be considered (see -<a href="#Page_137">p. 137</a>, where the passage is quoted).</p> - -<p>In 1860 Huxley wrote the article on “The Origin -of Species” which appeared in the <cite>Westminster -Review</cite> for April, and is reprinted in “Darwiniana.” -He here states the reasons for his doubts about -natural selection in considerable detail. At the -beginning of the essay (“Darwiniana,” p. 23) he -asserts <span class="locked">that—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“... all competent naturalists and physiologists, whatever -their opinions as to the ultimate fate of the doctrines put<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">126</span> -forth, acknowledge that the work in which they are embodied -is a solid contribution to knowledge and inaugurates a new -epoch in natural history.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Towards the end of the essay, after vindicating -the logical method followed by Darwin, he continues -(pp. <span class="locked">73–75):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“There is no fault to be found with Mr. Darwin’s method, -then; but it is another question whether he has fulfilled all -the conditions imposed by that method. Is it satisfactorily -proved, in fact, that species may be originated by selection? -that there is such a thing as natural selection? that none of -the phœnomena exhibited by species are inconsistent with the -origin of species in this way? If these questions can be -answered in the affirmative, Mr. Darwin’s view steps out of -the ranks of hypotheses into those of proved theories; but, -so long as the evidence at present adduced falls short of -enforcing that affirmation, so long, to our minds, must the -new doctrine be content to remain among the former—an -extremely valuable, and in the highest degree probable, -doctrine, indeed the only extant hypothesis which is worth -anything in a scientific point of view; but still a hypothesis, -and not yet the theory of species.</p> - -<p>“After much consideration, and with assuredly no bias -against Mr. Darwin’s views, it is our clear conviction that, as -the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a group of -animals, having all the characters exhibited by species in -Nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial -or natural. Groups having the morphological character of -species, distinct and permanent races in fact, have been so -produced over and over again; but there is no positive evidence, -at present, that any group of animals has, by variation -and selective breeding, given rise to another group which was -even in the least degree infertile with the first. Mr. Darwin -is perfectly aware of this weak point, and brings forward a -multitude of ingenious and important arguments to diminish -the force of the objection. We admit the value of these arguments -to their fullest extent; nay, we will go so far as to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">127</span> -express our belief that experiments, conducted by a skilful -physiologist, would very probably obtain the desired production -of mutually more or less infertile breeds from a -common stock, in a comparatively few years; but still, as the -case stands at present, this ‘little rift within the lute’ is not -to be disguised nor overlooked.”</p> -</div> - -<p>He concludes with a summary of the results of -his argument. The sentences which bear on the -present question are as follows (pp. 77, <span class="locked">78):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Our object has been attained if we have given an -intelligible, however brief, account of the established facts -connected with species, and of the relation of the explanation -of those facts offered by Mr. Darwin to the theoretical views -held by his predecessors and his contemporaries, and, above -all, to the requirements of scientific logic. We have ventured -to point out that it does not, as yet, satisfy all those requirements; -but we do not hesitate to assert that it was superior to -any preceding or contemporary hypothesis, in the extent of -observational and experimental basis on which it rests, in its -rigorously scientific method, and in its power of explaining -biological phenomena, as was the hypothesis of Copernicus -to the speculations of Ptolemy. But the planetary orbits -turned out to be not quite circular after all, and, grand as was -the service Copernicus rendered to science, Kepler and Newton -had to come after him. What if the orbit of Darwinism -should be a little too circular? what if species should offer -residual phenomena, here and there, not explicable by natural -selection? Twenty years hence naturalists may be in a -position to say whether this is, or is not, the case; but in -either event they will owe the author of ‘The Origin of -Species’ an immense debt of gratitude. We should leave a -very wrong impression on the reader’s mind if we permitted -him to suppose that the value of that work depends wholly on -the ultimate justification of the theoretical views which it -contains. On the contrary, if they were disproved to-morrow, -the book would still be the best of its kind—the most compendious<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">128</span> -statements of well-sifted facts bearing on the -doctrine of species that has ever appeared.”</p> -</div> - -<p>It is clear that two very distinct points are urged -in this criticism of natural selection—(1) the difficulty -that selective methods applied by man have not as -yet produced all the characteristics of true species; -(2) supposing the latter difficulty to be surmounted -or sufficiently explained, the uncertainty as to how -much or how little of the process of evolution has -been due to natural selection.</p> - -<p>Later in the same year Darwin seems to have -been a little disappointed that Huxley’s confidence -did not increase. Thus, he wrote on December 2nd, -<span class="locked">1860:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I entirely agree with you that the difficulties on my -notions are terrific; yet having seen what all the <i>Reviews</i> have -said against me, I have far more confidence in the <em>general</em> -truth of the doctrine than I formerly had. Another thing -gives me confidence—viz. that some who went half an inch -with me now go further, and some who were bitterly opposed -are now less bitterly opposed. And this makes me feel a little -disappointed that you are not inclined to think the general -view in some slight degree more probable than you did at -first. This I consider rather ominous. Otherwise I should be -more contented with your degree of belief. I can pretty -plainly see that if my view is ever to be generally adopted, it -will be by young men growing up and replacing the old -workers, and then young ones finding that they can group -facts and search out new lines of investigation better on the -notion of descent than on that of creation.”</p> -</div> - -<p>In 1863 Huxley delivered a course of lectures -to working men on “The Causes of the Phenomena<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">129</span> -of Organic Nature”; here, too, he expressed his -opinions about natural selection with great clearness -and force. These lectures are reprinted as the -concluding part of “Darwiniana,” and the references -are to the pages of that volume of his collected -essays.</p> - -<p>On page 464 we <span class="locked">read—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Here are the phenomena of Hybridism staring you in the -face, and you cannot say, ‘I can, by selective modification, -produce these same results.’ Now, it is admitted on all hands, -at present, so far as experiments have gone, it has not been -found possible to produce this complete physiological divergence -by selective breeding.... If we were shewn that -this must be the necessary and inevitable results of all experiments, -I hold that Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis would be -utterly shattered.”</p> -</div> - -<p>He then goes on to show that this is very far from -proved, and concludes (page <span class="locked">466)—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“that though Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis does not completely -extricate us from this difficulty at present, we have not the -least right to say it will not do so.”</p> -</div> - -<p>A passage on page 467 shows that Huxley placed -natural selection infinitely higher than any other -attempt to account for evolution, and indeed that -he regarded all other attempts with scorn.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I really believe that the alternative is either Darwinism -or nothing, for I do not know of any rational conception or -theory of the Organic universe which has any scientific -position at all beside Mr. Darwin’s.... Whatever may -be the objections to his views, certainly all other theories are -absolutely out of court.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">130</span></p> - -<p>On page 468 he <span class="locked">continues—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“But you must recollect that when I say I think it is either -Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis or nothing; that either we must take -his view, or look upon the whole of organic nature as an enigma, -the meaning of which is wholly hidden from us; you must -understand that I mean that I accept it provisionally, in -exactly the same way as I accept any other hypothesis.”</p> -</div> - -<p>He concludes the lectures and the volume in -which they are now reproduced by the following -eloquent testimony to the unique value of the -“Origin of <span class="locked">Species”:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I believe that if you strip it of its theoretical part it still -remains one of the greatest encyclopædias of biological doctrine -that any one man ever brought forth, and I believe that, if you -take it as the embodiment of an hypothesis, it is destined to -be the guide of biological and psychological speculation for the -next three or four generations.”</p> -</div> - -<p>The next essay from which I quote was written -in 1871. At the beginning of “Mr. Darwin’s Critics” -(“Darwiniana,” p. 120) he uses words which, if they -stood alone, might be interpreted as an indication -of a stronger conviction.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Whatever may be thought or said about Mr. Darwin’s -doctrines, or the manner in which he has propounded them, -this much is certain, that, in a dozen years, the ‘Origin of -Species’ has worked as complete a revolution in biological -science as the ‘Principia’ did in astronomy—and it has done -so, because, in the words of Helmholtz, it contains an ‘essentially -new creative thought.’”</p> -</div> - -<p>This last quotation, and the following one, from -“Evolution in Biology,” written in 1878, are, I think,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">131</span> -among the strongest utterances in favour of natural -selection to be found in the Collected Essays. At -the conclusion of the above-named essay (<i>l. c.</i>, p. 223) -he states that it was clearly seen <span class="locked">that—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“if the explanation would apply to species, it would not only -solve the problem of their evolution, but that it would account -for the facts of teleology, as well as for those of morphology;...”</p> - -<p>“How far ‘natural selection’ suffices for the production of -species remains to be seen. Few can doubt that, if not the -whole cause, it is a very important factor in that operation; -and that it must play a great part in the sorting out of -varieties into those which are transitory and those which are -permanent.”</p> -</div> - -<p>The seventh essay, “The Coming of Age of ‘The -Origin of Species,’” was written in 1880. His complete -confidence in evolution, as shown in this essay, -may be contrasted with his cautious statements about -natural selection. He boldly affirms evolution to be -the fundamental doctrine of the “Origin of Species,” -while natural selection is, I believe, neither mentioned -nor even alluded to. On this great occasion -he thus emphasised the immense debt we owe to -Darwin in that he was the first to produce adequate -evidence in favour of the ancient doctrine of -evolution, a benefit quite distinct from that which -he conferred in the theory of natural selection -(see <a href="#Page_100">pp. 100–102</a>).</p> - -<p>The following are among the most confident -statements about evolution to be found in this -essay. Speaking of the “Origin,” he says (p. <span class="locked">229):—</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">132</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“... the general doctrine of evolution, to one side of which -it gives expression, obtains, in the phenomena of biology, a -firm base of operations whence it may conduct its conquest of -the whole realm of nature.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">And again, on page <span class="locked">332:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“The fundamental doctrine of the ‘Origin of Species,’ as -of all forms of the theory of evolution applied to biology, is -‘that the innumerable species, genera, and families of organic -beings with which the world is peopled have all descended, -each within its own class or group, from common parents, and -have all been modified in the course of descent.’”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">Furthermore, on page 242 we <span class="locked">read:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I venture to repeat what I have said before, that so far -as the animal world is concerned, evolution is no longer a -speculation, but a statement of historical fact. It takes its -place alongside of those accepted truths which must be -reckoned with by philosophers of all schools.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">And on the same page he quotes with approval -the statement by M. Filhol of the results to which -he had been led by his palæontological <span class="locked">investigations:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Under the influence of natural conditions of which we -have no exact knowledge, though traces of them are discoverable, -species have been modified in a thousand ways: -species have arisen which, becoming fixed, have thus produced -a corresponding number of secondary species.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Similarly, in the Obituary notice in <i>Nature</i> (1882), -Huxley speaks of the secure position in which -Darwin had placed the doctrine of evolution as his -great achievement. The following eloquent passage -occurs on page 247 of <span class="locked">“Darwiniana”:—</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">133</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“None have fought better, and none have been more -fortunate, than Charles Darwin. He found a great truth -trodden underfoot, reviled by bigots, and ridiculed by all the -world; he lived long enough to see it, chiefly by his own -efforts, irrefragibly established in science,...”</p> -</div> - -<p>In the impressive speech in which Huxley handed -over the statue of Darwin to the Prince of Wales, as -representative of the Trustees of the British Museum, -on June 9th, 1885 (“Darwiniana,” p. 248), the references -to Darwin are most consistent with the view -that the support to evolution was held by the speaker -to be the great work of his life. Natural selection -is not mentioned.</p> - -<p>The next publication on this subject by Huxley -is the celebrated chapter “On the Reception of the -‘Origin of Species,’” in the second volume of the -great “Life and Letters.” In this chapter he speaks -rather more confidently about natural selection than -in some of the earlier essays and in the later -<span class="locked">speeches:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“The reality and the importance of the natural processes -on which Darwin founds his deductions are no more doubted -than those of growth and multiplication; and, whether the -full potency attributed to them is admitted or not, no one -doubts their vast and far-reaching significance.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">But of evolution he speaks far more <span class="locked">strongly:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“To any one who studies the signs of the times, the -emergence of the philosophy of Evolution, [“bound hand and -foot and cast into utter darkness during the millennium of -theological scholasticism”] in the attitude of claimant to the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">134</span> -throne of the world of thought, from the limbo of hated and, -as many hoped, forgotten things, is the most portentous event -of the nineteenth century.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">And for this he gives Darwin the credit.</p> - -<p>Later on he indicates the sense in which his keen -appreciation of natural selection is to be understood. -Thus, such strong statements <span class="locked">as—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“... the publication of the Darwin and Wallace papers -in 1858, and still more that of the ‘Origin’ in 1859, had the -effect ... of the flash of light, which to a man who has -lost himself in a dark night, suddenly reveals a road which, -whether it takes him straight home or not, certainly goes his -way”;</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">and—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“The facts of variability, of the struggle for existence, of -adaptation to conditions, were notorious enough; but none of -us had suspected that the road to the heart of the species -problem lay through them, until Darwin and Wallace dispelled -the darkness, and the beacon-fire of the ‘Origin’ -guided the benighted,”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">if they stood alone, might naturally be interpreted -as an unqualified testimony to the permanent truth -of natural selection. But this interpretation is expressly -<span class="locked">excluded:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Whether the particular shape which the doctrine of -evolution, as applied to the organic world, took in Darwin’s -hands, would prove to be final or not, was, to me, a matter -of indifference. In my earliest criticisms of the ‘Origin’ -I ventured to point that its logical foundation was insecure -...; and that insecurity remains.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">135</span></p> - -<p class="in0">Its value for Huxley was that it was “incomparably -more probable than the creation hypothesis”; that -it was “a hypothesis respecting the origin of known -organic forms, which assumed the operation of no -causes but such as could be proved to be actually at -work”; that it provided “clear and definite conceptions -which could be brought face to face with -facts and have their validity tested”; that it freed -us “for ever from the dilemma—refuse to accept -the creation hypothesis, and what have you to propose -that can be accepted by any cautious reasoner?” -Indeed, the hypothesis did away with this dilemma, -even if it were itself to disappear; for “if we had -none of us been able to discern the paramount -significance of some of the most patent and notorious -of natural facts, until they were, so to speak, thrust -under our noses, what force remained in the dilemma—creation -or nothing? It was obvious that, hereafter, -the probability would be immensely greater, -that the links of natural causation were hidden from -our purblind eyes, than that natural causation should -be incompetent to produce all the phenomena -of nature.”</p> - -<p>Therefore, “the only rational course for those who -had no other object than the attainment of truth, -was to accept ‘Darwinism’ as a working hypothesis, -and see what could be made of it.” Furthermore, -“Whatever may be the ultimate fate of the particular -theory put forth by Darwin, ... all the ingenuity -and all the learning of hostile critics has not enabled<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">136</span> -them to adduce a solitary fact, of which it can -be said, this is irreconcilable with the Darwinian -theory.”</p> - -<p>Taking this argument as a whole, it seems to me -to amount to the words of Mercutio quoted at the -beginning of this chapter.</p> - -<p>In the following year (1888) Huxley wrote the -Obituary Notice of Darwin for the Proceedings of -the Royal Society: it is reprinted in “Darwiniana” -(pp. 253 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>). In this admirable essay the author -recognises that Darwin evidently accepted evolution -before he could offer any explanation of the motive -cause by which that process took place. The theory -of descent with modification had often been thought -of before, “but in the eyes of the naturalist of the -‘Beagle’ (and, probably, in those of most sober -thinkers), the advocates of transmutation had done -the doctrine they expounded more harm than good.” -Huxley speaks of the “Origin” as “one of the -hardest books to master,” in this agreeing with -Hooker (see <a href="#Page_111">p. 111</a>).</p> - -<p>In this essay Huxley gives a clear and excellent -statement of natural selection, prefaced by these -words (p. <span class="locked">287):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Although, then, the present occasion is not suitable for -any detailed criticism of the theory, or of the objections which -have been brought against it, it may not be out of place to -endeavour to separate the substance of the theory from its -accidents; and to shew that a variety not only of hostile -comments, but of friendly would-be improvements, lose their -<i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">raison d’être</i> to the careful student.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">137</span></p> - -<p class="in0">Then follows a brief but epigrammatic description, -such as only Huxley could have written, of the -theory, and some of the chief arguments which have -revolved round it. Occasionally he speaks as if he -were stating his own opinion as well as Darwin’s, -but throughout it seems to me that his object is -not to give his own views but to write a fair and -clear account of Darwin’s theory, and to defend -it from a number of criticisms and modifications -which have been, from time to time, brought -forward.</p> - -<p>“Darwiniana” was published in 1893, and this -is the date of the Preface, in which Huxley speaks -<span class="locked">of—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“... the ancient doctrine of Evolution, rehabilitated and -placed upon a sound scientific foundation, since, and in consequence -of, the publication of the ‘Origin of Species....’”</p> -</div> - -<p>He thinks that readers will admit that in the -first two essays (see pages <a href="#Page_124">124–128</a> of the present -<span class="locked">volume)—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“... my zeal to secure fair play for Mr. Darwin, did -not drive me into the position of a mere advocate; and that, -while doing justice to the greatness of the argument, I did not -fail to indicate its weak points. I have never seen any reason -for departing from the position which I took up in these two -essays; and the assertion which I sometimes meet with nowadays, -that I have ‘recanted’ or changed my opinions about -Mr. Darwin’s views, is quite unintelligible to me.”</p> -</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“As I have said in the seventh essay, [see pages <a href="#Page_131">131, 132</a> -of the present volume] the fact of evolution is to my mind<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">138</span> -sufficiently evidenced by palæontology; and I remain of the -opinion expressed in the second, that until selective breeding -is definitely proved to give rise to varieties infertile with one -another, the logical foundation of the theory of natural -selection is incomplete.”</p> -</div> - -<p>It is therefore clear, as I have before stated, -that Huxley, in 1893, re-stated his criticisms and -qualifications of thirty years before, and expressed -his conviction anew of the validity of the objections -which he then raised against a full and complete -acceptance of natural selection.</p> - -<p>We now come to the last and most significant -of all Huxley’s utterances on evolution and natural -selection, made on two great occasions in the last -year of his life. Lord Salisbury, in his eloquent -and interesting Presidential Address to the British -Association at Oxford (August 8th, 1894), had said -of <span class="locked">Darwin:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“He has, as a matter of fact, disposed of the doctrine of the -immutability of species.... Few now are found to doubt -that animals separated by differences far exceeding those that -distinguish what we know as species have yet descended from -common ancestors.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">While thus completely admitting evolution in the -organic world, Lord Salisbury attacked natural -selection on two grounds—first, on the insufficiency -of the time allowed by physicists for a process which -is, of necessity, extremely slow in its operation; -secondly, on the ground that “we cannot demonstrate -the process of natural selection in detail; we cannot<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">139</span> -even, with more or less ease, imagine it.” And his -main objection under this head was the supposed difficulty -in securing the union of successful variations. -The actual words have been already quoted on <a href="#Page_83">page 83</a>, -where it was shown that the criticism does -not apply to natural selection, but to a theory mistaken -by the speaker for that of Darwin. Curiously -enough, the first objection of the insufficiency of -time was the indirect cause of a subsequent trenchant -criticism by Professor Perry of the line of -mathematical reasoning on which the limit had -been fixed.