Skip to main content

Full text of "The foundations of The origin of species, a sketch written in 1842"

See other formats 


THE      FOUNDATIONS     OF      THE 
ORIGIN    OF    SPECIES,   A   SKETCH 
WRITTEN    IN    1842 

by 

CHARLES    DARWIN 


oj 


!  D 

>  tr 
ru 


a 
a 


a 
m 
a 


36 

014 


THE    FOUNDATIONS   OF   THE 
ORIGIN   OF   SPECIES 


Camtmogc: 

PRINTED   EY   JOHN   CLAY,    M.A. 
AT   THE    UNIVERSITY   PRESS. 


All  rights  reserved 


THE      FOUNDATIONS     OF      THE 
ORIGIN    OF    SPECIES,  A   SKETCH 
WRITTEN    IN    1842 

by 

CHARLES    DARWIN 


Edited  by  his  son 
FRANCIS    DARWIN 

Honorary  Fellow  of  Christ's  College 


Cambridge  : 

Printed  at  the  University  Press 
1909 


Astronomers  might  formerly  have  said  that  God  ordered  each  planet 
to  move  in  its  particular  destiny.  In  same  manner  God  orders  each  animal 
created  with  certain  form  in  certain  country.  But  how  much  more  simple 
and  sublime  power, — let  attraction  act  according  to  certain  law,  such 
are  inevitable  consequences, — let  animal(s)  be  created,  then  by  the  fixed  laws 
of  generation,  such  will  be  their  successors. 

From  DARWIN'S  Note  Book,  1837,  p.  101. 


PRESENTED  BY  THE  SYNDICS 
OF   THE    UNIVERSITY   PRESS   TO 


ON  THE  OCCASION  OF  THE  CELEBRATION 

AT    CAMBRIDGE    OF    THE    CENTENARY 

OF   THE   BIRTH   OF   CHARLES   DARWIN 

AND  OF   THE   FIFTIETH   ANNIVERSARY 

OF  THE  PUBLICATION   OF 

THE    ORIGIN   OF  SPECIES 


CAMBRIDGE, 

23  June,   1909. 


CONTENTS 

PART   I. 

PAGES 

§  i.       On  variation  under  domestication,  and  on  the  principles 

of  selection 1 

§  ii.      On  variation  in  a  state  of  nature  and  on  the  natural 

means  of  selection 4 

§  iii.     On  variation  in  instincts  and  other  mental  attributes  .        17 

PART  II. 

§§  iv.  and  v.  On  the  evidence  from  Geology.  (The  reasons  for 
combining  the  two  sections  are  given  in  the  Intro- 
duction)   22 

§  vi.  Geographical  distribution 29 

§  vii.  Affinities  and  classification 35 

§  viii.  Unity  of  type  in  the  great  classes         ....  38 

§   ix.  Abortive  organs 45 

§    x.  Recapitulation  and  conclusion 48 


Portrait frontispiece 

Facsimile to  face  p.  50 


D. 


EXPLANATION  OF  SIGNS,  &c. 

[  ]     Means  that  the  words  so  enclosed  are  erased  in  the  original  MS. 
(  )    Indicates  an  insertion  by  the  Editor. 
Origin,  Ed.  vi.  refers  to  the  Popular  Edition. 


INTRODUCTION 

WE  know  from  the  contents  of  Charles  Darwin's 
Note  Book  of  1837  that  he  was  at  that  time  a  con- 
vinced Evolutionist1.  Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt 
that,  when  he  started  on  board  the  Beagle,  such 
opinions  as  he  had  were  on  the  side  of  immutability. 
When  therefore  did  the  current  of  his  thoughts 
begin  to  set  in  the  direction  of  Evolution  ? 

We  have  first  to  consider  the  factors  that  made 
for  such  a  change.  On  his  departure  in  1831, 
Henslow  gave  him  vol.  i.  of  Lyell's  Principles,  then 
just  published,  with  the  warning  that  he  was  not  to 
believe  what  he  read2.  But  believe  he  did,  and  it 
is  certain  (as  Huxley  has  forcibly  pointed  out3)  that 
the  doctrine  of  uniformitarianism  when  applied  to 
Biology  leads  of  necessity  to  Evolution.  If  the  ex- 
termination of  a  species  is  no  more  catastrophic 
than  the  natural  death  of  an  individual,  why  should 
the  birth  of  a  species  be  any  more  miraculous  than 
the  birth  of  an  individual  ?  It  is  quite  clear  that 
this  thought  was  vividly  present  to  Darwin  when  he 
was  writing  out  his  early  thoughts  in  the  1837 
Note  Book4:- 

"  Propagation  explains  why  modern  animals 
same  type  as  extinct,  which  is  law  almost  proved. 

1  See  the  extracts  in  Life  and  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin,  ii.  p.  5. 

2  The  second  volume, — especially  important  in  regard  to  Evolution, — 
reached  him  in  the  autumn  of  1832,  as  Prof.  Judd  has  pointed  out  in  his 
most  interesting  paper  in  Dancin  and  Modern  Science.    Cambridge,  1909. 

3  Obituary  Notice  of  C.  Darwin,  Proc.  R.  Soc.  vol.  44.     Reprinted  in 
Huxley's  Collected  Essays.    See  also  Life  and  Letters  of  C.  Darwin,  ii. 
p.  179. 

4  See  the  extracts  in  the  Life  and  Letters,  ii.  p.  5, 

62 


x  INTRODUCTION 

They  die,  without  they  change,  like  golden  pippins ; 
it  is  a  generation  of  species  like  generation  of  indi- 
viduals" 

"If  species  generate  other  species  their  race  is 
not  utterly  cut  off." 