</p> - -<p>Huxley was called on to second the vote of -thanks, and his speech had evidently been considered -with the greatest care. I quote the passages which -bear on evolution and natural selection from the -<i>Times</i> of August 9th, 1894, in which a <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">verbatim</i> -report is <span class="locked">furnished:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“... As one of those persons who for many years past -had made a pretty free use of the comfortable word ‘evolution,’ -let him remind them that 34 years ago a considerable discussion, -to which the President had referred, took place in -one of their sectional meetings upon what people frequently -called the ‘Darwinism question,’ but which on that occasion -was not the Darwinism question, but the very much deeper -question which lay beneath the Darwinism question—he -meant the question of evolution.... The two doctrines, -the two main points, for which these men [Sir John Lubbock, -Sir J. Hooker, and the speaker] fought were that species were -mutable, and that the great variety of animal forms had proceeded -from gradual and natural modification of the comparatively -few primitive forms....”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">140</span></p> - -<p class="in0">After alluding to the revolution in thought which -had taken place in thirty-four years, he <span class="locked">said:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“As he noted in the presidential address to which they had -just listened with such well-deserved interest, he found it stated -on that which was then and at this time the highest authority -for them, that as a matter of fact the doctrine of the immutability -of species was disposed of and gone. He found that -few were now found to doubt that animals separated by -differences far exceeding those which they knew as species -were yet descended from a common ancestry. Those were -their propositions; those were the fundamental principles of -the doctrine of evolution. Darwinism was not evolution, nor -Spencerism, nor Hæckelism, nor Weismannism, but all these -were built on the fundamental doctrine which was evolution, -which they maintained so many years, and which was that -upon which their President had put the seal of his authority -that evening....”</p> -</div> - -<p>Huxley thus hailed the statements of the President -in favour of evolution, while the attacks on -natural selection he merely met by saying that the -address would have made a good subject for discussion -in one of the sections, and by insisting with -impressive solemnity that evolution was a very -different thing from natural selection, thereby implying -that the former would be unaffected by the -fate of the latter.</p> - -<p>The second occasion was between three and four -months later, when Huxley spoke at the Anniversary -Dinner of the Royal Society, November 30th, 1894, -after having been awarded the Darwin Medal at the -afternoon meeting. I quote his words from the -<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">verbatim</i> report of the <i>Times</i> for December <span class="locked">1st:—</span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">141</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“... I am as much convinced now as I was 34 years -ago that the theory propounded by Mr. Darwin, I mean -that which he propounded—not that which has been reported -to be his by too many ill-instructed, both friends and foes—has -never yet been shewn to be inconsistent with any positive -observations, and if I may use a phrase which I know has been -objected to and which I use in a totally different sense from -that in which it was first proposed by its first propounder, I -do believe that on all grounds of pure science it ‘holds the -field,’ as the only hypothesis at present before us which has a -sound scientific foundation.... I am sincerely of opinion -that the views which were propounded by Mr. Darwin 34 -years ago may be understood hereafter as constituting an -epoch in the intellectual history of the human race. They -will modify the whole system of our thought and opinion, our -most intimate convictions. But I do not know, I do not think -anybody knows, whether the particular views which he held -will be hereafter fortified by the experience of the ages which -come after us; ... whether the particular form in which -he has put them before us (the Darwinian doctrines) may be -such as is finally destined to survive or not is more, I venture -to think, than anybody is capable at this present moment of -saying.”</p> -</div> - -<p>It is unnecessary to say anything about this -passage, which fitly sums up and sets the seal on -the long series of quotations I have felt obliged -to make.</p> - -<p>It may not be out of place, however, to state in -a few words why many naturalists, including the -present writer, are not inclined to accept the extremely -cautious and guarded language of one upon -whom, with regard to so many other subjects, they -have ever looked as their teacher and guide. Concerning -the verification of a hypothesis, Huxley said<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">142</span> -in his lectures to working men (“Darwiniana,” pages -367, <span class="locked">368)—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“... that the more extensive verifications are,—that the -more frequently experiments have been made, and results of -the same kind arrived at,—that the more varied the conditions -under which the same results are attained, the more certain is -the ultimate conclusion....”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">And <span class="locked">again—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“In scientific enquiry it becomes a matter of duty to expose -a supposed law to every possible kind of verification, and to -take care, moreover, that this is done intentionally, and not -left to a mere accident....”</p> -</div> - -<p>It may well be that the length of time required -before an artificially-selected race will exhibit, when -interbred with the parent species, phenomena of -hybridism similar to those which are witnessed when -distinct natural species are interbred—will be fatal -to the production of this important line of evidence. -But there is nothing to hinder us from holding the -reasonable belief that such evidence might be obtained -if we had command of the necessary conditions; -and in the meantime other evidence of the most -satisfactory kind is accumulating, and on a vast scale. -Whenever a naturalist approaches a problem in the -light of the theory of natural selection, and is able, -by its aid, to predict a conclusion which subsequent -investigation proves to be correct, he is helping in -the production of evidence in favour of the theory. -When a naturalist has found the formula “if natural -selection be true so-and-so ought to happen” the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">143</span> -safest of all guides into the unknown, when it has -brought him success many times and in very different -directions, when he knows that many other workers -in other fields of biological inquiry have had a similarly -happy experience, he gradually comes to feel a -profound confidence in the permanent truth and the -far-reaching importance of the great theory which has -served him so well.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_144" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">144</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XIX">CHAPTER XIX.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">THE DIFFICULTY WITH WHICH THE “ORIGIN” WAS -UNDERSTOOD.</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Even</span> earlier than Huxley, H. C. Watson wrote -warmly accepting natural selection. In his letter, -which is dated November 21st, 1859, he <span class="locked">said:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Your leading idea will surely become recognised as an -established truth in science—<i>i.e.</i> ‘Natural Selection.’ It has -the characteristics of all great natural truths, clarifying what -was obscure, simplifying what was intricate, adding greatly to -previous knowledge. You are the greatest revolutionist in -natural history of this century, if not of all centuries.”</p> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE THEORY.</div> - -<p class="in0">For some years to come, however, such views as -these were the exception, as will soon be shown.</p> - -<p>The Duke of Argyll has argued (<cite>Nineteenth -Century</cite>, December, 1887) that the success of -“Natural Selection” has followed from the convincing -character of the words used, scientific men -(“the populace of science” he calls them) being -so easily led by the power of loose analogies that -they have been convinced of the truth of the -principle because they are familiar with Nature on -the one hand, and selection as a process on the other!</p> - -<p>As I am not aware that this preposterous suggestion -has ever been publicly disproved, and since<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">145</span> -therefore some readers of the journal in question -may have been misled by it, I have collected much -evidence, which proves that the principle of natural -selection was only absorbed with the very greatest -difficulty, and that the words used in describing it for -a long time entirely failed to inform even eminent -scientific men of the essential characteristics of the -theory itself, and certainly failed most signally to -convince them. Conviction came very gradually as -the theory was slowly understood and was seen to -offer an intelligible explanation of an immense and -ever-increasing number of facts.</p> - -<p>I will now bring together quotations from Darwin’s -letters in 1859 and 1860, showing how soon he came -to realise the difficulty with which natural selection -was understood, and to feel that he might have been -more successful with some other title.</p> - -<p>In 1859 he wrote to Dr. W. B. Carpenter—“I -have found the most extraordinary difficulty in -making even able men understand at what I was -driving.” The remaining quotations are all taken -from letters written in 1860. By the middle of this -year, when he was feeling oppressed by hostile reviews -and unfair and ignorant criticisms (“I am getting -wearied at the storm of hostile reviews, and hardly -any useful”), he often alludes to the failure of opponents -to understand his theory. Thus, in a letter to -Hooker (June 5th), he <span class="locked">says:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“This review, however, and Harvey’s letter have convinced -me that I must be a very bad explainer. Neither really<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">146</span> -understand what I mean by Natural Selection.... I hope -to God you will be more successful than I have been in -making people understand your meaning.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">He says almost the same thing in a letter to Lyell -(June <span class="locked">6th):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“... I am beginning to despair of ever making the -majority understand my notions.... I must be a very bad -explainer. I hope to Heaven that you will succeed better. -Several reviews and several letters have shown me too clearly -how little I am understood. I suppose ‘Natural Selection’ -was a bad term; ... I can only hope by reiterated explanations -finally to make the matter clearer.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Writing to Asa Gray, he <span class="locked">says:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“... I have had a letter of fourteen folio pages from -Harvey against my book, with some ingenious and new -remarks; but it is an extraordinary fact that he does not -understand at all what I mean by Natural Selection.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Later on, he again wrote to <span class="locked">Lyell:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Talking of ‘natural selection’; if I had to commence <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">de -novo</i>, I would have used ‘natural preservation.’ For I find -men like Harvey of Dublin cannot understand me, though he -has read the book twice. Dr. Gray of the British Museum -remarked to me that, ‘<em>selection</em> was obviously impossible with -plants! No one could tell him how it could be possible!’ -And he may now add that the author did not attempt it to -him!”</p> -</div> - -<p>And still later he wrote asking Lyell’s advice as to -additions to a new edition of the “Origin,” saying:—“I -would also put a note to ‘Natural Selection,’ -and show how variously it has been misunderstood.” -This note is to be found on page 63 of the sixth<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">147</span> -edition. In it he tells us that some writers have “even -imagined that natural selection induces variability,” -instead of merely preserving it; others that natural -selection “implies conscious choice in the animals -which become modified”; others that it is set up -“as an active power or Deity.” In writing (December) -to Murray about a new edition of the “Origin,” he -alludes to the “many corrections, or rather additions, -which I have made in hopes of making my many -rather stupid reviewers at least understand what -is meant.”</p> - -<p>He seems to have retained a very vivid recollection -of the difficulty with which his theory was -understood at first; thus he tells us in his -<span class="locked">“Autobiography”:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant -by Natural Selection, but signally failed.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Why the term “natural selection” was chosen by -Darwin is very clearly shown in the three following -quotations from letters to distinguished scientific men, -which were probably written in answer to attacks or -criticisms on this very point.</p> - -<p>He writes to Lyell in 1859, “Why I like the -term is that it is constantly used in all works on -breeding.”</p> - -<p>Writing to H. G. Bronn in 1860, he explains his -motives with great clearness and <span class="locked">force:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Several scientific men have thought the term ‘Natural -Selection’ good, because its meaning is <em>not</em> obvious, and each<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">148</span> -man could not put on it his own interpretation, and because it -at once connects variation under domestication and nature.... -Man has altered, and thus improved the English race-horse by -<em>selecting</em> successive fleeter individuals; and I believe, owing to -the struggle for existence, that similar <em>slight</em> variations in a -wild horse, <em>if advantageous to it</em>, would be <em>selected</em> or <em>preserved</em> -by nature; hence Natural Selection.”</p> -</div> - -<p>In 1866 he wrote to Wallace, comparing the term -with that which we owe to Herbert <span class="locked">Spencer:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of -H. Spencer’s excellent expression of ‘the survival of the fittest.’ -This however had not occurred to me till reading your letter. -It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot be -used as a substantive governing a verb; and that it is a real -objection I infer from H. Spencer continually using the words, -natural selection. I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated -degree, that it was a great advantage to bring into connection -natural and artificial selection; this indeed led me -to use a term in common, and I still think it some advantage.... -The term Natural Selection has now been so -largely used abroad and at home, that I doubt whether it could -be given up, and with all its faults I should be sorry to see the -attempt made. Whether it will be rejected must now depend -‘on the survival of the fittest.’ As in time the term must grow -intelligible the objections to its use will grow weaker and -weaker. I doubt whether the use of any term would have -made the subject intelligible to some minds, clear as it is to -others; for do we not see even to the present day Malthus on -Population absurdly misunderstood? This reflection about -Malthus has often comforted me when I have been vexed at -the mis-statement of my own views.”</p> -</div> - -<p>A large number of critics not only failed to understand -natural selection, but they asserted that it was -precisely the same theory as that advanced by -Lamarck or one of the other writers on evolution<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">149</span> -before Darwin. This seems almost incredible to us at -the present day, when the biological world is divided -into two sections on the very subject, and when it is -generally recognised that Lamarck’s theory would be, -if it were proved to be sound, a formidable rival to -natural selection as a motive cause of evolution. But -the following quotations—a few among many—leave -no doubt whatever upon the subject.</p> - -<p>Evidence on this point reached Darwin almost -immediately after the appearance of the “Origin.” -Thus he writes to Hooker on December 14th, <span class="locked">1859:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Old J. E. Gray, at the British Museum, attacked me in -fine style: ‘You have just reproduced Lamarck’s doctrine, and -nothing else, and here Lyell and others have been attacking -him for twenty years, and because <em>you</em> ... say the very same -thing, they are all coming round; it is the most ridiculous inconsistency,’ -&c. &c.”</p> -</div> - -<p>In the following year, Wilberforce, Bishop of -Oxford, writing in the <cite>Quarterly Review</cite> for July, -1860, appeals to Lyell,</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“in order that with his help this flimsy speculation may be as -completely put down as was what in spite of all denials we -must venture to call its twin though less-instructed brother, -the ‘Vestiges of Creation.’”</p> -</div> - -<p>Again, Dr. Bree, in “Species not Transmutable,” -says:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“The only real difference between Mr. Darwin and his two -predecessors, [Lamarck and the “Vestiges”] is this:—that -while the latter have each given a mode by which they -conceive the great changes they believe in have been brought -about, Mr. Darwin does no such thing.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">150</span></p> - -<p>One of the most interesting of the countless -examples of misunderstanding is contained in a -recently published letter from W. S. Macleay to Robert -Lowe.<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">H</a> This letter was written from Elizabeth Bay, -and is dated May, 1860, evidently just after the first -edition of the “Origin,” a copy of which had been sent -by Robert Lowe, had been read by Macleay.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Again if this primordial cell had a Creator, as Darwin -seems to admit, I do not see what we gain by denying the -Creator, as Darwin does, all management of it after its creation. -Lamarck was more logical in supposing it to have existed of -itself from all eternity—indeed this is the principal difference -that I see between this theory of Darwin’s and that of -Lamarck, who propounded everything essential in the former -theory, in a work now rather rare—his ‘Philosophie Zoologique.’ -But you may see an abridgment of it in so common a book as -his ‘Histoire Nat. des Animaux Vertébrés,’ vol. i., pp. 188, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et -seq.</i>—Edit. 1818, where the examples given of natural selection -are the gasteropod molluscs.... Natural selection (sometimes -called ‘struggles’ by Darwin) is identical with the -‘Besoins des Choses’ of Lamarck, who, by means of his -hypothesis, for instance, assigns the constant stretching of the -neck to reach the acacia leaves as the cause of the extreme -length of it in the giraffe; much in the same way the black -bear, according to Darwin, became a whale, which I believe as -little as his other assertion that our progenitors anciently had -gills—only they had dropped off by want of use in the course -of myriads of generations.”</p> -</div> - -<p>I had long been anxious to possess a copy of -the first edition of the “Origin,” and was fortunate -enough to come across one about the time when -Macleay’s letter was pointed out to me by my wife.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">151</span> -I opened the title-page, and found upon it the signature -“W. S. Macleay”; it must have been the very -volume given him by Robert Lowe, which Macleay -had read and believed he had been fairly criticising. -Out of Macleay’s volume, therefore, I quote the -sentences he referred to in his letter.</p> - -<p>Darwin’s real statement about the black bear -which “became a whale” is to be found on page <span class="locked">184:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne -swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, -like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case -as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better -adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I -can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by -natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure -and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature -was produced as monstrous as a whale.”</p> -</div> - -<p>The statement about the gills which “dropped off -by want of use” becomes in the original (p. <span class="locked">191):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“In the higher vertebrata the branchiæ have wholly -disappeared—the slits on the sides of the neck and the loop-like -course of the arteries still marking in the embryo their -former position.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Although the hypothetical case of the black -bear—carefully guarded as it is—does not now appear -to us at all extravagant (indeed, in the cleft cheeks -of the goat-sucker we have a precisely analogous case), -Darwin seems to have thought it unsuitable, probably -because it became an easy butt for ignorant ridicule. -We find accordingly that in the second and all subsequent -editions everything after the word “water” is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">152</span> -omitted, while “almost” is inserted before “like a -whale.” He was alluding to this passage when he -wrote to Lyell (December 22nd, 1859): “Thanks -about ‘Bears,’ a word of ill-omen to me.” Furthermore, -Andrew Murray<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">I</a> says, concerning the sentences -as they stand in the first <span class="locked">edition:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“In quoting this, I do not at all mean to give it as a fair -illustration of Mr. Darwin’s views. I only refer to it as -indicating the extent to which he is prepared to go. The -example here given I look upon (as I have reason to know -that Mr. Darwin himself does) merely as an extreme and -somewhat extravagant illustration, imagined expressly to show -in a forcible way how ‘natural selection’ would operate -in making a mouth bigger and bigger, because more -advantageous.”</p> -</div> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_153" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">153</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XX">CHAPTER XX.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">THE DIFFICULTY WITH WHICH THE “ORIGIN” WAS -UNDERSTOOD (<i>continued</i>)—VIEWS ON SPONTANEOUS -GENERATION.</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">The</span> history of opinion on evolution and natural -selection, in the years which followed the publication -of the “Origin,” can be traced in the titles of the -papers and subjects of discussion at successive -meetings of the British Association. In the Presidential -Address delivered by Professor Newton to -the Biological Section of the Manchester meeting in -1887, there is a most interesting account of the -struggles which took <span class="locked">place:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“The ever-memorable meeting ... at Oxford in the summer -of 1860 saw the first open conflict between the professors of -the new faith and the adherents of the old one. Far be it -from me to blame those among the latter who honestly stuck -to the creed in which they had educated themselves; but my -admiration is for the few dauntless men who, without flinching -from the unpopularity of their cause, flung themselves in -the way of obloquy, and impetuously assaulted the ancient -citadel in which the sanctity of ‘species’ was enshrined -and worshipped as a palladium. However strongly I myself -sympathised with them, I cannot fairly state that the conflict -on this occasion was otherwise than a drawn battle; and thus -matters stood when in the following year the Association met -in this city [Manchester]. That, as I have already said, was a -time of ‘slack water.’ But though the ancient beliefs were<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">154</span> -not much troubled, it was for the last time that they could -be said to prevail; and thus I look upon our meeting in -Manchester 1861 as a crisis in the history of biology. All -the same, the ancient beliefs were not allowed to pass wholly -unchallenged; and one thing is especially to be marked—they -were challenged by one who was no naturalist at all, by one -who was a severe thinker no less than an active worker; one -who was generally right in his logic, and never wrong in his -instinct; one who, though a politician, was invariably an -honest man—I mean the late Professor Fawcett. On this -occasion he brought the clearness of his mental vision to bear -upon Mr. Darwin’s theory, with the result that Mr. Darwin’s -method of investigation was shewn to be strictly in accordance -with the rules of deductive philosophy, and to throw light -where all was dark before.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Professor Newton specially alluded to this interesting -case of Professor Fawcett as illustrating his -conviction that the theory of natural <span class="locked">selection—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="in0">“did not, except in one small point, require a naturalist to -think it out and establish its truth.... But in order to see -the effect of this principle upon organic life the knowledge—the -peculiar knowledge—of the naturalist was required. This -was the knowledge of those slight variations which are found -in all groups of animals and plants.... Herein lay the -triumph of Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace. That triumph, -however, was not celebrated at Manchester. The question -was of such magnitude as to need another year’s incubation, -and the crucial struggle came a twelvemonth later when the -Association met at Cambridge. The victory of the new -doctrine was then declared in a way that none could doubt. I -have no inclination to join in the pursuit of the fugitives.”</p> -</div> - -<p>There is reason to believe that Professor Newton’s -impressions of the result of the celebrated meeting -of the British Association at Oxford in 1860 are -more accurate than those of the eyewitness quoted<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">155</span> -in the “Life and Letters.” The latter has pictured -a brilliant triumph for Huxley in the renowned duel -with the Bishop of Oxford. But I have been told -by more than one of the audience that Huxley was -really too angry to speak effectively, nor is this to -be wondered at, considering the extreme provocation. -Mr. William Sidgwick, who was present and sympathised -warmly with Huxley, has told me that this -was his opinion. I have heard the same from the -Rev. W. Tuckwell, who also quoted a remark of -the late Professor Rolleston tending in the same -direction. Mr. Tuckwell said that it was clear that -the audience as a whole was not carried away by -Huxley’s speech, but, on the contrary, was obviously -shocked at it; and he contrasted that occasion with -another at which he was also present, in the North, -several years later, when Huxley replied to an -opponent who, like the bishop, appealed to the -theological prejudices of his hearers. But by that -time the new teachings had been absorbed, and -Huxley gained a signal triumph.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">OPPOSITION.</div> - -<p>It must not be supposed that Darwin was by any -means indifferent to the attacks on his views. On -the contrary, his sensitive nature was greatly depressed -by the violent and often most unfair -criticisms to which he was subjected, although -beneath this evident disturbance lay the firm conviction -that he had seen the truth, and that the -truth would in the end be seen by others.</p> - -<p>After the great fight with the bishop at the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">156</span> -British Association at Oxford, he wrote to Hooker -(July 2nd, <span class="locked">1860):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I have read lately so many hostile views, that I was -beginning to think that perhaps I was wholly in the wrong, -and that —— was right when he said the whole subject would -be forgotten in ten years; but now that I hear that you and -Huxley will fight publicly (which I am sure I never could -do), I fully believe that our cause will, in the long-run, -prevail.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Looking at the history of opinion on this subject, -the slowness with which the new ideas were absorbed -appears remarkable. Even so able a man as the late -Professor Rolleston wrote in 1870 (“Forms of Animal -Life,” Introduction, p. xxv., First Edition) the -following carefully guarded sentences, which, it is to -be noted, deal with evolution rather than natural -selection. Speaking of “the theory of evolution with -which Mr. Darwin’s name is connected,” Rolleston -<span class="locked">says:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Many of the peculiarities which attach to biological classifications -would thus receive a reasonable explanation; but -where verification is, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex hypothesi</i>, impossible, such a theory -cannot be held to be advanced out of the region of probability. -The acceptance or rejection of the general theory will depend, -as does the acceptance or rejection of other views supported -merely by probable evidence, upon the particular constitution -of each individual mind to which it is presented!”</p> -</div> - -<p>It was too much to expect that many of the -older scientific men would retain sufficient intellectual -flexibility to be able to recognise, as Lyell had, that -the facts of nature were explained and predicted -better by the new views than by those in which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">157</span> -they had grown up. Darwin thoroughly understood -this, and, writing to his friends, maintained that the -fate of his views was in the hands of the younger -men.</p> - -<p>A grand yet simple conception like that of -natural selection, explaining and connecting together -innumerable facts which people had previously -explained differently, or had become accustomed to -regard as inexplicable, must always remain as a -stumbling-block to the majority of those who have -reached or passed middle life before its first appearance.</p> - -<p>Hardly anything is more characteristic of Darwin -than the tone with which he wrote to acknowledged -opponents. Thus his letters to L. Agassiz (1868), -Quatrefages (1869 or 1870), and Fabre (1880), are -models of the way in which a correspondence which -would present peculiar difficulties to most people -may be conducted. In these letters there is not the -least attempt to slur over or minimise the points of -wide difference; on the contrary, they are most -candidly stated, but with so much respect and -sympathy, and with such marked appreciation of the -knowledge he had gained from his correspondent, -that the reader must have regretted the divergence -of opinion as greatly as the writer.</p> - -<p>Tyndall has given a very interesting and pathetic -account of the evident distress with which Professor -L. Agassiz, chief of the opponents of Darwin in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">158</span> -America, recognised the success of the teachings he -could not accept.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Sprung from a race of theologians, this celebrated man -combated to the last the theory of natural selection. One of -the many times I had the pleasure of meeting him in the -United States was at Mr. Winthrop’s beautiful residence at -Brookline, near Boston. Rising from luncheon, we all halted, -as if by a common impulse in front of a window, and continued -there a discussion which had been started at table. The -maple was in its autumn glory; and the exquisite beauty of the -scene outside seemed, in my case, to interpenetrate without -disturbance the intellectual action. Earnestly, almost sadly, -Agassiz turned and said to the gentlemen standing round, ‘I -confess that I was not prepared to see this theory received as -it has been by the best intellects of our time. Its success is -greater than I could have thought possible.’”<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">J</a></p> -</div> - -<p>The history of science can hardly supply anything -more sad than the blight which may fall on a man’s -career because he is unable, from conscientious motives, -to use some great means of advance. Such a weapon -for the progress of science was provided by the Darwinian -theory, and men were to be henceforth divided -according to their use or neglect of the new opportunities. -Men who up to that time had been equals -were to be for ever separated, some to press forward -in the front rank of scientific discovery, others to -remain as interesting relics of a byegone age.</p> - -<p>It is hardly necessary to say that this does not -apply to men, like Agassiz, who had already left their -mark deep upon the science of their day, but it has a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">159</span> -very real application to those men whose position was -to be estimated by work done after the year 1858.</p> - -<p>In the midst of those years of struggle and anxiety -which followed the appearance of the “Origin,” we -meet with another instance of the same extraordinary -foresight which appeared in his contention in favour -of the persistence of the great oceans and continental -areas. I refer to his views on spontaneous generation—a -very ancient belief, and one which from time to -time has been the will-o’-the-wisp of biological speculation, -leading it into all kinds of fruitless and -dangerous regions.<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">K</a></p> - -<p>Dr. Carpenter’s “Introduction to the Study of -Foraminifera” had been reviewed in the <i>Athenæum</i> -(March 28th, 1863), the writer attacking evolution -and favouring spontaneous generation, or, as it was -then called, heterogeny. Darwin wrote to Hooker, who -had lent him a copy of the paper, “Who would have -ever thought of the old stupid <i>Athenæum</i> taking -to Oken-like transcendental philosophy written in -Owenian style!... It will be some time before we -see ‘slime, protoplasm, etc.,’ generating a new animal.... -It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the -origin of life; one might as well think of the origin -of matter.” In 1871 he <span class="locked">wrote:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production -of a living organism are now present, which could -ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we -could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">160</span> -ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., -present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed -ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present -day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, -which would not have been the case before living creatures -were formed.”</p> -</div> - -<p>About 1870 Dr. H. C. Bastian began working on -the subject, and brought forward in his “Origin of -Lowest Organisms” (1871), and “The Beginnings -of Life” (1872), what he believed to be conclusive -evidence of the truth of spontaneous generation, for -which he proposed the term Archebiosis. His enthusiasm -and strong convictions were contagious, -and for a time the belief spread rather widely, -although it soon collapsed before the researches and -arguments of Pasteur, Tyndall, and Huxley. Darwin -read “The Beginnings of Life,” and wrote about it to -Wallace (August 28th, 1872) as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“His [Bastian’s] general argument in favour of Archebiosis -is wonderfully strong, though I cannot think much of some few -of his arguments. The result is that I am bewildered and astonished -by his statements, but am not convinced, though, on -the whole, it seems to me probable that Archebiosis is true. -I am not convinced, partly I think owing to the deductive cast -of much of his reasoning; and I know not why, but I never -feel convinced by deduction, even in the case of H. Spencer’s -writings.... I must have more evidence that germs, or the -minutest fragments of the lowest forms, are always killed by -212° of Fahr.... As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being -spontaneously generated, my mind can no more digest such -statements, whether true or false, than my stomach can digest -a lump of lead.”</p> -</div> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_161" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">161</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XXI">CHAPTER XXI.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS UNDER DOMESTICATION: -PANGENESIS (1868).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">We</span> now come to consider the succession of invaluable -works produced by Darwin after the appearance of the -“Origin,” the last of which—that on Earthworms—was -published about six months before his death.</p> - -<p>Darwin’s method of bringing these results before -the world was somewhat different from that most -generally adopted by scientific men in this country, -although of common occurrence in Germany. The -great majority of scientific facts are here published by -the proceedings or transactions of scientific societies, -or in special journals; and although a scientific man -frequently brings together his general results into a -volume for the public, the original communications -remain as the detailed exposition of his researches.</p> - -<p>Darwin, too, wrote a very large number of memoirs -for the scientific societies, as may be seen from the list -in Appendix III. of the “Life and Letters,” but the -volumes which he subsequently published included -<em>all</em> the previous details, with the addition of much -new matter, and it is these volumes rather than the -original communications which form the authoritative -statement of his investigations. Such a method was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">162</span> -possible and desirable with the subjects upon which he -worked, all of which were of great interest to the thinking -part of the general public, as well as to the -experts; but in less attractive subjects it is not probable -that the plan could be carried out in this country -with any prospect of success.</p> - -<p>It has already been stated that Darwin looked on -the “Origin of Species” as a short abstract of a greater -work he intended to publish. It is likely that he at -first contemplated a comprehensive work like the -“Origin” itself, but soon found that his notes on -domesticated animals and plants, the general results of -which had been condensed into the first three chapters -of the “Origin,” would form a work more than twice -the size of the latter. He began arranging these notes -on January 9th, 1860 (January 1st is the date given -in the “Autobiography”), as soon as the second edition -of the “Origin” was off his hands, but his “enormous -correspondence,” as he calls it in the “Autobiography,” -with friends about the “Origin,” and the reviews and -discussions upon it, must have occupied a large part -of his time; and then there was the third edition to -bring out (published April, 1861). This edition must -have cost much labour, as many parts were modified -and enlarged to meet the objections or misunderstanding -of reviewers.</p> - -<p>Francis Darwin tells us that the third chapter of -“Animals and Plants, &c.,” was still on hand at the -beginning of 1861. His work on this book was furthermore -interrupted by illnesses and by other researches.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">163</span> -Thus, during 1860 he worked at Drosera, and during -the latter part of 1861 and beginning of 1862 at -the fertilisation of orchids. In his diary for 1866 -we meet with the entry, “<i>Nov. 21st</i>—Finished ‘Pangenesis,’” -and later on, “<i>Dec. 22nd</i>—Began concluding -chapter of book.” In this year, too, he brought -out the fourth edition of the “Origin.” When the time -for publication approached Darwin was much disappointed -at the dimensions of the work. It was not -published till January 30th, 1868, when it was proved -that his fears were groundless, for a second edition of -1,250 copies were required in the following month, the -1,500 of the first edition having been all absorbed.</p> - -<p>This work is considered by some writers to be the -greatest produced by Darwin; but I think we shall be -right in accepting his own opinion that such words -should be applied to the “Origin.” It is probable, -however, that this book stands second in importance -in the splendid list of works which have done so -much to increase our knowledge of nature and to inspire -others to continue the good work.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">ON VARIATION.</div> - -<p>“The Variation of Animals and Plants under -Domestication” opens with a very clearly written account -of natural selection; it proceeds to treat of the -domestic quadrupeds and birds, describing the differences -between the various breeds of each species, -and making out as far as possible the history of their -development from each other and from the wild stock. -Cultivated plants are then treated in the same -manner. The first volume concludes with two most<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">164</span> -important chapters on bud-variation and anomalous -modes of reproduction, and on inheritance.</p> - -<p>The second volume deals with inheritance, crossing, -effect of conditions of life, sterility, hybridism, selection -by man, causes and laws of variability. Finally, all -the main lines are brought to a common centre in -the wonderful chapter in which he discloses his “provisional -hypothesis of pangenesis.” This is of such -interest, and is so characteristic of its author’s power -of viewing the most divergent facts from a common -standpoint, that it is desirable to give a tolerably full -account of it.</p> - -<p>The following is a brief statement of the various -classes of facts which Darwin attempted to connect -by his hypothesis.</p> - -<p><i>Reproduction</i> is sexual and asexual, and the latter -is of various kinds, although their differences are -more apparent than real. It may be concluded that -gemmation or budding, fission or division, the repair -of injuries, the maintenance of each part, and the -growth of the embryo “are all essentially the results -of one and the same great power.”</p> - -<p>In parthenogenesis the ovum can develop without -fertilisation, and hence the union of germs from -different individuals cannot serve as an essential -characteristic of sexual, as compared with asexual, -generation. Although sexually-produced individuals -tend to vary far more than those which are produced -asexually, this is not always the case, and the variability, -when it occurs, is subject to the same laws.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">165</span> -Sexually-produced individuals very generally pass -in development from a lower to a higher grade; but -this can hardly be said to occur in certain forms, -such as Aphis, etc.</p> - -<p>The differences between the two forms of reproduction -being thus much less than at first sight -appears, we are led to inquire for the reason why the -more complex and difficult process is so universal. -Sexual reproduction appears to confer two benefits -on organisms—(1) “When species are rendered highly -variable by changed conditions of life, the free intercrossing -of the varying individuals will tend to keep -each form fitted for its proper place in nature, and -crossing can be effected only by sexual generation”; -(2) Many experiments tend to show that free -and wide intercrossing induces vigour in the -offspring.</p> - -<p>Darwin concludes that the reason why the germ-cell -perishes if it does not unite with another from -the opposite sex is simply because it includes “too -little formative matter for independent existence and -development.” He was led to this conclusion by -the fact that the male and female germ-cells “do -not in ordinary cases differ in their power of giving -character to the embryo,” and also from experiments -which seemed to show that a certain number of -pollen grains or of spermatozoa may be required to -fertilise a single seed or ovum. “The belief that it -is the function of the spermatozoa to communicate -life to the ovule seems a strange one, seeing that the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">166</span> -unimpregnated ovule is already alive, and continues -for a considerable time alive.”</p> - -<p>It is very remarkable to note how largely Professor -Weismann’s conclusions on this subject were -anticipated by this part of Darwin’s work.</p> - -<p><i>Graft hybrids.</i>—The probability that a graft may -alter the character of the stock to which it is united, -so that hybrid buds might be formed by budding or -grafting the tissues of distinct varieties or species, -would, if it became a certainty, prove the essential -identity of sexual and asexual reproduction; “for the -power of combining in the offspring the characters -of both parents is the most striking of all the -functions of sexual generation.”</p> - -<p><i>Direct action of the male element on the female.</i>—Pollen -from another species is known to affect the -mother-plant in certain cases. Thus pollen from the -lemon has caused stripes of lemon-peel in the fruit -of the orange; the peel is, of course, formed by -the mother-plant, and is quite different from -the part which the male element is adapted to -affect—viz. the ovule. Similar cases are known -among animals, as in the celebrated example of -Lord Morton’s mare.</p> - -<p><i>Development.</i>—The changes by which the embryo -reaches maturity differ immensely, even within the -limits of the same compact group. Forms which -closely resemble each other in the mature state, and -are intimately related to each other, such as the various -species of lobster and crayfish, etc., pass through<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">167</span> -a totally different developmental history. Hence we -are led to believe in the complete independence of -“each structure from that which precedes and follows -it in the course of development.”</p> - -<p><i>The functional independence of the elements or -units of the body. Variability and inheritance.</i>—Variability -generally results “from changed conditions -acting during successive generations.” The influence -is exerted on the sexual system, and if extreme, impotence -tends to be produced. Bud-variation proves -that “variability is not necessarily connected with -the sexual system.” The inherited effects of use and -disuse of parts imply that the changes in the cells -of a distant part of the body affect the reproductive -cells, so that the being produced from one of these -cells inherits the changes. “Nothing in the whole -circuit of physiology is more wonderful.”</p> - -<p>“Inheritance is the rule and non-inheritance the -anomaly.” Inheritance follows laws, such as the -tendency for a character to appear at corresponding -ages in parent and offspring. Reversion “proves to -us that the transmission of a character and its -development ... are distinct powers.” Crossing -strongly induces reversion. “Every character which -occasionally reappears is present in a latent form in -each generation.”</p> - -<div class="tb">* * * * *</div> - -<div class="sidenote">PANGENESIS.</div> - -<p>The hypothesis of pangenesis attempts to explain -and connect together all the facts and conclusions -which have been summarised in the preceding pages.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">168</span> -This hypothesis assumes that each one of the countless -cells of which the body of a higher animal is -composed throws off a minute gemmule which, with -those derived from other cells, exists in the body, -and when supplied with nutriment multiplies by -division. Each gemmule is capable of ultimate development -into a cell similar to the one from which it, -either directly or indirectly, arose. Each cell of the -body dispatches its representative, as it were, to each -single germ-cell, and this explains how it is that the -latter possess the power of reproducing the likeness -of the parent body. But the germ-cells also receive -dormant gemmules which may remain undeveloped -until some generation in the remote future. The -development of the gemmules into cells depends on -their union with the developing cells which precede -them in the order of growth. Gemmules are thrown -off during each stage of growth and during maturity.</p> - -<p>This hypothesis of pangenesis is so called because -the whole body is supposed to produce the -elements from which new individuals arise, the -germ-cells being only the union of these elements -into clusters.</p> - -<p>The fact that hybrids may be produced by -grafting, that the pollen can act on the tissues of -the female plant, and the male germ-cells on the -future offspring of the female, implies that the reproductive -material can exist and the reproductive -processes take place in the tissues, and that they -are not confined to the germ-cells.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">169</span></p> - -<p>The retention of dormant gemmules, and their -passage from generation to generation until their -development, may seem improbable; but is it more -so than the <em>fact</em> which their presence would explain—viz. -the transmission of latent structures and their -ultimate reappearance?</p> - -<p>The development of the whole plant from a -Begonia leaf implies that these gemmules are very -widely distributed through the tissues.</p> - -<p>The elective affinity of the gemmules for the cells -which precede them in growth may be paralleled by -the affinity of the male and female germ-cells, as we -see in the preference of a plant for the pollen grains -of its own over those of closely-allied species, or by -the attraction of the minute germs of disease to -certain tissues of the body.