These  quotations  show  that  he  was  struggling  to 
see  in  the  origin  of  species  a  process  just  as  scienti- 
fically comprehensible  as  the  birth  of  individuals. 
They  show,  I  think,  that  he  recognised  the  two 
things  not  merely  as  similar  but  as  identical. 

It  is  impossible  to  know  how  soon  the  ferment 
of  uniformitarianism  began  to  work,  but  it  is  fair  to 
suspect  that  in  1832  he  had  already  begun  to  see 
that  mutability  was  the  logical  conclusion  of  Lyell's 
doctrine,  though  this  was  not  acknowledged  by 
Lyell  himself. 

There  were  however  other  factors  of  change.  In 
his  Autobiography1  he  wrote: — "During  the  voyage 
of  the  Beagle  I  had  been  deeply  impressed  by  dis- 
covering in  the  Pampean  formation  great  fossil 
animals  covered  with  armour  like  that  on  the 
existing  armadillos;  secondly,  by  the  manner  in 
which  closely  allied  animals  replace  one  another 
in  proceeding  southward  over  the  Continent;  and 
thirdly,  by  the  South  American  character  of  most 
of  the  productions  of  the  Galapagos  archipelago, 
and  more  especially  by  the  manner  in  which  they 
differ  slightly  on  each  island  of  the  group ;  none 
of  the  islands  appearing  to  be  very  ancient  in  a 
geological  sense.  It  was  evident  that  such  facts  as 
these,  as  well  as  many  others,  could  only  be  explained 
on  the  supposition  that  species  gradually  become 
modified;  and  the  subject  haunted  me." 

Again  we  have  to  ask:  how  soon  did  any  of 
these  influences  produce  an  effect  on  Darwin's 
mind?  Different  answers  have  been  attempted. 
Huxley2  held  that  these  facts  could  not  have  pro- 
duced their  essential  effect  until  the  voyage  had 

1  Life  and  Letters,  i.  p.  82.  2  Obituary  Notice,  loc.  cit. 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

come  to  an  end,  and  the  "  relations  of  the  existing 
with  the  extinct  species  and  of  the  species  of  the 
different  geographical  areas  with  one  another  were 
determined  with  some  exactness."  He  does  not 
therefore  allow  that  any  appreciable  advance 
towards  evolution  was  made  during  the  actual 
voyage  of  the  Beagle. 

Professor  Judd1  takes  a  very  different  view. 
He  holds  that  November  1832  may  be  given  with 
some  confidence  as  the  "date  at  which  Darwin 
commenced  that  long  series  of  observations  and 
reasonings  which  eventually  culminated  in  the  pre- 
paration of  the  Origin  of  Species" 

Though  I  think  these  words  suggest  a  more 
direct  and  continuous  march  than  really  existed 
between  fossil-collecting  in  1832  and  writing  the 
Origin  of  Species  in  1859,  yet  I  hold  that  it  was 
during  the  voyage  that  Darwin's  mind  began  to  be 
turned  in  the  direction  of  Evolution,  and  I  am 
therefore  in  essential  agreement  with  Prof.  Judd, 
although  I  lay  more  stress  than  he  does  on  the  latter 
part  of  the  voyage. 

Let  us  for  a  moment  confine  our  attention  to 
the  passage,  above  quoted,  from  the  Autobiography 
and  to  what  is  said  in  the  Introduction  to  the 
Origin,  Ed.  i.,  viz.  "  When  on  board  H.M.S.  '  Beagle,' 
as  naturalist,  I  was  much  struck  with  certain  facts 
in  the  distribution  of  the  inhabitants  of  South 
America,  and  in  the  geological  relations  of  the 
present  to  the  past  inhabitants  of  that  continent." 
These  words,  occurring  where  they  do,  can  only 
mean  one  thing, — namely  that  the  facts  suggested 
an  evolutionary  interpretation.  And  this  being  so 
it  must  be  true  that  his  thoughts  began  to  flow  in 
the  direction  of  Descent  at  this  early  date. 

I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  "  new  light  which 
was  rising  in  his  mind2  had  not  yet  attained  any 

1  Darwin  and  Modern  Science. 

2  Huxley,  Obituary,  p.  xi. 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

effective  degree  of  steadiness  or  brightness.  I 
think  so  because  in  his  Pocket  Book  under  the 
date  1837  he  wrote, "  In  July  opened  first  note-book 
on  'transmutation  of  species.'  Had  been  greatly 
struck  from  about  month  of  previous  March1  on 
character  of  South  American  fossils,  and  species 
on  Galapagos  Archipelago.  These  facts  origin  (es- 
pecially latter),  of  all  my  views."  But  he  did  not  visit 
the  Galapagos  till  1835  and  I  therefore  find  it  hard 
to  believe  that  his  evolutionary  views  attained  any 
strength  or  permanence  until  at  any  rate  quite  late 
in  the  voyage.  The  Galapagos  facts  are  strongly 
against  Huxley's  view,  for  Darwin's  attention  was 
"thoroughly  aroused2  '  by  comparing  the  birds  shot 
by  himself  and  by  others  on  board.  The  case  must 
have  struck  him  at  once, — without  waiting  for  accu- 
rate determinations, — as  a  microcosm  of  evolution. 

It  is  also  to  be  noted,  in  regard  to  the  remains 
of  extinct  animals,  that,  in  the  above  quotation  from 
his  Pocket  Book,  he  speaks  of  March  1837  as  the 
time  at  which  he  began  to  be  "greatly  struck  on 
character  of  South  American  fossils,"  which  sug- 
gests at  least  that  the  impression  made  in  1832 
required  reinforcement  before  a  really  powerful 
effect  was  produced. 