</p> - -<p>It is possible that the numerous gemmules thrown -off by the cells of a complex structure, such as a -feather, “may be aggregated into a compound gemmule.” -In the case of a petal, however, where parts -as well as the whole are apt to develop, as is seen in -the case of “stripes of the calyx assuming the colour -and texture of the corolla,” it is more probable that -the gemmules are separate and free. The cell itself -is a complex structure, and we do not know whether -its separate parts are not developed from the separate -gemmules of an aggregate.</p> - -<p>Such an hypothesis explains the fundamental -similarity which has already been shown to exist -between all modes of reproduction. The gemmules<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">170</span> -collected in bud or germ-cell are essentially similar; -and were it not for the special advantages of sexual -reproduction (increased vigour and more marked variation -of offspring), we can well believe that it would -have been much less general. The formation of graft-hybrids, -and the action of the male element on the -mother and on future offspring, become intelligible. -The antagonism between growth and sexual reproduction -in animals, and between increase by buds, -etc., and seeds in plants, can be understood by the -use of gemmules in one direction preventing their -simultaneous use in another.</p> - -<p>The regrowth of an amputated part, as in the -salamander or snail, is explained by the presence and -development of gemmules previously thrown off from -the part. The difficulty that a limb is produced of -the same age as that which was lost, and not a larval -limb, and that the cells with which the gemmules -must unite at first are not those which precede them -in the course of growth, but mature cells, is met by -the consideration that this power is a special one -adapted to meet special dangers to certain parts of -certain animals, and that it is therefore probable that -appropriate provision has been made by natural -selection: it may be in the form of “a stock of -nascent cells or of partially developed gemmules.” -The existence of these latter in buds, and their -absence from sexual cells, may account for bud -development being the more direct and brief of the -two. The much greater tendency to repair lost parts<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">171</span> -in lower and younger forms may be due to the same -cause.</p> - -<p>The occasional tendency of hybrids to resemble -one parent in one part and the other in another -may be due to superabundance of gemmules in the -fertilised germ, those from one parent having “some -advantage in number, affinity, or vigour over those -derived from the other parent.” The general preponderance -of one parent over the other may be -similarly explained. The cases in which “the colour -or other characters of either parent tend to appear -in stripes or blotches” are to be understood by the -gemmules having an affinity for others of the same -kind.</p> - -<p><i>The sterility of hybrids</i> is entirely due to the -reproductive organs being affected; in the case of -plants they continue to propagate freely by buds. The -hybrid cells throw off hybrid gemmules which collect -in the buds but cannot do so in the reproductive -organs.</p> - -<p><i>Development and metamorphosis.</i>—The remarkable -facts of development and metamorphosis are well -explained by the hypothesis. Allied forms may pass -to a similar end through very dissimilar stages or -conversely. Parts may appear to develop within -previously existing corresponding parts, or they may -appear within parts which are quite distinct. These -divergent facts are explained by the hypothesis, -each part during each stage being formed independently -from the gemmules of the same part<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">172</span> -in previous generations, and not, although it may -appear to do so, from the corresponding parts of -earlier stages. In the process of time certain parts -during certain stages may be affected by use or -disuse or surroundings, and the parts of subsequent -generations will be similarly affected, because formed -from correspondingly altered gemmules; but this need -not affect the other stages of the same parts.</p> - -<p><i>Transposition and multiplication of parts.</i>—The -cases of abnormal transposition or multiplication of -organs—for instance, the development of teeth in the -palate or of pollen in the edge of a petal—are to be -explained by supposing that the gemmules unite with -wrong cells instead of, or as well as, the right ones; -“and this would follow from a slight change in their -elective affinities.” Such slight changes are known -to occur; for instance, certain plants “absolutely -refuse to be fertilised by their own pollen, though -abundantly fertile with that of any other individual -of the same species.” Inasmuch as the cells of -adjoining parts will often have nearly the same -structure, we can understand that some slight change -in elective affinity may affect a large area. Hence -we can account for a crowd of horns on the head of -a sheep, or many spurs on the leg of a fowl, etc. -Frequently repeated parts are extremely liable to -vary in number; in this case we have a large number -of closely allied gemmules and of points for their -union, and slight changes in elective affinity would -be specially apt to occur.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">173</span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Variability.</span>—Changed conditions may lead to -irregularity in the number of gemmules derived from -various parts of the body; deficiency in number might -cause variation in any part by leaving some of the -cells free to unite with allied gemmules.</p> - -<p>The direct action of surroundings, or the effect of -use or disuse on a part, may cause corresponding -modifications of the gemmules, and through these of -the part in the succeeding generation. “A more perplexing -problem can hardly be proposed,” and yet it -receives an explanation on this hypothesis. Such -causes must, as a rule, act during many generations -before the modification reappears in the offspring. -This may be due to the unaltered gemmules derived -from earlier generations, and their gradual replacement -by the increasing number of altered gemmules.</p> - -<p>Variation in plants is much more frequent in -sexually produced than it is in asexually produced -individuals. This may be due to the absence in the -latter of that great cause of variability, changes in -the reproductive organs under altered conditions. -Furthermore, the former alone pass through the -earlier phases of development, when structure is most -plastic and yields most readily to the causes inducing -variability.</p> - -<p>The stability of hybrids and of many varieties -when propagated by buds, as compared with their -reversion to the parent form when propagated by -seed, remains inexplicable.</p> - -<p>Hence variability is explained as due (1) to the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">174</span> -irregularity in number of gemmules, to their transpositions, -and redevelopment when dormant; and (2) -to their actual modification and the gradual replacement -by them of unaltered gemmules.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Inheritance.</span>—The non-transmission by heredity -of mutilations, even when repeated for many generations, -as in docking the tails of certain domesticated -breeds, may be explained by the persistence of gemmules -from still earlier generations. The cases of -inheritance when mutilations are followed by disease, -as in Brown-Séquard’s experiments on guinea-pigs, -may be due to the gemmules being attracted to the -diseased part and there destroyed.</p> - -<p>The disappearance of a rudimentary part, together -with its occasional reappearance by reversion, is to be -understood by the existence of ancestral gemmules, -for which the corresponding cells have, except in the -cases of reversion, lost their affinity. When the -disappearance is final and complete, the gemmules -have probably perished altogether.</p> - -<p>“Most, or perhaps all, of the secondary characters -which appertain to one sex, lie dormant in the other -sex; that is, gemmules capable of development into -the secondary male sexual characters are included -within the female; and conversely female characters -in the male.” This is seen in cases of castration or -when the sexual organs from any cause have become -functionless. The sex in which such changes are -brought about tends to develop the secondary sexual -characters of the other sex. The normal development<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">175</span> -of the secondary characters proper to the sex -of the individual may be explained by a slight -difference in the elective affinity of the cells so that -they attract the corresponding gemmules rather than -those of the opposite sex, which as we have seen -are also present.</p> - -<p>The male characters of the male sex are in many -species latent except at certain seasons of the year, -and in both sexes the proper characters are latent -until sexual maturity. All such latent characters are -closely connected with the cases of ordinary reversion. -The appearance (whether seasonal or in the course of -development) of cells with affinities for the latent -gemmules explains the development of the characters -in question.</p> - -<p>Certain butterflies and plants (<i>e.g.</i> Lythrum) produce -two or more separate forms of individuals. In -these cases each individual includes the latent gemmules -of the other forms as well as its own. Hermaphroditism -in unisexual species, and especially in -the occasional cases of insects in which the right side -of the body is one sex and the left side the other, the -line of separation dividing the individual into two -equal halves, can be explained by slight abnormal -changes in the affinities of cells for gemmules, so -that a certain group of cells, or all the cells on one -side of the body, attract the gemmules which would -normally have remained latent.</p> - -<p>Reversion is induced by a change of conditions -and especially by crossing. The first results of crossing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">176</span> -are usually intermediate between the parents, but in -the next generation there is commonly reversion to -one or both parent-forms, or even to a more remote -ancestor. The existence of abundant hybridised -gemmules is shown by the propagation of the cross in -a true form by means of buds; but dormant gemmules -from the parent-form are also present and multiply. -In the sexual elements of the hybrid there are both -pure and hybrid gemmules, and the addition of the -pure gemmules in one sex to those in the other -accounts for the reversion, especially if we assume that -pure “gemmules of the same nature would be -especially apt to combine.” Partial reversion on the -one hand, and the reappearance of the hybrid form -on the other, would be respectively due to a combination -of pure with hybrid gemmules, and of the hybrid -gemmules from both parent hybrids.</p> - -<p>When characters which do not blend exist in the -parents, crossing may result in an insufficiency of -gemmules from the male alone and from the female -alone, and then dormant ancestral gemmules might -have the opportunity of development, and thus cause -reversion. Similarly certain conditions might favour -the increase and development of dormant gemmules. -Diseases appearing in alternate generations, or gaining -strength by the intermission of a generation, -may be due to the increase of the gemmules in the -intervening time, and the same explanation may hold -for the sudden and irregular increase of a weakly -inherited modification.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">177</span></p> - -<p>Darwin ends his general conclusions with these -<span class="locked">words:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“No other attempt, as far as I am aware, has been made, -imperfect as this confessedly is, to connect under one point of -view these several grand classes of facts. An organic being is -a microcosm—a little universe, formed of a host of self-propagating -organisms, inconceivably minute and numerous as the -stars in heaven.”</p> -</div> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_178" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">178</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XXII">CHAPTER XXII.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">PANGENESIS AND CONTINUITY OF THE GERM-PLASM: -DARWIN’S CONFIDENCE IN PANGENESIS.</span></h2> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">PANGENESIS.</div> - -<p>Darwin’s letters prove that he thought very highly -of this hypothesis; and whether the future determine -it to be true or erroneous, it must surely rank as -among the greatest of his intellectual efforts. In his -autobiography he says of <span class="locked">it:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“An unverified hypothesis is of little or no value; but if -any one should hereafter be led to make observations by which -some such hypothesis could be established, I shall have done -good service, as an astonishing number of isolated facts can be -thus connected together and rendered intelligible.”</p> -</div> - -<p>The hypothesis was submitted to Huxley (May -27th, 1865?) in manuscript and alluded to in the -letter sent at the same time. An unfavourable reply -was evidently received, for we find Darwin writing to -Huxley, July 12th <span class="locked">(1865?):—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I do not doubt your judgment is perfectly just, and I will -try to persuade myself not to publish. The whole affair is -much too speculative; yet I think some such view will have -to be adopted, when I call to mind such facts as the inherited -effects of use and disuse, &c.”</p> -</div> - -<p>This last sentence is of great interest, and the -same opinion comes out strongly in his published<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">179</span> -account of the hypothesis, viz. the view that the real -facts which imperatively demand some material to -pass from the body-cells to the germ-cells in order -to account for their hereditary transmission are the -effects of use and disuse, or the influence of surroundings—in -fact, all those characters which are now -called “acquired.” And it is impossible to escape -the conclusion that, if acquired characters are -transmissible by heredity, an hypothesis which -is substantially that of pangenesis will have to -be accepted. Darwin did not doubt this transmission, -and he framed pangenesis mainly to -account for it.</p> - -<p>Considerable doubt has of recent years been thrown -upon the transmission of acquired characters, and if -hereafter this doubt be justified, it will be possible to -substitute for pangenesis a hypothesis like the “continuity -of the germ-plasm” brought forward by -Professor Weismann. A few words indicating the -contrast between the two hypotheses may not be out -of place.</p> - -<p>In Professor Weismann’s hypothesis the germ-plasm -contained in the nucleus of the germ-cell possesses, -if placed under right conditions, the power of -developing into an organism. It is not, however, entirely -used up during development, and the part which -remains grows and is stored in the germ-cells of the -offspring, and ultimately develops into the succeeding -generation. Hence parent and offspring resemble -each other because they are formed from the same<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">180</span> -thing. There is no real break between the generations; -they are thrown up successively from a continuous -line of germ-plasm. In this hypothesis the germ -is the essential thing, the body a mere secondary product. -It is a theory of Blastogenesis as contrasted -with Pangenesis. The hereditary transmission of acquired -characters, in which many still believe, is quite -irreconcilable with it, and if substantiated would overthrow -it altogether.</p> - -<p>On the other hand the body-cells are the essential -elements of pangenesis, and the germ-cells the mere -meeting-places of their representatives and quite -devoid of significance on their own account. There -is some sort of interruption between successive -generations, as the gemmules develop into cells, -which again throw off gemmules; the break, however, -is bridged by the ancestral gemmules and by -the life of the body-cell which intervenes between -the gemmule from which it arose and that to which -it gives rise.</p> - -<p>The remaining chief occasions on which Darwin -alludes to pangenesis in his published letters are -quoted below; they prove his confidence in the -hypothesis and the nature of the hold it had upon his -mind.</p> - -<p>Later on he again wrote to Huxley on the same -<span class="locked">subject:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I am rather ashamed of the whole affair, but not converted -to a no-belief.... It is all rubbish to speculate as I have -done; yet, if I ever have strength to publish my next book, I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">181</span> -fear I shall not resist ‘Pangenesis,’ but I assure you I will put -it humbly enough. The ordinary course of development of -beings, such as the Echinodermata, in which new organs are -formed at quite remote spots from the analogous previous parts, -seems to me extremely difficult to reconcile on any view except -the free diffusion in the parent of the germs or gemmules of -each separate new organ: and so in cases of alternate generation.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">Lyell</span>, <i>August 22nd, 1867</i>.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I have been particularly pleased that you have noticed -Pangenesis. I do not know whether you ever had the feeling -of having thought so much over a subject that you had lost all -power of judging it. This is my case with Pangenesis (which is -26 or 27 years old), but I am inclined to think that if it be -admitted as a probable hypothesis it will be a somewhat -important step in Biology.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">Asa Gray</span>, <i>October 16th, 1867</i>.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“The chapter on what I call Pangenesis will be called a -mad dream, and I shall be pretty well satisfied if you think it -a dream worth publishing; but at the bottom of my own mind -I think it contains a great truth.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">Hooker</span>, <i>November 17th</i> [1867].</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I shall be intensely anxious to hear what you think about -Pangenesis; though I can see how fearfully imperfect, even in -mere conjectural conclusions, it is; yet it has been an infinite -satisfaction to me somehow to connect the various large groups -of facts, which I have long considered, by an intelligible -thread.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">Fritz Müller</span>, <i>January 30th</i> [1868].</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“... I should very much like to hear what you think of -‘Pangenesis,’ though I fear it will appear to <em>every one</em> far too -speculative.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">182</span></p> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">Hooker</span>, <i>February 23rd</i> [1868].</p> - -<p>After expressing a fear that Pangenesis is still-born -because of the difficulty with which it is understood, -he <span class="locked">says:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“You will think me very self-sufficient, when I declare that -I feel <em>sure</em> if Pangenesis is now still-born it will, thank God, at -some future time reappear, begotten by some other father, and -christened by some other name. Have you ever met with any -tangible and clear view of what takes place in generation, -whether by seeds or buds, or how a long-lost character can possibly -reappear; or how the male element can possibly affect -the mother plant, or the mother animal, so that her future -progeny are affected? Now all these points and many others -are connected together, whether truly or falsely is another -question, by Pangenesis. You see I die hard, and stick up for -my poor child.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">Wallace</span>, <i>February 27th</i> [1868].</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“You cannot well imagine how much I have been pleased -by what you say about ‘Pangenesis’.... What you say -exactly and fully expresses my feeling, viz. that it is a relief to -have some feasible explanation of the various facts, which can -be given up as soon as any better hypothesis is found. It has -certainly been an immense relief to my mind; for I have been -stumbling over the subject for years, dimly seeing that some -relation existed between the various classes of facts.... You -have indeed pleased me, for I had given up the great god Pan -as a still-born deity.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">Hooker</span>, <i>February 28th</i> [1868].</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I see clearly that any satisfaction which Pan may give will -depend on the constitution of each man’s mind.... I -heard yesterday from Wallace, who says (excuse horrid vanity), -‘I can hardly tell you how much I admire the chapter on -“Pangenesis.” It is a <em>positive comfort</em> to me to have any feasible -explanation of a difficulty that has always been haunting me,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">183</span> -and I shall never be able to give it up till a better one supplies -its place, and that I think hardly possible, &c.’ Now his foregoing -[italicised] words express my sentiments exactly and -fully: though perhaps I feel the relief extra strongly from -having during many years vainly attempted to form some hypothesis. -When you or Huxley say that a single cell of a plant, or -stump of an amputated limb, has the ‘potentiality’ of reproducing -the whole—or ‘diffuses an influence,’ these words give me -no positive idea;—but, when it is said that the cells of a plant, -or stump, include atoms derived from every other cell of the -whole organism and capable of development, I gain a distinct -idea. But this idea would not be worth a rush, if it applied to -one case alone; but it seems to me to apply to all the forms of -reproduction—inheritance—metamorphosis—to the abnormal -transposition of organs—to the direct action of the male -element on the mother plant, &c. Therefore I fully believe -that each cell does <em>actually</em> throw off an atom or gemmule of -its contents;—but whether or not, this hypothesis serves as -a useful connecting link for various grand classes of physiological -facts, which at present stand absolutely isolated.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">V. Carus</span>, <i>March 21st</i> [1868].</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“... Sir C. Lyell says to every one, ‘You may not -believe in “Pangenesis,” but if you once understand it, you -will never get it out of your mind.’ And with this criticism -I am perfectly content. All cases of inheritance and reversion -and development now appear to me under a new light.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">Fritz Müller</span>, <i>June, 1868</i>.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“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, &c. 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.”</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">184</span></p> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">Asa Gray</span>, <i>May 8th</i> [1868].</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Your article in the <i>Nation</i> [March 19th] seems to me -very good, and you give an excellent idea of Pangenesis—an -infant cherished by few as yet, except his tender parent, -but which will live a long life. There is parental presumption -for you!”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">E. Ray Lankester</span>, <i>March 15th</i> [1870].</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I was pleased to see you refer<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">L</a> to my much despised -child, ‘Pangenesis,’ who I think will some day, under some -better nurse, turn out a fine stripling.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="p1 b1 center"><i>To</i> <span class="smcap">Wallace</span>, <i>August 28th, 1872</i>.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“Notwithstanding all his [Dr. Bastian’s] sneers I do not -strike my colours as yet about Pangenesis.”</p> -</div> - -<p>In the second edition of “Animals and Plants,” -Beale’s criticism of the hypothesis is alluded to with -characteristic candour and humour:—“Dr. Lionel -Beale (<i>Nature</i>, May 11th, 1871, p. 26) sneers at the -whole doctrine with much acerbity and some justice.” -Galton’s paper before the Royal Society (March 30th, -1871), upon the results of inter-transfusion of blood -as destructive of pangenesis, was answered by Darwin -in <i>Nature</i> (April 27th, 1871). He did “not allow -that pangenesis has as yet received its death-blow, -though from presenting so many vulnerable points -its life is always in jeopardy.”</p> - -<p>Galton had argued that the gemmules present in -the blood of one individual would be expected to pass -into the other individual and to produce hereditary<span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">185</span> -effects on its offspring. This, however, did not occur. -Romanes repeated these experiments under more -rigid conditions, but with the same negative results; -equally negative were the effects of his transplantation -of skin from one animal to another, although the -skin grew quite successfully in its new position.