We  may  therefore  conclude,  I  think,  that 
the  evolutionary  current  in  my  father's  thoughts 
had  continued  to  increase  in  force  from  1832 
onwards,  being  especially  reinforced  at  the  Gala- 
pagos in  1835  and  again  in  1837  when  he  was 
overhauling  the  results,  mental  and  material,  of 
his  travels.  And  that  when  the  above  record  in 
the  Pocket  Book  was  made  he  unconsciously  mini- 
mised the  earlier  beginnings  of  his  theorisings,  and 
laid  more  stress  on  the  recent  thoughts  which  were 


1  In  this  citation  the  italics  are  mine. 

2  Journal  of  Researches,  Ed.  1860,  p.  394. 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

naturally  more  vivid  to  him.  In  his  letter1  to  Otto 
Zacharias  (1877)  he  wrote,  "On  my  return  home  in 
the  autumn  of  1836, 1  immediately  began  to  prepare 
my  Journal  for  publication,  and  then  saw  how  many 
facts  indicated  the  common  descent  of  species." 
This  again  is  evidence  in  favour  of  the  view  that 
the  later  growths  of  his  theory  were  the  essentially 
important  parts  of  its  development. 

In  the  same  letter  to  Zacharias  he  says,  "  When 
I  was  on  board  the  Beagle  I  believed  in  the  per- 
manence of  species,  but  as  far  as  I  can  remember 
vague  doubts  occasionally  flitted  across  my  mind." 
Unless  Prof.  Judd  and  I  are  altogether  wrong  in 
believing  that  late  or  early  in  the  voyage  (it  matters 
little  which)  a  definite  approach  was  made  to  the 
evolutionary  standpoint,  we  must  suppose  that  in 
40  years  such  advance  had  shrunk  in  his  recollec- 
tion to  the  dimensions  of  "vague  doubts."  The 
letter  to  Zacharias  shows  I  think  some  forgetting 
of  the  past  where  the  author  says,  "  But  I  did  not 
become  convinced  that  species  were  mutable  until, 
I  think,  two  or  three  years  had  elapsed."  It  is 
impossible  to  reconcile  this  with  the  contents  of 
the  evolutionary  Note  Book  of  1837.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  in  his  retrospect  he  felt  that  he  had  not 
been  "convinced  that  species  were  mutable"  until 
he  had  gained  a  clear  conception  of  the  mechanism 
of  natural  selection,  i.e.  in  1838 — 9. 

But  even  on  this  last  date  there  is  some  room, 
not  for  doubt,  but  for  surprise.  The  passage  in 
the  Autobiography2  is  quite  clear,  namely  that  in 
October  1838  he  read  Malthus's  Essay  on  the 
principle  of  Population  and  "being  well  prepared 
to  appreciate  the  struggle  for  existence...,  it  at 
once  struck  me  that  under  these  circumstances 
favourable  variations  would  tend  to  be  preserved, 

1  F.  Darwin's  Life  of  Charles  Darwin  (in  one  volume),  1892,  p.  166. 

2  Life  and  Letters,  i.  p.  83. 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

and  unfavourable  ones  to  be  destroyed.  The  result 
of  this  would  be  the  formation  of  new  species.  Here 
then  I  had  at  last  got  a  theory  by  which  to  work." 

It  is  surprising  that  Malthus  should  have  been 
needed  to  give  him  the  clue,  when  in  the  Note  Book 
of  1837  there  should  occur — however  obscurely  ex- 
pressed— the  following  forecast1  of  the  importance 
of  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  "With  respect  to 
extinction,  we  can  easily  see  that  a  variety  of  the 
ostrich  (Petise2),  may  not  be  well  adapted,  and 
thus  perish  out;  or  on  the  other  hand,  like  Or- 
pheus3, being  favourable,  many  might  be  produced. 
This  requires  the  principle  that  the  permanent 
variations  produced  by  confined  breeding  and 
changing  circumstances  are  continued  and  pro- 
duce^!) according  to  the  adaptation  of  such  circum- 
stances, and  therefore  that  death  of  species  is  a 
consequence  (contrary  to  what  would  appear  in 
America)  of  non-adaptation  of  circumstances." 

I  can  hardly  doubt,  that  with  his  knowledge  of 
the  interdependence  of  organisms  and  the  tyranny 
of  conditions,  his  experience  would  have  crystallized 
out  into  "  a  theory  by  which  to  work  "  even  without 
the  aid  of  Malthus. 

In  my  father's  Autobiography4  he  writes,  "In 
June  1842  I  first  allowed  myself  the  satisfaction  of 
writing  a  very  brief  abstract  of  my  theory  in  pencil 
in  35  pages;  and  this  was  enlarged  during  the  summer 
of  1844  into  one  of  230  pages5,  which  I  had  fairly 
copied  out  and  still  possess."  It  is  the  first  of  these 
Essays, — the  one  in  35  pages, — which  is  now  printed 
under  the  title  The  Foundations  of  the  Origin  of 
Species. 

1  Life  and  Letters,  ii.  p.  8.  2  Avestruz  Petise,  i.e.  Rhea  Darwini. 

3  A  bird. 

4  Life  and  Letters,  i.  p.  84. 

5  It  contains  as  a  fact  231  pp.     It  is  a  strongly  bound  folio,  interleaved 
with  blank  pages,  as  though  for  notes  and  additions.     His  own  MS.  from 
which  it  was  copied  contains  189  pp. 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  the  above  passage  he 
does  not  mention  the  MS.  of  the  Foundations  as 
being  in  existence,  and  when  I  was  at  work  on  Life 
and  Letters  I  had  not  seen  it.  It  only  came  to  light 
after  my  mother's  death  in  1896  when  the  house  at 
Down  was  vacated.  The  MS.  was  hidden  in  a  cup- 
board under  the  stairs  which  was  not  used  for  papers 
of  any  value,  but  rather  as  an  overflow  for  matter 
which  he  did  not  wish  to  destroy. 

The  statement  in  the  Autobiography  that  the  MS. 
was  written  in  1842  agrees  with  an  entry  in  my 
father's  Diary: — 

"1842.  May  18th  went  to  Maer.  June  loth  to 
Shrewsbury,  and  on  18th  to  Capel  Curig.... During 
my  stay  at  Maer  and  Shrewsbury  (five  years  after 
commencement)  wrote  pencil  sketch  of  my  species 
theory."  Again  in  a  letter  to  Lyell  (June  18,  1858) 
he  speaks  of  his  "MS.  sketch  written  out  in  18421." 
In  the  Origin  of  Species,  Ed.  i.  p.  1,  he  speaks  of 
beginning  his  speculations  in  1837  and  of  allowing 
himself  to  draw  up  some  "short  notes"  after  "five 
years'  work,"  i.e.  in  1842.  So  far  there  seems  no 
doubt  as  to  1842  being  the  date  of  the  Foundations ; 
but  there  is  evidence  in  favour  of  an  earlier  date2. 
Thus  across  the  Table  of  Contents  of  the  bound 
copy  of  the  1844  MS.  is  written  in  my  father's  hand 
"This  was  sketched  in  1839."  Again  in  a  letter  to 
Mr  Wallace3  (Jan.  25,  1859)  he  speaks  of  his  own 
contributions  to  the  Linnean  paper4  of  July  1,  1858, 
as  "  written  in  1 839,  now  just  twenty  years  ago."  This 
statement  as  it  stands  is  undoubtedly  incorrect, 
since  the  extracts  are  from  the  MS.  of  1844,  about  the 
date  of  which  no  doubt  exists ;  but  even  if  it  could 
be  supposed  to  refer  to  the  Foundations,  it  must, 
I  think,  be  rejected.  I  can  only  account  for  his 
mistake  by  the  supposition  that  my  father  had  in 

1  Life  and  Letters,  ii.  p.  116.  2  Life  and  Letters,  ii.  p.  10. 

3  Life  and  Letters,  ii.  p.  146.  4  J.  Linn.  Soc.  Zool.  iii.  p.  45. 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

mind  the  date  (1839)  at  which  the  framework  of  his 
theory  was  laid  down.  It  is  worth  noting  that  in 
his  Autobiography  (p.  88)  he  speaks  of  the  time 
"  about  1839,  when  the  theory  was  clearly  conceived." 
However  this  may  be  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
1842  is  the  correct  date.  Since  the  publication  of 
Life  and  Letters  I  have  gained  fresh  evidence  on 
this  head.  A  small  packet  containing  13  pp.  of  MS. 
came  to  light  in  1896.  On  the  outside  is  written 
"First  Pencil  Sketch  of  Species  Theory.  Written 
at  Maer  and  Shrewsbury  during  May  and  June  1842." 
It  is  not  however  written  in  pencil,  and  it  consists 
of  a  single  chapter  on  The  Principles  of  Variation 
in  Domestic  Organisms.  A  single  unnumbered  page 
is  written  in  pencil,  and  is  headed  "  Maer,  May  1842, 
useless";  it  also  bears  the  words  "This  page  was 
thought  of  as  introduction."  It  consists  of  the 
briefest  sketch  of  the  geological  evidence  for  evolu- 
tion, together  with  words  intended  as  headings  for 
discussion, — such  as  "Affinity, — unity  of  type,- 
foetal  state, — abortive  organs." 

The  back  of  this  "useless"  page  is  of  some 
interest,  although  it  does  not  bear  on  the  question 
of  date, — the  matter  immediately  before  us. 

It  seems  to  be  an  outline  of  the  Foundations, 
consisting  of  the  titles  of  the  three  chapters  of 
which  it  was  to  have  consisted. 

"  I.  The  Principles  of  Var.  in  domestic  organ- 
isms. 

"  II.  The  possible  and  probable  application  of 
these  same  principles  to  wild  animals  and  conse- 
quently the  possible  and  probable  production  of 
wild  races,  analogous  to  the  domestic  ones  of  plants 
and  animals. 

"  III.  The  reasons  for  and  against  believing  that 
such  races  have  really  been  produced,  forming  what 
are  called  species." 

It  will  be  seen  that  Chapter  III  as  originally 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

designed  corresponds  to  Part  II  (p.  22)  of  the 
Foundations,  which  is  (p.  7)  defined  by  the  author 
as  discussing  "  whether  the  characters  and  relations 
of  animated  things  are  such  as  favour  the  idea  of 
wild  species  being  races  descended  from  a  common 
stock."  Again  at  p.  23  the  author  asks  "What 
then  is  the  evidence  in  favour  of  it  (the  theory  of 
descent)  and  what  the  evidence  against  it."  The 
generalised  section  of  his  Essay  having  been  origin- 
ally Chapter  III1  accounts  for  the  curious  error 
which  occurs  in  pp.  18  and  22  where  the  second 
Part  of  the  Foundations  is  called  Part  III. 

The  division  of  the  Essay  into  two  parts  is  main- 
tained in  the  enlarged  Essay  of  1844  in  which  he 
writes : — "  The  Second  Part  of  this  work  is  devoted 
to  the  general  consideration  of  how  far  the  general 
economy  of  nature  justifies  or  opposes  the  belief 
that  related  species  and  genera  are  descended  from 
common  stocks."  The  Origin  of  Species  however  is 
not  so  divided. 