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_186" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">186</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XXIII">CHAPTER XXIII.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">DESCENT OF MAN—EXPRESSION OF EMOTIONS—EARTH-WORMS -(1871–81).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">The</span> work on “The Descent of Man” was begun as -soon as Darwin had sent the manuscript of “Animals -and Plants” to the printers, although notes on the -subject had been collected from time to time during -the previous thirty years—in fact, ever since Darwin -had come to definite conclusions on evolution.</p> - -<p>The book was published February 24th, 1871, but, -as in the case of his other publications, continuous -work upon the manuscript had been impossible. The -volume attracted great interest, and 5,000 copies were -printed in 1871 in addition to the first 2,500.</p> - -<p>The full title of the book is “The Descent of -Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex,” and, as this -title almost implies, it is made up of two distinct -works, which might well have been issued separately. -The first part, dealing with man, is far shorter than -the other. Darwin had from the first considered -that his theory of evolution by natural selection -would involve man as well as the other animals, and, -that no one might accuse him of want of candour, he -had said in the “Origin” that by this work “light -would be thrown on the origin of man and his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">187</span> -history.” But he was anxious to justify this statement, -which was, of course, distasteful to very -many in those days, by a most complete treatment -of the subject.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">DESCENT OF MAN.</div> - -<p>He opens this part of the work, which he calls -“The Descent or Origin of Man,” by discussing the -structures which are common to man and animals, -including those which are represented in man in a -rudimentary state, and by showing the similarity of -the phases through which man and animals pass -during their embryological development.</p> - -<p>Having thus shown that man was probably descended -from some lower form, he considers the mode -by which the process was effected, showing that man -possesses variability in body and mind, and is, like -other animals, subject to all the laws of inheritance -and variation, and to the direct action of surrounding -conditions, and to the effect of the use and disuse -of parts, and that his rate of increase is such as to -render a large amount of extermination inevitable. -In other words, he presents the same facilities for -the operation of natural selection as those presented -by other animals. The points in which man differs -from other animals are then considered in relation -to their possible origin by natural selection. The -differences and resemblances between the mind of -man and animals are discussed in much detail, and -the origin of the former through natural selection -is defended. This part concludes with the consideration -of the position of man in the animal series, his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">188</span> -birthplace and antiquity, and with an account of the -formation of races.</p> - -<p>In the second part Darwin brings forward a large -body of evidence in favour of his hypothesis of sexual -selection—viz. the view that, in the higher animals, -some alteration, especially of the secondary sexual -characters, is produced by the preferences and -rejections of the sex which is sought by the other. -Such results are commonly found in the males as a -result of the preferences of the females accumulated -through countless generations; but in some species -the females court the males, and are themselves -subject to the same process of improvement by -selection.</p> - -<p>Opinion is still divided on this most interesting -question. Wallace, more convinced than ever as to -the efficiency and scope of natural selection, after -first doubting, has finally come to reject sexual -selection altogether. Probably the majority of -naturalists are convinced by Darwin’s arguments -and his great array of facts that the principle of -sexual selection is real, and accounts for certain -relatively unimportant features in the higher animals, -and they further accept Darwin’s opinion that its -action has always been entirely subordinate to natural -selection.</p> - -<p>A brief third part considers sexual selection in -relation to man.</p> - -<p>Darwin says, in his “Autobiography,” that sexual -selection and “the variation of our domestic productions,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">189</span> -together with the causes and laws of -variation, inheritance, and the intercrossing of plants, -are the sole subjects which I have been able to write -about in full, so as to use all the materials which I -have collected.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">EXPRESSION OF EMOTIONS.</div> - -<p>“The Expression of the Emotions,” at first intended -as a chapter of the “Descent,” was begun, -only two days after the proofs of the latter had -been corrected, on January 15th, 1871. The book -was published in the autumn of the following year; -the edition consisted of 7,000 copies, and 2,000 were -printed at the end of the year; and this, we are told, -was a mistake, as it prevented the appearance of -a second edition, with notes and corrections, during -the author’s lifetime. Darwin had begun to take -notes on this subject when his first child was born, -December 27th, 1839, for he tells us that, even then, -he felt convinced “that the most complex and fine -shades of expression must all have had a gradual -and natural origin.”—(“Autobiography.”)</p> - -<p>In this work Darwin argues with great wealth of -illustration and the record of numberless interesting -observations, that the movements of expression are to -be explained by three principles. The first of these is -that movements made in gratifying some desire -become by repetition so habitual that the slightest -feeling of desire leads to their performance, however -useless they may then be. The second principle is -that of antithesis—“the habit of voluntarily performing -opposite movements under opposite impulses.”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">190</span> -The third principle is “the direct action of the -excited nervous system on the body, independently -of the will, and independently, in large part, of -habit.”</p> - -<p>By showing that the expressions of emotions could -thus be explained naturally, Darwin undermined the -position taken up by Sir Charles Bell, that the muscles -used in producing expression were created for this -special end.</p> - -<p>In 1876 he re-commenced geological work, bringing -out his previous works on “Volcanic Islands,” and on -“South America,” as a single volume. In this year -too he wrote (November 16th) a most interesting -letter to James Geikie, offering an explanation of the -large stones standing in an upright position in the -drift of the south of England. He had noticed the -same thing with the flints in the red clay left upon the -chalk as a residuum after the action of solvent agencies -on the latter. This position he explained was due to -the movement following the slow subsidence of parts of -the clay as the chalk beneath dissolved, the flints arranging -themselves along the lines of least resistance. -This suggested to him the view that the flints in the -drift are to be explained by the subsidence, during the -warmer climate which followed the glacial period, of -alternate layers of snow and drift accumulated during -the winters and summers respectively, of the cold -period itself.</p> - -<p>This interesting view will, Geikie believes, come to -be accepted as the truth.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">191</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">WORK OF EARTH-WORMS.</div> - -<p>The book upon “The Formation of Vegetable -Mould Through the Action of Worms,” must be included -among his geological works, although it contains -a great many observations of deep zoological interest. -It has been stated already that he wrote a paper on -this subject for the Geological Society in 1838. In -1877 he studied the mode by which Roman remains -gain their protective covering of mould; again towards -the end of 1880 he began systematically to prepare the -book, which was published on October 10th of the following -year. It was extremely successful, 8,500 copies -being sold in three years.</p> - -<p>This interesting work affords a good illustration of -the tremendous results obtained, even in a moderate -time, by an immense number of workers all using their -powers in one direction. Each single earth-worm -swallows earth in the excavation of its burrow and for -the nutriment it contains, the waste material being -ejected as “castings” at the surface, and as a lining to -the burrow. But although the amount of earth thus -swallowed by a single worm is not large, worms are so -numerous that “the whole of the superficial mould ... -has passed, and will again pass, every few years through -the bodies of worms.” The result of this unceasing -transport of the deeper mould to the surface is shown -to be the burial of stones, either singly or in layers (as -in paths), the covering and consequent protection of -ancient buildings, and the preparation of soil for -plants. In addition to this, the geological denuding -agencies are assisted by the manner in which the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">192</span> -deeper soil is brought into a position in which it is -exposed to their action.</p> - -<p>In 1879 he wrote and published a life of his grandfather, -Erasmus Darwin, as “a preliminary notice” to -the English translation of E. Krause’s Life; but -Darwin’s contribution forms the larger part of the -volume.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_193" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">193</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XXIV">CHAPTER XXIV.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">BOTANICAL WORKS (1862–86).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Darwin’s</span> botanical works are referred to separately, -and receive more systematic treatment than the others, -in the great “Life and Letters.” They form, together -with the botanical letters, the subject of the seventh -to the twelfth chapters in the last volume. It will -therefore be unnecessary to treat them in any detail, -although they form some of the most important and -interesting of all his biological investigations.</p> - -<p><i>Fertilisation of flowers.</i>—“The Fertilisation of -Orchids” was the first published of the botanical works, -appearing in 1862, followed by a second and greatly -altered edition in 1877. The object of the work “is -to show that the contrivances by which orchids are -fertilised are as varied and almost as perfect as any of -the most beautiful adaptations in the animal kingdom; -and secondly, to show that these contrivances -have for their main object the fertilisation of -the flowers with pollen brought by insects from a distant -plant.” Even in 1837 Darwin had written in his -note-book, “Do not plants which have male and -female organs together [<i>i.e.</i> in the same flower] yet -receive influence from other plants? Does not Lyell -give some argument about varieties being difficult to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">194</span> -keep [true] on account of pollen from other plants? -Because this may be applied to show all plants do -receive intermixture.” (Quoted in the “Life and -Letters.”) In 1841, Robert Brown, the distinguished -botanist, advised Darwin to read Sprengel’s “Secret of -Nature Displayed” (Berlin, 1793). The result was to -encourage and assist Darwin in his work on fertilisation -of flowers by insects, and to bring about the first -due recognition of Sprengel’s merits, long after his -death.</p> - -<p>“<i>The Effects of Cross- and Self-fertilisation in the -Vegetable Kingdom.</i>”—This work has a very direct -bearing on that last mentioned. Darwin speaks in -the Autobiography “of having come [in 1839] to the -conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, -that crossing played an important part in keeping -specific forms constant.” Later on he came to see -that the advantage of crossing is more direct, and -results from the greater vigour of the offspring over -those of self-fertilised plants. The object of this -work, published in 1876, was to prove this point by -experimental evidence of sufficient amount, and to -show in numerous cases, by measurements of height -or weight, or by counting the number of seeds produced, -that cross-fertilisation invariably tends towards -the greater vigour of offspring.</p> - -<p>Hence the motive cause for the marvellous -adaptations by which cross-fertilisation is ensured -was supplied.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">FORMS OF FLOWERS.</div> - -<p>“<i>Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">195</span> -Species</i>” was published in 1877, and a second edition -in 1880. This work, like so many others, had been -largely anticipated by the author’s original papers -to scientific societies, in this case to the Linnean. -The papers were combined, brought up to date, and -with the addition of much new matter constituted -the volume. The chief part of the work is concerned -with heterostyled plants, viz. species which bear -different kinds of flowers chiefly distinguished by the -lengths of the pistil and stamens. As many as three -different forms occur in Lythrum. In this work it is -shown that each of the forms, although possessing -both kinds of sexual organs, is adapted to be fertilised -by the pollen of another form, and that such offspring -are more vigorous than those produced by fertilisation -by the same form. He furthermore showed that -the offspring of “illegitimate” parentage (viz. those -which were fertilised by the same form) possessed, -in certain respects, a close resemblance to hybrids -among animals. He remarks in his Autobiography, -“No little discovery of mine ever gave me so much -pleasure as the making out the meaning of heterostyled -flowers.”</p> - -<p>In addition to the heterostyled flowers, the other -differing forms borne by the same plants are considered, -including the cleistogamic species, in which -minute closed flowers are borne as well as the -ordinary open ones. The former are wanting in -the scents and colours of ordinary flowers, and -are specially adapted for self-fertilisation, and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">196</span> -production of “an abundant supply of seeds with -little expenditure.”</p> - -<p>“<i>Climbing Plants.</i>”—The subject of this volume -was published as a paper before the Linnean Society -in 1864. After being corrected, the material was -brought out as a volume in 1875. Darwin, as he -tells us in the Autobiography, was first led to study -the subject by a paper by Asa Gray, which appeared -in 1858 (Proc. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences). -Writing to Asa Gray, August 4th, 1863, he said, “My -present hobby-horse I owe to you, viz. the tendrils.” -One of the most interesting results brought forward -in this work is the fact that the upper growing part -of a twining stem bends to one side and then travels -slowly round, between two and three hours being -required for each revolution, in the case of the -hop growing in a room and observed at the period -of most active movement. The circle swept at the -27th revolution was 19 inches in diameter. In the -case of this plant the three youngest internodes (or -joints), and never less than two of them, were concerned -in the movement; “by the time the lower one -ceased to revolve, the one above was in full action, -with a terminal internode just commencing to move.” -The object of this movement is to strike some object -round which the plant may twine. A much grander -example was seen in <i>Ceropegia Gardnerii</i>, in which -three long internodes and two short ones swept a -circle over 5 feet in diameter, “at the rate of 32 -or 33 inches per hour, in search of some object<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">197</span> -round which to twine.” The stem of the plant -is not in the least twisted by this movement. -Nearly all of the great divisions of twining plants, -leaf-climbers, and tendril-bearers “have the same -remarkable power of spontaneously revolving.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">MOVEMENT IN PLANTS.</div> - -<p>“<i>The Power of Movements in Plants</i>” was -published on November 6th, 1880. It embodies a -vast amount of work carried on in conjunction with -Francis Darwin. This volume bears a very direct -relation to that last mentioned, as Darwin has explained -in his <span class="locked">Autobiography:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“In accordance with the principle of evolution it was impossible -to account for climbing plants having been developed -in so many widely different groups unless all kinds of plants -possess some slight power of movement of an analogous kind. -This I proved to be the case; and I was further led to a rather -wide generalisation, viz. that the great and important classes -of movements, excited by light, the attraction of gravity, &c., -are all modified forms of the fundamental movement of circumnutation.”</p> -</div> - -<p class="in0">An extreme example of circumnutation has already -been described in the revolving movements of the -youngest parts of the stem of a twining plant.</p> - -<p>The work evoked very great interest in this -country, but was severely criticised by certain German -botanists. The immense number of new observations -must always have a very high value, whatever be the -fate of the general conclusions, concerning which it -may be remarked that Darwin’s conclusions have -often been criticised before, but time has shown that -he was right.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">198</span></p> - -<p>“<i>Insectivorous Plants</i>” was published July 2nd, -1875, but I consider it last, as the subject stands somewhat -apart from the rest of his botanical works. -The subject was suggested to him by noticing the -insects caught by the leaves of the Sun-dew (<i>Drosera</i>) -near Hartfield. He then studied in great detail the -causes of the movement, and the sensitiveness of the -gland-tipped hairs, finding that a piece of hair -weighing 1/78000 of a grain causes one of them to -curve inwards, and alters “the condition of the contents -of every cell in the foot-stalk of the gland.”</p> - -<p>The greater part of the work deals with the -experiments on <i>Drosera</i>, which were extremely -numerous and detailed. The remainder treats of -other insectivorous plants, such as Dionæa, Pinguicula, -Utricularia, etc. The methods of capture, the -movements of the plants under the stimulus supplied -by the living insect (or other animal), and the resulting -changes in the plant-cells were not the only -points studied. He also investigated the digestive -secretion and its action upon the food absorbed by -the leaves.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_199" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">199</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XXV">CHAPTER XXV.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">LETTERS FROM DARWIN TO PROFESSOR MELDOLA -(1871–82).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">By</span> the kindness of my friend Professor Meldola, and -the courtesy of Mr. Francis Darwin, I am enabled -to publish for the first time a series of letters written -by Charles Darwin to the former. The whole series -consists of 33 letters, written between January 28th, -1871, and February 2nd, 1882, only a few weeks -before his death.</p> - -<p>When we remember the immense amount of correspondence -with which Darwin had to cope, the -constant attention required by his investigations and -publications, and the state of his health, it is deeply -interesting to read these letters, written with such -unfailing courtesy, to a younger worker in the lines -that he had suggested, and who was thereby stimulated -and encouraged to undertake the researches -which are now so well known.</p> - -<p>Reading these letters and remembering the circumstances -of the writer, we can understand how it -is that, although ill-health prevented his presence on -occasions at which the younger scientific men are -wont to meet—although he was known to but few -of them—nevertheless the charm of his noble and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">200</span> -generous nature was a most potent force in influencing -and attracting men; and it was this, no less than his -epoch-making discoveries, which has made it one of -the chief regrets of many a scientific worker that he -never saw Charles Darwin.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">LETTERS.</div> - -<p>The correspondence was opened by a letter from -Meldola informing Darwin of a case of hexadactylism -in a man at Turnham Green.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Jan. 28 [1871].</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,—I am much obliged for your kindness in -informing me of the hexadactylous case; but so many have -been recorded that I do not think, except under very special -circumstances, it would be worth your while further to investigate -it.</p> - -<p>“With my thanks, yours faithfully and obliged,</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>The next letter refers to Meldola’s communication -to <i>Nature</i> (he had recently written upon pangenesis -and upon sexual selection), and his work on mimicry, -protective resemblance, etc. In the latter part we -meet with an interesting reference to the researches -on cross-fertilisation which are now so famous.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>June 9th [1871].</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,—I am greatly obliged by your note. I have -read with much interest and carefully perused your letter in -Nature, and am looking out for a paper announced for Linn. Soc. -Your remarks shall all be in due time fully considered. With -respect to the separation of the sexes, I have often reflected -on the subject; but there is much difficulty, as it seems to me -and as Nageli has insisted, inasmuch as a strong case can be -made out in favour of the view that with plants at least the -sexes were primordially distinct, then became in many cases<span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">201</span> -united, and in not a few cases re-separated. I have during -the last 5 or 6 years been making a most laborious series of -experiments, by which I shall be able, I think, to demonstrate -the wonderful good derived from crossing, and I am almost -sure but shall not know till the end of the summer that I shall -be able to prove that the good is precisely of the same kind -which the adult individual derives from <em>slight</em> changes of -conditions.</p> - -<p>“With my sincere thanks for your interest in my work, I -remain, dear Sir, Yours very faithfully,</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>The following letter is of great interest in relation -to many problems of sexual selection, protective -resemblance, mimicry, <span class="locked">etc.:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Jan. 23, 1872.</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>—The point to which you refer seems to me a -very difficult one. 1<sup>st</sup> the comparison of the amount of -variability in itself would be difficult. 2<sup>ndly</sup> of all characters, -colour seems to be the most variable, as we see in domesticated -productions. (3) I fully agree that selection if -long continued gives fixity to characters. We see the reverse -of this in the great variability of fancy races, now being -selected by man. But to give fixity, selection must be continued -for a very long period: pray consider on this head -what I have said in the Origin about the variability of -characters developed in an extraordinary manner, in comparison -with the same characters in allied species. The -selection must also be for a definite object, and not for -anything so vague as beauty, or for the superiority of one male -in its weapons over another male, which can in like manner be -modified. This at least seems to me partly to account for the -general variability of secondary sexual characters. In the case -of mimetic insects, there is another element of doubt, as the -imitated form may be undergoing change which will be -followed by the imitating form. This latter consideration -seems to me, as remarked in my ‘Descent of Man,’ to throw -much light on how the process of imitation first began.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">202</span></p> - -<p>“I enclose a letter from Fritz Müller which I think is well -worth reading, and which please to return to me.</p> - -<p>“You will see he lays much stress on the difficulty of -several remotely allied forms all imitating some one species. -Mr. Wallace did not think that there was so much weight in -this objection as I do. It is, however, possible that a few -species in widely different groups, before they had diverged -much, should have accidentally resembled, to a certain extent, -some one species. You will also see in this letter a strange -speculation, which I should not dare to publish, about the -appreciation of certain colours being developed in those species -which frequently behold other forms similarly ornamented. I -do not feel at all sure that this view is as incredible as it may -at first appear. Similar ideas have passed through my mind -when considering the dull colours of all the organisms which -inhabit dull-coloured regions, such as Patagonia and the -Galapagos Is. I suppose you know Mr. Riley’s excellent -essay on mimicry in the last report on the noxious insects of -Missouri or some such title.