We  may  now  return  to  the  question  of  the 
date  of  the  Foundations.  I  have  found  additional 
evidence  in  favour  of  1842  in  a  sentence  written 
on  the  back  of  the  Table  of  Contents  of  the 
1844  MS. — not  the  copied  version  but  the  original  in 
my  father's  writing : — "  This  was  written  and  enlarged 
from  a  sketch  in  37  pages2  in  Pencil  (the  latter 
written  in  summer  of  1842  at  Maer  and  Shrewsbury) 
in  beginning  of  1844,  and  finished  it  (sic)  in  July; 
and  finally  corrected  the  copy  by  Mr  Fletcher  in 
the  last  week  in  September."  On  the  whole  it  is 
impossible  to  doubt  that  1842  is  the  date  of  the 
Foundations. 

1  It  is  evident  that  Parts  and  Chapters  were  to  some  extent  inter- 
changeable in  the  author's  mind,  for  p.  1  (of  the  MS.  we  have  been  dis- 
cussing) is  headed  in  ink  Chapter  I,  and  afterwards  altered  in  pencil  to 
Part  1. 

2  On  p.  23  of  the  MS.  of  the  Foundations  is  a  reference  to  the  "back  of 
p.  21  bis":  this  suggests  that  additional  pages  had  been  interpolated  in 
the  MS.  and  that  it  may  once  have  had  37  in  place  of  35  pp. 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

The  sketch  is  written  on  bad  paper  with  a  soft 
pencil,  and  is  in  many  parts  extremely  difficult  to 
read,  many  of  the  words  ending  in  mere  scrawls  and 
being  illegible  without  context.  It  is  evidently 
written  rapidly,  and  is  in  his  most  elliptical  style,  the 
articles  being  frequently  omitted,  and  the  sentences 
being  loosely  composed  and  often  illogical  in  struc- 
ture. There  is  much  erasure  and  correction,  appa- 
rently made  at  the  moment  of  writing,  and  the  MS. 
does  not  give  the  impression  of  having  been  re-read 
with  any  care.  The  whole  is  more  like  hasty  memo- 
randa of  what  was  clear  to  himself,  than  material 
for  the  convincing  of  others. 

Many  of  the  pages  are  covered  with  writing  on 
the  back,  an  instance  of  his  parsimony  in  the  matter 
of  paper1.  This  matter  consists  partly  of  passages 
marked  for  insertion  in  the  text,  and  these  can  gener- 
ally (though  by  no  means  always)  be  placed  where 
he  intended.  But  he  also  used  the  back  of  one  page 
for  a  preliminary  sketch  to  be  rewritten  on  a  clean 
sheet.  These  parts  of  the  work  have  been  printed 
as  footnotes,  so  as  to  allow  what  was  written  on  the 
front  of  the  pages  to  form  a  continuous  text.  A 
certain  amount  of  repetition  is  unavoidable,  but 
much  of  what  is  written  on  the  backs  of  the  pages 
is  of  too  much  interest  to  be  omitted.  Some  of  the 
matter  here  given  in  footnotes  may,  moreover,  have 
been  intended  as  the  final  text  and  not  as  the 
preliminary  sketch. 

When  a  word  cannot  be  deciphered,  it  is  replaced 
by: — (illegible),  the  angular  brackets  being, as  already 
explained,  a  symbol  for  an  insertion  by  the  editor. 
More  commonly,  however,  the  context  makes  the 
interpretation  of  a  word  reasonably  sure  although 
the  word  is  not  strictly  legible.  Such  words  are 
followed  by  an  inserted  mark  of  interrogation  (?). 

1  Life  and  Letters,  i.  p.  153. 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

Lastly,  words  inserted  by  the  editor,  of  which 
the  appropriateness  is  doubtful,  are  printed  thus 
(variation  ?). 

Two  kinds  of  erasure  occur  in  the  MS.  One  by 
vertical  lines  which  seem  to  have  been  made  when 
the  35  pp.  MS.  was  being  expanded  into  that  of 
1844,  and  merely  imply  that  such  a  page  is  done 
with:  and  secondly  the  ordinary  erasures  by  hori- 
zontal lines.  I  have  not  been  quite  consistent  in 
regard  to  these:  I  began  with  the  intention  of 
printing  (in  square  brackets)  all  such  erasures. 
But  I  ultimately  found  that  the  confusion  intro- 
duced into  the  already  obscure  sentences  was 
greater  than  any  possible  gain;  and  many  such 
erasures  are  altogether  omitted.  In  the  same 
way  I  have  occasionally  omitted  hopelessly  obscure 
and  incomprehensible  fragments,  which  if  printed 
would  only  have  burthened  the  text  with  a  string  of 
(illegible)s  and  queried  words.  Nor  have  I  printed 
the  whole  of  what  is  written  on  the  backs  of  the 
pages,  where  it  seemed  to  me  that  nothing  but  un- 
necessary repetition  would  have  been  the  result. 

In  the  matter  of  punctuation  I  have  given  myself 
a  free  hand.  I  may  no  doubt  have  misinterpreted 
the  author's  meaning  in  so  doing,  but  without  such 
punctuation  the  number  of  repellantly  crabbed 
sentences  would  have  been  even  greater  than  at 
present. 

The  sections  into  which  the  Essay  is  divided  are 
in  the  original  merely  indicated  by  a  gap  in  the  MS. 
or  by  a  line  drawn  across  the  page.  No  titles  are 
given  except  in  the  case  of  §  vm.,  and  §  n.  is  the  only 
section  which  has  a  number  in  the  original.  I  might 
equally  well  have  made  sections  of  what  are  now 
subsections,  e.g.  Natural  Selection  p.  7,  or  Extermi- 
nation p.  28.  But  since  the  present  sketch  is  the 
germ  of  the  Essay  of  1844,  it  seemed  best  to  preserve 
the  identity  between  the  two  works,  by  using  such  of 


xx  INTRODUCTION 

the  author's  divisions  as  correspond  to  the  chapters 
of  the  enlarged  version  of  1844.  The  geological 
discussion  with  which  Part  II  begins  corresponds 
to  two  chapters  (IV  and  V)  of  the  1844  Essay.  I  have 
therefore  described  it  as  §§  iv.  and  v.,  although  I 
cannot  make  sure  of  its  having  originally  consisted 
of  two  sections.  With  this  exception  the  ten  sections 
of  the  Foundations  correspond  to  the  ten  chapters 
of  the  MS.  of  1844. 

The  Origin  of  Species  differs  from  the  Founda- 
tions in  not  being  divided  into  two  parts.  But 
the  two  volumes  resemble  each  other  in  general 
structure.  Both  begin  with  a  statement  of  what 
may  be  called  the  mechanism  of  evolution, — varia- 
tion and  selection :  in  both  the  argument  proceeds 
from  the  study  of  domestic  organisms  to  that  of 
animals  and  plants  in  a  state  of  nature.  This  is 
followed  in  both  by  a  discussion  of  the  Difficulties 
on  Theory  and  this  by  a  section  Instinct  which  in 
both  cases  is  treated  as  a  special  case  of  difficulty. 

If  I  had  to  divide  the  Origin  (first  edition)  into 
two  parts  without  any  knowledge  of  earlier  MS., 
I  should,  I  think,  make  Part  II  begin  with  Ch.  VI, 
Difficulties  on  Theory.  A  possible  reason  why  this 
part  of  the  argument  is  given  in  Part  I  of  the 
Foundations  may  be  found  in  the  Essay  of  1844,  where 
it  is  clear  that  the  chapter  on  instinct  is  placed  in 
Part  I  because  the  author  thought  it  of  importance 
to  show  that  heredity  and  variation  occur  in  mental 
attributes.  The  whole  question  is  perhaps  an 
instance  of  the  sort  of  difficulty  which  made  the 
author  give  up  the  division  of  his  argument  into 
two  Parts  when  he  wrote  the  Origin.  As  matters 
stand  §§  iv.  and  v.  of  the  Foundations  corresponds 
to  the  geological  chapters,  IX  and  X,  in  the  Origin. 
From  this  point  onwards  the  material  is  grouped  in 
the  same  order  in  both  works: — geographical  dis- 
tribution ;  affinities  and  classification ;  unity  of  type 


INTRODUCTION  xxi 

and  morphology;  abortive  or  rudimentary  organs; 
recapitulation  and  conclusion. 

The  fact  that  17  years  before  the  publication  of 
the  Origin  my  father  should  have  been  able  to  write 
out  so  full  an  outline  of  his  future  work,  is  very 
remarkable.  In  his  Autobiography1  he  writes  of  the 
1844  Essay,  "But  at  that  time  I  overlooked  one 
problem  of  great  importance....  This  problem  is  the 
tendency  in  organic  beings  descended  from  the 
same  stock  to  diverge  in  character  as  they  become 
modified."  The  absence  of  the  principle  of  diver- 
gence is  of  course  also  a  characteristic  of  the 
Foundations.  But  at  p.  37,  the  author  is  not 
far  from  this  point  of  view.  The  passage  referred 
to  is:  "If  any  species,  A,  in  changing  gets  an 
advantage  and  that  advantage... is  inherited,  A 
will  be  the  progenitor  of  several  genera  or  even 
families  in  the  hard  struggle  of  nature.  A  will  go 
on  beating  out  other  forms,  it  might  come  that  A 
would  people  (the)  earth, — we  may  now  not  have 
one  descendant  on  our  globe  of  the  one  or  several 
original  creations."  But  if  the  descendants  of  A 
have  peopled  the  earth  by  beating  out  other  forms, 
they  must  have  diverged  in  occupying  the  innumer- 
able diverse  modes  of  life  from  which  they  expelled 
their  predecessors.  What  I  wrote2  on  this  subject 
in  1887  is  I  think  true : — "  Descent  with  modification 
implies  divergence,  and  we  become  so  habituated  to 
a  belief  in  descent,  and  therefore  in  divergence,  that 
we  do  not  notice  the  absence  of  proof  that  divergence 
is  in  itself  an  advantage." 

I  have  called  attention  in  footnotes  to  many 
minor  points  in  which  the  Origin  agrees  with  the 
Foundations.  One  of  the  most  interesting  is  the 
final  sentence  on  p.  52,  which  is  almost  identical  with 
the  concluding  words  of  the  Origin.  I  have  else- 

1  Life  and  Letters,  i.  p.  84.  -  Life  and  Letters,  ii.  p.  15. 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

where  pointed  out1  that  the  ancestry  of  this  eloquent 
passage  may  be  traced  one  stage  further  back, — to 
the  Note  Book  of  1837.  I  have  given  this  sentence 
as  an  appropriate  motto  for  the  Foundations  in 
its  character  of  a  study  of  general  laws.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  a  corresponding  motto  from 
Whewell's  Bridyewater  Treatise  is  printed  opposite 
the  title-page  of  the  Origin  of  Species. 