</p> - -<p>“I hope your work may be in every way successful.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l6">“I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Charles Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>The next letter deals with mimetic <span class="locked">resemblance:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Mar. 28, 1872.</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>—I thank you for your information on various -subjects. The point to which you allude seems to me very -obscure, and I hardly venture to express an opinion on it. -My first impression is that the colour of an imitating form -might be modified to any extent without any tendency being -given to the retention of ancient structural peculiarities. The -difficulty of the subject seems to me to follow from our -complete ignorance of the causes which have led to the generic -differences between the imitating and imitated forms. The -subject however seems worth investigating. If the imitator -habitually lives in company with the imitated, it would be apt -to follow in some respects the same habits of life, and this -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">203</span>perhaps would lead to the retention or acquirement of some -of the same structural characters.</p> - -<p>“I wish you all success in your essay, and remain, dear -Sir, yours very faithfully,</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>The next very brief letter, acknowledging the -receipt of a note, was written from Down, March 26th, -1873. It contained some sympathetic remarks upon -the progress of Meldola’s work upon Mimicry. In -the succeeding letter, printed below, we find a very -definite statement of opinion as to the <i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">rôle</i> of monstrosities -in <span class="locked">evolution:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Aug. 13th</i> [1873]. -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>—I am much obliged for your present which -no doubt I shall find at Down on my return home....</p> - -<p>“I am sorry to say that I cannot answer your question; -nor do I believe that you could find it anywhere even approximately -answered. It is very difficult or impossible to define -what is meant by a larger variation. Such graduate into -monstrosities or generally injurious variations. I do not -myself believe that these are often or ever taken advantage of -under nature. It is a common occurrence that <em>abrupt</em> and -considerable variations are transmitted in an unaltered state, -or not at all transmitted, to the offspring or to some of them. -So it is with tailless or hornless animals, and with sudden and -great changes of colour in flowers.—I wish I could have given -you any answer.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“Dear Sir, yours very faithfully,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>The succeeding three letters show Darwin’s -scrupulous care as regards the publication, although -with every acknowledgment, of the results obtained -by others. They refer to a letter from Fritz Müller -which he had forwarded to Meldola. The latter had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">204</span> -written to ask Darwin’s permission and advice as to -the inclusion of some of F. Müller’s observations in -his most interesting paper, “Entomological Notes -bearing on Evolution” (<i>Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist.</i>, -1878, 5th series, Vol. I. p. 155), which he was then -<span class="locked">preparing:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Sept. 14, 1877.</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>—I have some doubts whether Fritz Müller -would like extracts from his letters being published after so -long an interval,—that is if the letter relates to the origin of -mimicry; for he published about a year ago an excellent -paper on this subject. I believe it was in the Jenaische -Zeitschrift, but the paper is out of its proper place in my -library and I cannot find it. If you thought it worth while -to send me your copy I could then judge about the publication -of extracts.</p> - -<p>“I fear it is not likely that I shall have anything to -communicate to the Entomological Soc. I quite agree with -you that it is a great pity that our Entomologists should -confine themselves to describing species.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“Dear Sir, yours faithfully,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<div class="tb">* * * * *</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Sept. 22nd</i> [1877]. -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>—I am doubtful whether speculations in a -letter ought to be published, especially after a long interval of -time. Any fact which he states, I feel pretty sure he would -not at all object being used by anyone.—Pray do the best -you can.—I should grieve beyond measure to be accused of -a breach of confidence.—He has lately, as I mentioned, thrown -much light on the first steps in mimicry.</p> - -<p>“With respect to dimorphic Butterflies, those about which -I have read appear at different seasons, and have been the -subject of an <em>admirable</em> essay by Prof. Weismann. It is some -little time since I read the essay and one subject drives -another out of my head, but I think he explains all such cases -by the direct inherited effects of temperature. He tried<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">205</span> -experiments. If you read German, I believe I could find -Weismann’s essays and lend them to you. In your present -interesting case I really do not know what to think: it -seems rather bold to attribute the 2 coloured forms to nat. -selection, before some advantage can be pointed out.—May -not the female revert in some cases? I do not doubt that -the intermediate form could be eliminated as you suggest.</p> - -<p>“I wish that my opinion could have been of any -value....</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“I remain yours very faithfully,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>This last letter, with others that followed it, directing -Meldola’s attention to Weismann’s “Studies in -the Theory of Descent,” resulted in the English translation -which is so admirably rendered and edited. -Many of the later letters are concerned with the -progress of this publication. The remarks about -dimorphic butterflies referred to Meldola’s observation, -that in one of those years in which <i>Colias edusa</i> -was extremely abundant, a whole series of forms had -been taken transitional between the normal orange -female and the white variety <span class="locked"><i>helice</i>:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Sept. 27</i> [1877]. -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>,—It is impossible for F. M. [Fritz Müller] -to object to anything which you have said in your very interesting -little essay.—I just allude to Butterflies preferring -certain colours at p. 317 of 2nd Edit<sup>n.</sup> of the Descent and -to the case of the species of Castnia p. 315 which has ornamented -hinder wings and displays them, whilst 2 other -species have plain hind wings and do not display them. My -son, who has charge of my library, returns home to-night and -then we will search for Weismann. He gives splendid case -of caterpillar with coloured ocelli like true eyes, <em>and which -frightened away birds</em>.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“Yours sincerely,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">206</span></p> - -<p>The reference in this letter is to Meldola’s paper, -“Entomological Notes bearing on Evolution,” soon -afterwards published in the <i>Annals and Magazine -of Natural History</i>, 1878, Vol. I. p. 155. The caterpillar -referred to is the well-known larva of the Large -Elephant Hawk Moth (<i>Chærocampa elpenor</i>).</p> - -<p>Darwin then wrote a brief note (October 19th, -1877) referring to a number of <i>Kosmos</i> containing an -article on “Sexual Selection.” He offered to send the -number if it would interest his correspondent. The -number was sent, as the succeeding letter <span class="locked">shows:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Oct. 22nd [1877].</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>,—I send Kosmos by this post....</p> - -<p>“Prof. Weismann’s address is Freiburg.—I should think -he would be glad of translation, and would probably arrange -for stereotypes of Plates.—You could say as an introduction -that I had lent you his book.—To find a publisher will be -perhaps a difficulty. Should it be translated I must beg you -to get another copy, as I cannot spare mine for such a length -of time.—Wallace sent me his article and I was quite dissatisfied -with it.—To explain a peacock’s tail by vital activity -seems to me mere verbiage—a mere metaphysical principle.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“My dear Sir, yours faithfully,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>. -</p> - -<p>“It will be a public benefit to bring out a translation.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Then followed three letters, January 3rd, March -24th, and March 27th, 1878; the first written when -Darwin was sending another number of <i>Kosmos</i>, the -second when sending his photograph, the third enclosing -a letter from Fritz Müller containing some -very interesting observations on mimicry in South -American butterflies.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">207</span></p> - -<p>He then wrote as <span class="locked">follows:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>April 17/78.</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>,—I should be very much obliged if you -could get some one to name the photographs of the enclosed -insect and read the enclosed letter. It seems a pretty, but I -think not new case of protective resemblance. One might -fancy that the large ocelli on the under wings were a sexual -ornament.—Perhaps these photographs might be worth exhibiting -at the Entomolog. Soc.—I do not want them returned -(unless indeed Dr. Zacharias wants them back, which is not -probable) or the enclosed letter.</p> - -<p>“A single word with the name of the genus and if possible -of the species, would <span class="locked">suffice.—</span></p> - -<p>“Pray forgive my troubling you and believe me</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“Yours faithfully,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>. -</p> - -<p>“I am glad that F. Müller’s letter interested you. He has -published a paper with plates on the shape of the hairs or -scales on the odoriferous glands of many butterflies, which -I could send you, but I doubt whether you would care for it.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Darwin then sent another letter from Fritz -Müller containing some interesting notes on odoriferous -organs in butterflies, and on the occasional -failure of the female insect to deposit her eggs on -a plant which can serve as the food of the young -larvæ. The beetles alluded to were a species of -<i>Spermophagus</i>. The two letters printed below refer -to the same <span class="locked">subjects:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>May 15 [1878].</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>,—I think the enclosed will interest you.—The -letter to me need not be returned as I have had the only -important passage for my work copied out.—In the letter F. M. -[Fritz Müller] sent me seeds of <i>Cassia neglecta</i> and several -beetles arrived alive, having formed their cocoons, and gnawed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">208</span> -their way out of the little peas or seeds.—These elegant -beetles, with the knowledge of their manner of development -may interest some Coleopterist.</p> - -<p>“I hope to hear some time about Dr. Zacharias’ photographs. -I received your obliging letter from Paris.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“Yours sincerely,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<div class="tb">* * * * *</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>May 25 [1878].</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>,—The living beetles and the cocoons were -found in a small paper packet containing the seeds. Those -from which the beetles had emerged were much broken, and -the larvæ had evidently attacked some of the other seeds. I -am sorry to say that some of the injured ones were thrown -away. I am glad that you are going to draw up a paper from -Fritz Müller’s letters.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“Yours sincerely,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>After another short note, dated July 24th, 1878, -Darwin wrote the following letter, which explains -how it was that he came to write the preface to -the translation of Weismann’s <span class="locked">“Studies”:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>October 31 [1878].</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>,—As you are inclined to be so very liberal -as to have a translation made of Weismann’s Essays on your -own risk, I feel bound to aid you to the small extent of writing -a short prefatory notice. But this is a kind of job, which I do -not feel that I can do at all well and therefore do not like; -but I will do my best. It must, however, be short for I am -at present working very hard. I do not quite understand -whether you intend asking some Publisher to bring out the -book on commission at your cost for if so there will be no -difficulty in finding a Publisher. But if you expect any -Publisher to publish at his risk and cost; I think from recent -experience you will have much difficulty in finding one.—I -suppose that you have asked Weismann’s concurrence.</p> - -<p>“Down is rather an awkward place to reach, as we are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">209</span> -4 miles from nearest station, Orpington. But I shall be in -London for a week on Nov<sup>r</sup> 17th or 18th and could see you -then at any time, and perhaps you could come to luncheon.</p> - -<p>“But if you would prefer to come here, I shall be very -happy to see you either Saturday or Sunday, if you would let -me know hour.—I am, however, bound to tell you that my -health is always doubtful, and that my head does not allow -me to converse long with anyone.</p> - -<p>“With the most cordial sympathy in your undertaking, I -remain, my dear Sir, yours very faithfully,</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>In November, 1878, Darwin was in London, -staying at his daughter’s house at 4, Bryanston -Street. On the 19th he wrote asking Meldola to -lunch to talk over the proposed English edition of -Weismann, and on the 25th sent the MS. of the -Preface with the following <span class="locked">letter:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l2">“4 Bryanston St.,</span><br /> -“Portman Sq<sup>re</sup>. -</p> - -<p> -“<i>Nov. 25</i> [1878]. -</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>,—I send my little Preface, which I do not -at all like, but which I cannot improve. I should like hereafter -to see it in type. Mr. Bates tells me that Hardwick and -Bohn of Piccadilly intend to go in for publishing solid books; -and if your present publisher should change his mind: Mr. -Bohn might be worth applying to.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“Yours sincerely,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Professor Meldola then wrote, suggesting that -Darwin should, in his Preface, point out, by references -to the “Origin of Species” and his other writings, -how far he had already traced out the lines which -Weismann had pursued in his researches. The -suggestion was made because in a great many of -the Continental writings upon the theory of descent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">210</span> -a number of the points which had been clearly foreshadowed, -and in some cases even explicitly stated, -by Darwin had been independently rediscovered and -published as though original. In the editorial notes -to Meldola’s translation full justice to Darwin has -been done in this respect. Darwin’s characteristic -reply is deeply interesting.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Nov 26<sup>th</sup></i> [1878]. -</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -“4 Bryanston St. -</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>,—I am very sorry to say that I cannot agree -to your suggestion.—An author is never a fit judge of his own -work, and I should dislike extremely pointing out when and -how Weismann’s conclusions and work, agreed with my own.—I -feel sure that I ought not to do this, and it would be to me -an intolerable task. Nor does it seem to me the proper office -of the Preface, which is to show what the book contains and -that the contents appear to me valuable. But I can see -no objection for you, if you think fit, to write an introduction -with remarks or criticisms of any kind. Of course I would -be glad to advise you on any point as far as lay in my power, -but as a whole I could have nothing to do with it, on the -grounds above specified that an author cannot and ought not -to attempt to judge his own works or compare them with others. -I am sorry to refuse to do anything which you <span class="locked">wish.—</span></p> - -<p>“We return home early to-morrow morning.—Your green -silk seems to me a splendid colour, whatever the æsthetics may -say.—My dear Sir, yours faithfully,</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>The “green silk” referred to some specimens of -coal-tar colours sent to show Darwin what modern -chemistry had been able to accomplish in the way -of artificial colouring matters. They were at that -time of particular interest in connection with a -discussion which had arisen in Bryanston Street<span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">211</span> -about the so-called “æsthetic” school, which had -become rather predominant at the period, and which -affected an abhorrence of all brilliant colouring, in -spite of the circumstance that nature abounds in -the most gorgeous hues, especially in the tropics.</p> - -<p>The next letter refers to the adoption of the word -“phyletic” in the translation of Weismann.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Dec. 14</i> [1878]. -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>,—I am very glad that you are making good -progress with the book.—You could not apply to a worse -person than myself on any philological question. I presume -that ‘phyletische’ has been adopted or modified from Häckel. -As the latter uses the word, it has nearly the sense of -genealogical. It always applies to the lines of descent, and -therefore differs somewhat from ‘innate’; for an inherited -character, though derived from the father alone or only a -single generation, would be innate in the child. I should -think ‘phyletic’ would do very well, if you gave the German -word and an explanation, in a foot-note.</p> - -<p>“There has been a delay in answering your letter, but I -have just heard from my son who is away from home, and he -says that he is sorry but he cannot well spare the time to -lecture.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“My dear Sir, yours very faithfully,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>Then followed two letters (January 20th, and February -7th, 1879), the first written when Darwin was -sending a number of <i>Kosmos</i>; the second referring -to it and other papers, and asking that his name -should be put down as a subscriber to the forthcoming -translation of Weismann.</p> - -<p>Later on the number of <i>Kosmos</i> for May, 1879, was -sent, containing (p. 100) Fritz Müller’s paper “<i>Ituna</i><span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">212</span> -and <i>Thyridia</i>.” This paper, although it did not -attract sufficient attention at the time, was of the -highest importance in relation to the theory of -mimicry, as Meldola at once perceived.</p> - -<p>Bates in his epoch-making paper in the Transactions -of the Linnean Society (Vol. XXIII. 1862) had -founded the theory of mimicry. Those rarer forms -which have diverged from their near allies and, in -superficial appearance, approached some distantly -related, but abundant, species inhabiting the same -tract have been, according to Bates’s theory, benefiting -themselves in the struggle for existence. The -mimicked species are, he suggested, abundant because -they possess some special means of protection, such as -an unpleasant taste or smell, and they have an unpleasant -reputation which greatly aids them in the struggle -for life; while the mimicking species, by their superficial -resemblance, are enabled to live upon that -reputation without possessing the special means -of defence.</p> - -<p>Certain facts well-known to Bates, and brought -forward in his paper, were not explicable by this -theory, viz. the resemblance that often exists between -the abundant and specially protected species themselves. -Although a few tentative suggestions were -made, such as the production of a common appearance -by similarity of climate, or food, etc., these facts -remained an unexplained mystery until this paper of -Fritz Müller’s in the May number of <i>Kosmos</i>. He -there suggests that the mutual resemblance between<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">213</span> -the specially protected forms is advantageous, in -reducing for each of them the number of individuals -which must be sacrificed during the process of education -which their youthful enemies must undergo, -before they learn what is fit and what unfit for food. -The arrangement is, in fact, much like that between a -couple of firms that issue a common advertisement, -and so save about half the expense of advertising -alone. It is only another added to the numerous -examples of the production by natural selection, and -without the introduction of consciousness, of a result -which could not be bettered by the deliberate action -of the most acute intelligence.</p> - -<p>Meldola at once wrote to Darwin asking his advice -about the translation of F. Müller’s paper, and -received the following <span class="locked">reply:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>June 6th, 1879.</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Mr. Meldola</span>,—Your best plan will be to write -to ‘Dr. Ernst Krause, Friedenstrasse, 10 II. Berlin.’ He is one -of the editors with whom I have corresponded. You can say -that I sent you the Journal and called your attention to the -paper, but I cannot take the liberty of advising the supply of -clichés. He is a very obliging man. Had you not better ask -for permission to translate, saying the source will be fully -acknowledged?</p> - -<p>“F. Müller’s view of the mutual protection was quite new -to me.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“Yours sincerely,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>The clichés were obtained and Meldola’s translation -published in the Proceedings of the Entomological -Society for 1879, p. 20. The new contribution to the -theory of mimicry was at first somewhat severely<span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">214</span> -criticised, even Bates being adverse to it. Subsequent -work has abundantly justified it as by far the most -important addition to the subject since Bates’s -original paper. In fact, many cases which have -been up to the present explained under the theory -of true (Batesian) mimicry are now believed to -come under that which we owe to F. Müller—viz. -convergence between specially protected forms for -mutual benefit.</p> - -<p>An interesting paper by Dr. F. A. Dixey, published -in the Transactions of the Entomological -Society for the present year (1896), contains convincing -arguments in favour of this view as regards -some of the <i>Pieridæ</i> of South America in relation -to the <i>Heliconidæ</i> and <i>Papilionidæ</i> which they -resemble.</p> - -<p>It is of the highest interest to learn that the first introduction -of this new and most suggestive hypothesis -into this country was due to the direct influence of -Darwin himself, who brought it before the notice of -the one man who was likely to appreciate it at its -true value and to find the means for its presentation -to English naturalists.</p> - -<p>In the next year Meldola wished to translate -further papers of Fritz Müller’s, and received the -following letter on the <span class="locked">subject:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Nov. 25/80.</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">My dear Sir</span>,—I can well believe that your labour must -have been great, and everyone is bound to aid you in any way.</p> - -<p>“No. I. of F. Müller’s paper is in the August no. for 1877.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">215</span></p> - -<p>“No. II.—is in the October no. for 1877.</p> - -<p>“Both these articles I remember thinking excellent.</p> - -<p>“I am not one of the editors of Kosmos, only a kind of -patron(!) and therefore cannot give permission; but when you -write to the editors you can say that I have expressed a hope -that permission would be granted, you acknowledging source -of papers.