Among  other  interesting  points  may  be  men- 
tioned the  "  good  effects  of  crossing  "  being  "  possibly 
analogous  to  good  effects  of  change  in  condition,"- 
a  principle  which  he  upheld  on  experimental  grounds 
in  his  Cross  and  Self-Fertilisation  in  187G.  We  find 
him  also  (p.  2)  recognising  the  importance  of  germinal 
variation,  where  he  speaks  of  external  conditions 
acting  indirectly  through  the  "reproductive  func- 
tions." He  seems  to  have  had  constantly  in  mind  the 
need  of  referring  each  variation  to  a  cause,  a  point 
of  view  to  which  he  returned  at  the  close  of  his  life. 
This  subject,  though  by  no  means  wanting  in  the 
Origin,  is  there  overshadowed  by  considerations 
which  then  seemed  to  him  more  pressing. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  express  my  thanks  to 
Mr  Wallace  for  a  footnote  he  was  good  enough  to 
supply:  and  to  Professor  Judd  and  Professor 
Bateson  for  suggestions  of  value.  I  am  also 
indebted  to  Mr  Rutherford,  of  the  University 
Library,  for  his  careful  copy  of  the  manuscript. 

1  Life  and  Letters,  ii.  p.  9. 


CAMBRIDGE, 

April  16,  1909. 


PART  I. 

§  i.    (ON  VARIATION  UNDER  DOMESTICATION,  AND 
ON  THE  PRINCIPLES  OP  SELECTION.) 

AN  individual  organism  placed  under  new  con- 
ditions [often]  sometimes  varies  in  a  small  degree 
and  in  very  trifling  respects  such  as  stature,  fatness, 
sometimes  colour,  health,  habits  in  animals  and 
probably  disposition.  Also  habits  of  life  develope 
certain  parts.  Disuse  atrophies.  [Most  of  these 
slight  variations  tend  to  become  hereditary.] 

When  the  individual  is  multiplied  for  long  periods 
by  buds  the  variation  is  yet  small,  though  greater 
and  occasionally  a  single  bud  or  individual  departs 
widely  from  its  type  (example)1  and  continues 
steadily  to  propagate,  by  buds,  such  new  kind. 

When  the  organism  is  bred  for  several  genera- 
tions under  new  or  varying  conditions,  the  variation 
is  greater  in  amount  and  endless  in  kind  [especially2 
holds  good  when  individuals  have  long  been  exposed 
to  new  conditions].  The  nature  of  the  external 
conditions  tends  to  effect  some  definite  change  in  all 
or  greater  part  of  offspring, — little  food,  small  size- 
certain  foods  harmless  &c.  &c.  organs  affected  and 
diseases — extent  unknown.  A  certain  degree  of 

1  Evidently  a  memorandum  that  an  example  should  be  given. 

2  The  importance  of  exposure  to  new  conditions  for  several  generations 
is  insisted  on  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  7,  also  p.  131.     In  the  latter  passage 
the  author  guards  himself  against  the  assumption  that  variations  are  "  due 
to  chance,"  and  speaks  of  "our  ignorance  of  the  cause  of  each  particular 
variation."    These  statements  are  not  always  remembered  by  his  critics. 

D.  1 


2  VARIATION 

variation  (Miiller's  twins)1  seems  inevitable  effect 
of  process  of  reproduction.  But  more  important 
is  that  simple  (?)  generation,  especially  under  new 
conditions  [when  no  crossing]  (causes)  infinite  varia- 
tion and  not  direct  effect  of  external  conditions, 
but  only  in  as  much  as  it  affects  the  reproductive 
functions2.  There  seems  to  be  no  part  (beau  ideal 
of  liver)3  of  body,  internal  or  external,  or  mind  or 
habits,  or  instincts  which  does  not  vary  in  some 
small  degree  and  [often]  some  (?)  to  a  great  amount. 
[All  such]  variations  [being  congenital]  or  those 
very  slowly  acquired  of  all  kinds  [decidedly  evince 
a  tendency  to  become  hereditary],  when  not  so 
become  simple  variety,  when  it  does  a  race.  Each4 
parent  transmits  its  peculiarities,  therefore  if  varieties 
allowed  freely  to  cross,  except  by  the  chance  of  two 
characterized  by  same  peculiarity  happening  to 
marry,  such  varieties  will  be  constantly  demolished5. 
All  bisexual  animals  must  cross,  hermaphrodite 
plants  do  cross,  it  seems  very  possible  that  her- 

1  Cf.  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  10,  vi.  p.  9,  "Young  of  the  same  litter,  sometimes 
differ  considerably  from  each  other,  though  both  the  young  and  the  parents, 
as  Miiller  has  remarked,  have  apparently  been  exposed  to  exactly  the  same 
conditions  of  life." 

2  This  is  paralleled  by  the  conclusion  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  8,  that  "the 
most  frequent  cause  of  variability  may  be  attributed  to  the  male  and 
female  reproductive  elements  having  been  affected   prior  to  the  act  of 
conception." 

3  The  meaning  seems  to  be  that  there  must  be  some  variability  in  the 
liver  otherwise  anatomists  would  not  speak  of  the  '  beau  ideal '  of  that 
organ. 

4  The  position  of  the  following  passage  is  uncertain.     "  If  individuals 
of   two    widely  different   varieties   be    allowed    to    cross,   a   third  race 
will  be  formed — a  most  fertile  source  of  the  variation  in  domesticated 
animals.    (In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  20  the  author  says  that  "  the  possibility 
of  making  distinct  races  by  crossing  has  been  greatly  exaggerated.")    If 
freely  allowed,  the  characters  of  pure  parents  will   be  lost,  number  of 
races  thus  (illegible)  but  differences  (?)  besides  the  (illegible).     But  if 
varieties  differing  in  very  slight  respects  be  allowed  to  cross,  such  small 
variation  mil  be  destroyed,  at  least  to  our  senses, — a  variation  [clearly] 
just  to  be  distinguished  by  long  legs  will  have  offspring  not  to  be  so 
distinguished.     Free  crossing  great  agent  in  producing  uniformity  in  any 
breed.     Introduce  tendency  to  revert  to  parent  form." 