</p> - -<p>“Heartily wishing you success and in haste to catch first -post, I remain yours very faithfully,</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>Shortly after the date of the last letter Professor -Meldola came across a copy of Thomson’s “Annals -of Philosophy” on a bookstall. It bore the name -“Erasmus Darwin” on the first page, and Meldola -offered it to Charles Darwin, thinking it might have -belonged to his grandfather.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>March 12th, 1881</i> [The date was evidently May, and not March]. -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Mr. Meldola</span>,—It is very kind of you to offer to -send me the book, but I feel sure that it could not have -belonged to my grandfather.—My eldest brother’s name is -Erasmus and he attended to chemistry when young, and I -suppose that the ‘Annals of Philosophy’ was left at my -Father’s house and sold with the Library which belonged to -my sisters.—I will look to the few words of Preface to Wiesmann -[<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">sic</i>], whenever I receive a proof.—With many <span class="locked">thanks.—</span></p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4"> -“Yours very faithfully,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p>Then followed a brief note dated “Aug. 8, 1881,” -referring to some point in the work upon which -Meldola was then engaged, and which cannot now be -ascertained. Another letter of the same date referred -to the translation of Weismann, and contained some -encouraging words upon the interest created by the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">216</span> -work and upon the success of the Essex Field Club, -in which Meldola had taken a leading part. Another -brief note of August 10th, 1881, apparently refers to -some paper which cannot now be identified.</p> - -<p>The following interesting letter is of uncertain -<span class="locked">date:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>? 19th, ? 1881.</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Mr. Meldola</span>,—When I read the F. M. [Fritz -Müller] paper your doubt occurred to me and I must say this, -I would rather have expected that the knowledge of distasteful -caterpillars would have been inherited, but I distinctly -remember an account (when Wallace first propounded his -warning colors) published of some birds, I think turkeys, -being experimented upon and they shook their heads after trying -some caterpillars as if they had a horrid taste in their -mouths. I fancied this thing was published by Mr. Weir or -could it have been by Mr. Butler? It would be well to look in -Mr. Belt’s ‘Nicaragua’ as he tried some experiments. I am -not sure that there is not some statement of the kind in it.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“Yours faithfully,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Charles Darwin</span>. -</p> - -<p>“I daresay Mr. Wallace or Bates would remember the statement -of some birds shaking their heads to which I refer.”</p> -</div> - -<p>The statement about the turkeys evidently refers -to Stainton’s experiment with young birds of this kind, -which immediately devoured numerous protectively -coloured moths, but, after seizing, invariably rejected, -a conspicuous white species (<i>Spilosoma menthastri</i>). -It was Belt’s ducks which shook their heads after -tasting a very conspicuous Nicaraguan frog. Darwin -wished to show by this evidence that there was -no instinctive knowledge such as would have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">217</span> -saved the birds from an evidently unpleasant -experience.</p> - -<p>The last letter, deeply interesting both on its own -account and because it was written so near the end of -Darwin’s life, was a reply to one from Meldola in which -he had said that the publishers were complaining that -the list of subscribers was disappointing, and that they -had expressed the wish that Mr. Darwin could see his -way to writing a much longer introductory notice than -he had done.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p> -“<i>Feb. 2nd [1882].</i> -</p> - -<p class="sigright">“Down.</p> - -<p>“<span class="smcap">Dear Mr. Meldola</span>,—I am very sorry that I can add -nothing to my very brief notice without reading again Weismann’s -work and getting up the whole subject by reading -my own and other books, and for so much labour I have not -strength. I have now been working at other subjects for -some years, and when a man grows as old as I am, it is a -great wrench to his brain to go back to old and half-forgotten -subjects. You would not readily believe how often I am asked -questions of all kinds, and quite lately I have had to give up -much time to do a work, not at all concerning myself, but -which I did not like to refuse. I must however somewhere -draw the line, or my life will be a misery to me.</p> - -<p>“I have read your Preface and it seems to me <em>excellent</em>. I -am sorry in many ways, including the honour of England as -a scientific country, that your translation has as yet sold -badly. Does the publisher or do you lose by it? If the publisher, -though I should be sorry for him, yet it is in the way of -business; but if you yourself lose by it, I earnestly beg you to -allow me to subscribe a trifle, viz. ten guineas, towards the -expense of this work, which you have undertaken on public -grounds.</p> - -<p class="sigright"> -<span class="l4">“Pray believe me, yours very faithfully,</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">Ch. Darwin</span>.” -</p> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">218</span></p> - -<p>Darwin’s generous offer, although gratefully declined, -was a warm encouragement in the laborious, -and in some respects thankless, task of translator and -editor—a task which, in the case of the English edition -of Weismann’s “Studies in the Theory of Descent,” -was carried out in so admirable a manner.</p> - -<hr /> - -<div id="toclink_219" class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">219</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_XXVI">CHAPTER XXVI.<br /> - -<span class="subhead">HIS LAST ILLNESS (1882).</span></h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">In</span> the last few months of his life, towards the end of -1881 and beginning of 1882, Darwin began to suffer -from his heart, causing attacks of pain and faintness -which increased in number. On March 7th, 1882, he -had one of these seizures when walking, “and this was -the last time that he was able to reach his favourite -‘sand-walk’” (“Life and Letters”). After this he -became rather better, and on April 17th was able to -record the progress of an experiment for his son -Francis. The following sentences are quoted from -the “Life and <span class="locked">Letters”:—</span></p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“During the night of April 18th, about a quarter to twelve, -he had a severe attack and passed into a faint, from which he -was brought back to consciousness with very great difficulty. -He seemed to recognise the approach of death, and said, ‘I am -not the least afraid to die.’ All the next morning he suffered -from terrible nausea and faintness, and hardly rallied before -the end came.</p> - -<p>“He died at about four o’clock on Wednesday, April 19th, -1882.”</p> -</div> - -<p>He was buried in Westminster Abbey on April 26th.</p> - -<p>Thus died one of the greatest of men, after a life -of patient and continuous work interrupted only by -ill-health; a man who was, perhaps, more widely<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">220</span> -attacked and more grossly misrepresented than any -other, but who lived to see his teachings almost universally -received; a man whose quiet, peaceful life of -work, and whose precarious health, prevented that large -intercourse with his fellow-men which is generally -forced upon greatness, but who was so beloved by his -circle of intimate friends that, through their contagious -enthusiasm, and through the glimpses of his nature -revealed in his writings, he was in all likelihood more -greatly loved than any other man of his time by those -who knew him not.</p> - -<p>And for all those of us who have loved Darwin, -although we have never seen him, we can at any rate -remember that we have lived in his time and have -heard the echoes of his living voice; he has been even -more to us than he will be to future generations of -mankind—a mighty tradition, gaining rather than -losing in force and in overwhelming interest as each -passing age, inspired by his example, guided by his -teachings, adds to the knowledge of nature, and in -so doing gives an ever deeper meaning to his life -and work.</p> - -<div class="chapter"><div class="footnotes"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="FOOTNOTES">FOOTNOTES</h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="fnanchor">A</a> See Professor Meldola’s interesting Presidential Address to -the Entomological Society of London (January, 1896) on the use of -the imagination in science, printed in the Transactions of the Society -and in <i>Nature</i>. See also “The Advancement of Science” (London, -1890), in which Professor Lankester maintains (p. 4): “All true -science deals with speculation and hypothesis, and acknowledges as -its most valued servant—its indispensable ally and helpmeet—that -which our German friends call ‘Phantasie’ and we ‘the Imagination.’” -Consult also Professor Tyndall’s essay “On the Scientific Use -of the Imagination” (“Fragments of Science,” 1889, vol. ii., p. 101).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="fnanchor">B</a> We are told in the “Life and Letters” that the last proof of -the “Journal” was finished in 1837. The Diary, as stated above, -was written between July, 1837, and February, 1838.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="fnanchor">C</a> Professor H. F. Osborn has rightly urged that this essay -should be published (“From the Greeks to Darwin,” 1894, -p. 235).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="fnanchor">D</a> My friend Mr. J. J. Walker, R.N., tells me that the house in -which Wallace lived in Ternate, and in which the essay was written, -is still pointed out by the natives as one of the features of the place. -It is, unfortunately, much dilapidated.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="fnanchor">E</a> Wallace has added the following note to the reprint in “Natural -Selection and Tropical Nature,” London, 1891, p. 31: “That is, -they will vary, and the variations which tend to adapt them to the -wild state, and therefore approximate them to wild animals, will be -preserved. Those individuals which do not vary sufficiently will -perish.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="fnanchor">F</a> Since the above paragraph was written I have again read -Professor Newton’s eloquent Address to the Biological Section of -the British Association at Manchester in 1887, and find that he says -on the same subject—“If in future you should meet with any cynic -who may point the finger of scorn at the petty quarrels in which -naturalists unfortunately at times engage, particularly in regard to -the priority of their discoveries, you can always refer him to this -greatest of all cases, where scientific rivalry not only did not interfere -with, but even strengthened, the good-feeling which existed -between two of the most original investigators” (Report of Meeting, -p. 731).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="fnanchor">G</a> “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, -having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or -into one;...”—(Concluding paragraph of “Origin,” 1860, p. 490.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="fnanchor">H</a> “Life of Lord Sherbrooke,” Vol. II. (pp. 205–206), Longmans -& Co. London, 1893.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="fnanchor">I</a> Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., Jan. 16th, 1860.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="fnanchor">J</a> Presidential address to the British Association at Belfast, 1874. -Report, p. lxxxvii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="fnanchor">K</a> See H. F. Osborn, “From the Greeks to Darwin” (1894).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="fnanchor">L</a> In “Comparative Longevity.”</p> - -</div> -</div></div> - -<div id="toclink_221" class="chapter"><div class="index"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">221</span></p> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="INDEX">INDEX.</h2> - -<ul class="index"> -<li class="ifrst">Abnormal Transposition, or Multiplication of Parts, <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Acquired Characters, Transmission of, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Agassiz, Prof. L., and Darwin, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Animals, Variation of, under Domestication, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Abnormal Transposition or Multiplication of Parts, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Instinctive Knowledge in, denied, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Argyll, Duke of, on Natural Selection, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Atlantis Hypothesis, The, Darwin’s Objections to, <a href="#Page_53">53–55</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Bastian, Dr. H. C., <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bates on Mimicry, <a href="#Page_212">212</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bateson on Speculation and Hypothesis in Science, <a href="#Page_14">14–15</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Beagle,” Darwin’s Voyage in the, <a href="#Page_21">21–24</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Important Observations and Discoveries, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Countries and Islands visited, <a href="#Page_23">23–24</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Completion of “A Naturalist’s Voyage,” <a href="#Page_30">30</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Zoology of, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Geology of, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Beale, Dr. Lionel, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Bear and Whale, a Hypothetical Illustration of Natural Selection, <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Beetles, Wingless, <a href="#Page_51">51</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Birds, Experimenting with Distasteful Caterpillars, &c., <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Botanical Works of Darwin, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Bree, Dr., “Species not Transmutable,” <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Butler, Dr., School at Shrewsbury, Darwin’s Education at, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Butterflies, Dimorphic, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Cambridge, Darwin studying at, <a href="#Page_18">18–20</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Revisited, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carpenter, Dr., <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Carus, V., <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Case, Mr., Darwin attends his School at Shrewsbury, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Challenger” Expedition, The, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cirripedia, Monographs on the, <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Climbing Plants, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Revolution of the Upper Part, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Copley Medal of the Royal Society awarded to Charles Darwin, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">to Sir Joseph Hooker, <a href="#Page_111">111</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Coral Reefs, Work upon the, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Theory of Origin, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Dr. John Murray rejects the Darwinian Theory, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Creative Hypothesis, Huxley on the, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Crossing in Plants, The Advantages of, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Cross-fertilisation in Plants, <a href="#Page_201">201</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Darwin, Charles, Birthplace, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">His Parentage, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Family Genius, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Secret of his Strength, <a href="#Page_13">13–15</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his high Valuation of Hypothesis, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Boyhood, <a href="#Page_16">16–17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">School-life, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Love of Sport, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">at Edinburgh, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Dislike of Dissection, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">First Scientific Discovery and Paper, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">at Cambridge, <a href="#Page_18">18–20</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Friendship with Professors Henslow and Sedgwick, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Voyage of the “Beagle,” <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Preparation for and Effects of the Voyage, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the Most Important Discoveries during, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Places Visited, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Re-visits Cambridge, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Work upon the Collections, and the “Naturalist’s Voyage,” <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">at London, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Origin of Species, <a href="#Page_25">25–29</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Geological Work, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Completion of “A Naturalist’s Voyage,” <a href="#Page_30">30</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Zoology of the Voyage of the “Beagle,” <a href="#Page_31">31</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Papers on Earth-Worms, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Marriage, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Book on the Coral Reefs, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Ill-health, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">at Down, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Career as a Biologist, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Systematic Work, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Dislike of Species-mongers, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Death of his Father and Daughter, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Growth of the Origin of Species Theory, <a href="#Page_42">42–59</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Correspondence with Friends, <a href="#Page_50">50–59</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Experiments with Seeds in Salt Water, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Wedgwood, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Objections to the Atlantis Hypothesis, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Lyell, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Friendship and Correspondence with Wallace, <a href="#Page_60">60–64</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81–86</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their Joint Papers Presented to the Linnean Society, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to Asa Gray on Selection, <a href="#Page_68">68–70</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Comparison and Reception of the Joint Papers, <a href="#Page_78">78–82</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Delay in Publishing his Discoveries, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Preparation of Origin of Species, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Observations, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Appeals to Lyell, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Letter to John Murray, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Influence upon Lyell, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Receives the Copley Medal of the Royal Society, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Indebtedness to Lyell’s Teaching, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Influence upon Hooker and Asa Gray, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Controversy with Asa Gray, <a href="#Page_114">114–118</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Influence upon Huxley, <a href="#Page_119">119–143</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Views of Natural Selection as the Cause of Evolution not accepted by Huxley, <a href="#Page_121">121–128</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Extracts from Letters showing Difficulty with which Natural Selection was Understood, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">222</span></li> -<li class="isub1">on Spontaneous Generation, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Bastian, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Later Works, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Theory of Pangenesis, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, Outline of the Book, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">on Sexual and Asexual Reproductions, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Extracts from Letters to Friends on Pangenesis, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“The Descent of Man,” <a href="#Page_186">186</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“The Expression of the Emotions,” <a href="#Page_189">189</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“Volcanic Islands,” <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“South America,” <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms,” <a href="#Page_191">191</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Life of Erasmus Darwin, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“Fertilisation of Orchids,” <a href="#Page_193">193</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Cross- and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of Same Species, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Climbing Plants, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“Power of Movement in Plants,” <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“Insectivorous Plants,” <a href="#Page_198">198</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Letters to Prof. Meldola, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Last Illness, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Death, <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Darwin, Erasmus, Brother of Charles, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Darwin, Erasmus, Grandfather of Charles, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Darwin, Prof. George, Brother of Charles, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Darwin, Robert Waring, Father of Charles, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Profession and Character, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Dislike to the “Beagle” Expedition, <a href="#Page_21">21–22</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Death of, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Darwin Medal of the Royal Society awarded to Huxley, The, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Darwinism not Evolution, Huxley’s Speeches, <a href="#Page_139">139–141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Deposits, Oceanic, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Descent of Man, The, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Development, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Dixey, Dr. F. A., Paper on Mimicry, <a href="#Page_214">214</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Domestication, Variation by, of Animals and Plants, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Animals, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Down, Darwin’s Home at, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Drosera and Other Insectivorous Plants, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Earthworms, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Castings of, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Papers on the, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Edinburgh, Darwin studying for Medicine at, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Emotions, The Expression of the,” <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Evolution, First Recorded Thoughts upon, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Natural Selection as a Cause not accepted by Huxley, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the Argument for, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">supported by Huxley, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Huxley agrees with Darwin, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Discussion at Meeting of the British Association, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">not Darwinism, <a href="#Page_139">139–141</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Expression of the Emotions, The,” <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Extinction, <a href="#Page_43">43–45</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Fertilisation of Germ Cells, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“of Orchids, The,” <a href="#Page_193">193</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">of Flowers by Insects, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Effects of Cross- and Self-, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fitzroy, Capt., of the “Beagle,” <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Flowers, The Fertilisation of, by Insects, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Effects of Cross- and Self-Fertilisation compared, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Different Forms on the same Plant, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Flustra, Darwin’s Discovery of the Free-Swimming Larvæ of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Forbes, Edward, and the Atlantis Hypothesis, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, The,” <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Fox, W. Darwin, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Galapagos Archipelago, The Animals, etc., of the, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Galton, F., <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geikie, James, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geological Society, The, Darwin appointed Secretary, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Papers on the Earthworms, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Geology of the Voyage of the “Beagle,” <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Glacial Phenomena, Darwin’s Paper upon, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Graft-Hybrids, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Grafting, Production of Hybrids by, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gray, Asa, Darwin’s Correspondence with, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Influence upon, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Controversy with, <a href="#Page_114">114–118</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Gray, Dr., <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Henslow, Prof., Friendship with Darwin, <a href="#Page_18">18–21</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Herbert, J. M., on Darwin’s Character, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hereditary Genius, Evidences in the Darwin Family, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Heredity, Theories of, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hermaphroditism, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Holmes, Dr. Oliver Wendell, his References to Darwin, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Correction of Darwin, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hooker, Sir Joseph, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Letters to, on Species-mongers, <a href="#Page_39">39–40</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Opinion of, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Friendship and Correspondence with Darwin, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Lyell’s Correspondence with, as to Specific Centres, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Influence upon, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">awarded the Copley Medal of the Royal Society, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Darwin, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin Writing on Pangenesis, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">223</span></li> - -<li class="indx">Huxley, Prof., Criticisms of Darwin’s Theory, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">on Teleology, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Influence upon, <a href="#Page_119">119–143</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">agrees with Darwin on Evolution, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Views on Natural Selection, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Article in the <i>Times</i> on the Origin of Species, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Article in the <i>Westminster Review</i>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Lectures on the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Views as to Natural Selection not changed, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Speech at the British Association Meeting at Oxford, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">awarded the Darwin Medal of the Royal Society, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwinism, not Evolution, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and the Bishop of Oxford, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hybrid Grafts, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hybridism, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hybrids, Tendency to Resemble one Parent, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Sterility of, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Produced by Grafting, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Hypothesis and Speculation, Bearing on Science, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Inheritance, The Theories of, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Insectivorous Plants, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Instinctive Knowledge in Animals denied by Darwin, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Jenkin, Fleming, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Lamarck’s Theory of Evolution, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Comparison with Darwin’s, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lankester, Prof. E. Ray, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Linnean Society, Joint Memoirs by Darwin and Wallace, read before, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Lowe, Robert, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lyell, Sir Charles, Influence on Darwin, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Continental Extensions, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Hooker’s Agreement on the Specific Centres Theory, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Appeal to, on the Natural Selection, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Influence of Darwin upon, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Accepts Darwin’s Views, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Death of, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Letter on Pangenesis, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Lythrum, Different Forms of Flowers on the, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Macleay, W. S., <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Malthus on Population, its Influence on Darwin, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and on Wallace, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Man, The Descent of, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Meldola, Prof., on Systematic Work, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Darwin, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Metamorphosis, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mimetic Resemblance, <a href="#Page_202">202</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Mimicry, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Bates’ Theory, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Fritz Müller’s Theory, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Dixey’s paper on, <a href="#Page_214">214</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Müller, Fritz, Darwin’s Letters to, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">on Mimicry, <a href="#Page_212">212–214</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Paper Translated, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Murray, Andrew, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Murray, Dr. John, Controversy as to the Origin of Coral Reefs, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Naming of Species, Darwin on the, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Natural Selection, Early Impressions on Darwin, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Survival of the Fittest, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Specific Centres, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Paper on, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Theory of, <a href="#Page_68">68–70</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Wallace’s Discovery of, <a href="#Page_88">88–91</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Lord Salisbury’s Attack on, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Canon Tristram, the First Publicly to Accept the Theory, <a href="#Page_92">92–94</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Argument for, <a href="#Page_100">100–103</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Huxley not convinced as to Sufficiency of the Evidence of, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">as the Highest Attempt to Account for Evolution, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Huxley’s Description of the Theory, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">H. C. Watson on, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Hostile Criticisms, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Why the Term was Chosen, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Naturalist’s Voyage, A,” Completion of, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Newton, Prof., Speech at the British Association, <a href="#Page_153">153</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Nineteenth Century</i>, The Duke of Argyll’s Article in the, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Orchids, the Fertilisation of, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Origin of Species, Darwin’s Theory of the;</li> -<li class="isub1">Early Reflections upon, <a href="#Page_25">25–29</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Growth of the Theory, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Separate Creation Theory Inadequate, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Principles of Development, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">First Account of Darwin’s Theory, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the Sketch Enlarged, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Profs. Huxley and Newton’s Criticisms, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Divergence of Character, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Competition, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Arrangements for the Publication in case of his Death, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin and Wallace’s Joint Paper Presented to the Linnean Society, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Confidence, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Correspondence with Friends, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Immutability of Species denied, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Theory not understood by Naturalists, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">the Polyphyletic Theory, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Specific Centres, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin and Wallace, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">their Papers before the Linnean Society, <a href="#Page_62">62–77</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Struggle for Life, <a href="#Page_65">65–77</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Principles of, <a href="#Page_68">68–70</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Comparison of the Joint Memoir, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Preparation of the Work on, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Interest of Lyell and Hooker in its Publication, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Letters to John Murray, the Publisher, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">full Title of the Volume, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Outline of the Book and its Various Editions, <a href="#Page_100">100–104</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">its Reception by Lyell, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">by Hooker, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">224</span></li> -<li class="isub1">by Asa Gray, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and by Huxley, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Huxley’s Article in the <i>Times</i>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and in the <i>Westminster Review</i>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Huxley’s high Tribute to Darwin’s Theory, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Difficulty with which Understood, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Regarded by Darwin as an Abstract of a Larger Work, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Osborn, Prof., <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Oxford, the Bishop of, and Huxley, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Pangenesis, Darwin’s Hypothesis of, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Confidence in the Theory, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, The, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Parthenogenesis, <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Petrels at St. Kilda, West Indian nuts found in, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Plants and Animals, Variation of, under Domestication, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Production of Abnormal Parts, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Separate forms on same Individual, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Different forms of Flowers on the same Species, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Climbing, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Power of Movements in, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Insectivorous, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Pollen, Fertilisation of Ovule, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Power of Movements in Plants, The,” <a href="#Page_197">197</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Protective Mimicry, <a href="#Page_203">203</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Reproduction of an Amputated Limb or part, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Reproduction, Sexual and Asexual, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i></li> - -<li class="indx">Reversion, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Rolleston, Prof., <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Romanes, Prof. G. J., <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Salisbury, Lord, Speech at the British Association Meeting at Oxford, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Scientific Discoverer, The Qualifications of a, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Seeds, Experiments on the Vitality of, in Salt-Water, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sedgwick, Prof., Darwin’s Friendship with, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Excursions with, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sexual and Asexual Reproduction, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Advantages of, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Cross-Fertilisation in Plants, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Characters, <a href="#Page_174">174–177</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Selection Theory, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">rejected by Wallace, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Letter to Meldola, <a href="#Page_201">201</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Shrewsbury, Darwin’s Birthplace, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and School-life at, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Re-visited, <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“South America,” <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> - -<li class="indx">South America, Some Observations on the Geology of, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Species, New, The Origin of, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“Species not Transmutable,” Dr. Bree’s Book, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Species-mongers, Darwin’s Dislike of, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Speculation and Hypothesis, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spencer, Herbert, Term of Survival of the Fittest, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Spontaneous Generation, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Sterility of Hybrids, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Struggle for Existence, The, <a href="#Page_65">65–67</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71–77</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Survival of the Fittest, The, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Teleology, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Ternate, Wallace’s house at, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Times</i>, Huxley’s Article on the Origin of Species in, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Transmutation of Species, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tristram, Canon, <a href="#Page_92">92–94</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Paper on Ornithology of Northern Africa, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tuckwell, Rev. W., <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Turkeys, Experimenting upon with Distasteful Caterpillars, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Tyndall, Prof., <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Use and Disuse, The Inherited Effects of, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Variability, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Variation, of Organic Being, Darwin’s Papers upon, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Wallace’s Paper on, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">et seq.</i>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Selection Relative Importance of, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Under Domestication, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Varieties, Departure from the Original Type, <a href="#Page_71">71–77</a></li> - -<li class="indx">“Volcanic Islands,” <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Wallace, Alfred Russel, and Darwin’s Joint Paper Presented to Linnean Society, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">and Darwin, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60–64</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81–86</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Paper Published on the Law Regulating new Species, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Essays on Variations from Original Type, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71–77</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">house at Ternate, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Comparison of the Joint Memoir, <a href="#Page_78">78–86</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">his Discovery of Natural Selection, <a href="#Page_87">87–91</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Letter on Bastian’s Theory of Archebiosis, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">Darwin’s Letter to, on Pangenesis, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Watson, H. C., <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wedgwood, Josiah, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Weismann, Prof., on Germ-Plasm, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>;</li> -<li class="isub1">“Studies in the Theory of Descent,” Meldola’s Translation, <a href="#Page_205">205–210</a></li> - -<li class="indx"><i>Westminster Review</i>, Huxley’s Article on Origin of Species in, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - -<li class="indx">Wilberforce, Bishop, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> - -<li class="ifrst">Zoology of the Voyage of the “Beagle,” The, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> -</ul> -</div></div> - -<hr class="narrow1" /> -<p class="p0 center smaller"><span class="smcap">Printed by Cassell & Company, Limited, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C.</span></p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"><div class="transnote"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="Transcribers_Notes">Transcriber’s Note</h2> - -<p>Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made -consistent when a predominant preference was found -in the original book; otherwise they were not changed.</p> - -<p>Simple typographical errors were corrected; unpaired -quotation marks were remedied when the change was -obvious, and otherwise left unpaired.</p> - -<p>Running page headers in the original book are shown here -with a gray background (in ereaders that support shaded backgrounds), -placed between paragraphs and near the topics to -which they refer.</p> - -<p>Dates and locations in the headings of letters usually were -on the same line in the original book, but have been placed -on separate lines here.</p> - -<p>Footnotes, originally at the bottoms of pages, -have been collected, resequenced, and placed -just above the Index.</p> - -<p>Cover created by Transcriber and placed into the Public Domain.</p> - -<p>The Index was not checked for proper alphabetization -or correct page references.</p> - -<p><a href="#Page_197">Page 197</a>: The correct title of “The Power of Movements in Plants” is -“The Power of Movement in Plants.”</p> -</div></div> - -<p> </p> -<p> </p> -<hr class="pgx" /> -<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES DARWIN AND THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION***</p> -<p>******* This file should be named 65779-h.htm or 65779-h.zip *******</p> -<p>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:<br /> -<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/5/7/7/65779">http://www.gutenberg.org/6/5/7/7/65779</a></p> -<p> -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed.</p> - -<p>Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. -</p> - -<h2 class="pgx" title="">START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<br /> -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</h2> - -<p>To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license.</p> - -<h3 class="pgx" title="">Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works</h3> - -<p>1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8.</p> - -<p>1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.</p> - -<p>1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others.</p> - -<p>1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States.</p> - -<p>1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:</p> - -<p>1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed:</p> - -<blockquote><p>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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this - ebook.</p></blockquote> - -<p>1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work.</p> - -<p>1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.</p> - -<p>1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License.</p> - -<p>1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.</p> - -<p>1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.</p> - -<p>1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that</p> - -<ul> -<li>You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation."</li> - -<li>You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works.</li> - -<li>You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work.</li> - -<li>You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.</li> -</ul> - -<p>1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.</p> - -<p>1.F.</p> - -<p>1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment.</p> - -<p>1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE.</p> - -<p>1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem.</p> - -<p>1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.</p> - -<p>1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions.</p> - -<p>1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause.</p> - -<h3 class="pgx" title="">Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm</h3> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life.</p> - -<p>Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org.</p> - -<h3 class="pgx" title="">Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.</p> - -<p>The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact</p> - -<p>For additional contact information:</p> - -<p> Dr. Gregory B. Newby<br /> - Chief Executive and Director<br /> - gbnewby@pglaf.org</p> - -<h3 class="pgx" title="">Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation</h3> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS.</p> - -<p>The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>.</p> - -<p>While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate.</p> - -<p>International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.</p> - -<p>Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate</p> - -<h3 class="pgx" title="">Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.</h3> - -<p>Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support.</p> - -<p>Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition.</p> - -<p>Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org</p> - -<p>This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.</p> - -</body> -</html> - |