5  The  swamping  effect  of  intercrossing  is  referred  to  in  the  Origin, 
Ed.  i.  p.  103.,  vi.  p.  126. 


MAN'S  SELECTION  3 

maphrodite  animals  do  cross, — conclusion  strength- 
ened :  ill  effects  of  breeding  in  and  in,  good  effects 
of  crossing  possibly  analogous  to  good  effects  of 
change  in  condition  (?)1. 

Therefore  if  in  any  country  or  district  all  animals 
of  one  species  be  allowed  freely  to  cross,  any  small 
tendency  in  them  to  vary  will  be  constantly  counter- 
acted. Secondly  reversion  to  parent  form — analogue 
of  vis  medicatrix2.  But  if  man  selects,  then  new 
races  rapidly  formed,— of  late  years  systematically 
followed, — in  most  ancient  times  often  practically 
followed3.  By  such  selection  make  race-horse, 
dray-horse — one  cow  good  for  tallow,  another  for 
eating  &c. — one  plant's  good  lay  (illegible)  in  leaves 
another  in  fruit  &c.  &c. :  the  same  plant  to  supply 
his  wants  at  different  times  of  year.  By  former 
means  animals  become  adapted,  as  a  direct  effect 
to  a  cause,  to  external  conditions,  as  size  of  body  to 
amount  of  food.  By  this  latter  means  they  may 
also  be  so  adapted,  but  further  they  may  be  adapted 
to  ends  and  pursuits,  which  by  no  possibility  can 
affect  growth,  as  existence  of  tallow-chandler  cannot 
tend  to  make  fat.  In  such  selected  races,  if  not 
removed  to  new  conditions,  and  (if)  preserved 
from  all  cross,  after  several  generations  become 
very  true,  like  each  other  and  not  varying.  But 
man4  selects  only  (?)  what  is  useful  and  curious- 
has  bad  judgment,  is  capricious, — grudges  to  destroy 
those  that  do  not  come  up  to  his  pattern, — has  no 

1  A  discussion  ou  the  intercrossing  of  hermaphrodites  in  relation  to 
Knight's  views  occurs  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  96,  vi.  p.  119.   The  parallelism 
between  crossing  and  changed  conditions  is  briefly  given  in  the  Origin, 
Ed.   i.  p.  267,  vi.  p.  391,  and  was  finally  investigated  in   The  Effects  of 
Cross  and  Self -Fertilisation  in  the  Vegetable  Kingdom,  1876. 

2  There  is  an  article  on  the  vis  medicatrix  in  Brougham's  Dissertations, 
1839,  a  copy  of  which  is  in  the  author's  library. 

3  This  is  the  classification  of  selection  into  methodical  and  unconscious 
given  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  33,  vi.  p.  38. 

4  This  passage,  and  a  similar  discussion  on  the  power  of  the  Creator 
(p.  6),  correspond  to  the  comparison  between  the  selective  capacities  of 
man  and  nature,  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  83,  vi.  p.  102. 

1—2 


4  VARIATION  UNDER 

[knowledge]  power  of  selecting  according  to  in- 
ternal variations, — can  hardly  keep  his  conditions 
uniform, — [cannot]  does  not  select  those  best 
adapted  to  the  conditions  under  which  (the)  form  (?) 
lives,  but  those  most  useful  to  him.  This  might  all 
be  otherwise. 

§  n.    (ON  VARIATION  IN  A  STATE  OF  NATURE  AND 
ON  THE  NATURAL  MEANS  OF  SELECTION.) 

Let  us  see  how  far  above  principles  of  variation 
apply  to  wild  animals.  Wild  animals  vary  exceed- 
ingly little — yet  they  are  known  as  individuals1. 
British  Plants,  in  many  genera  number  quite 
uncertain  of  varieties  and  species :  in  shells  chiefly 
external  conditions2.  Primrose  and  cowslip.  Wild 
animals  from  different  [countries  can  be  recognized]. 
Specific  character  gives  some  organs  as  varying. 
Variations  analogous  in  kind,  but  less  in  degree 
with  domesticated  animals — chiefly  external  and 
less  important  parts. 

Our  experience  would  lead  us  to  expect  that 
any  and  every  one  of  these  organisms  would  vary 
if  {the  organism  were)  taken  away  (?)  and  placed 
under  new  conditions.  Geology  proclaims  a  con- 
stant round  of  change,  bringing  into  play,  by  every 
possible  (?)  change  of  climate  and  the  death  of 
pre-existing  inhabitants,  endless  variations  of  new 
conditions.  These  (?)  generally  very  slow,  doubtful 
though  (illegible)  how  far  the  slowness  (?)  would 
produce  tendency  to  vary.  But  Geolog(ists)  show 
change  in  configuration  which,  together  with  the 
accidents  of  air  and  water  and  the  means  of 
transportal  which  every  being  possesses,  must 
occasionally  bring,  rather  suddenly,  organism  to  new 
conditions  and  (?)  expose  it  for  several  generations. 

1  i.e.  they  are  individually  distinguishable. 

2  See  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  133,  vi.  p.  165. 


NATURAL  CONDITIONS  5 

Hence  (?)  we  should  expect  every  now  and  then 
a  wild  form  to  vary l ;  possibly  this  may  be  cause 
of  some  species  varying  more  than  others. 

According  to  nature  of  new  conditions,  so  we 
might  expect  all  or  majority  of  organisms  born 
under  them  to  vary  in  some  definite  way.  Further 
we  might  expect  that  the  mould  in  which  they  are 
cast  would  likewise  vary  in  some  small  degree.  But 
is  there  any  means  of  selecting  those  offspring  which 
vary  in  the  same  manner,  crossing  them  and  keeping 
their  offspring  separate  and  thus  producing  selected 
races :  otherwise  as  the  wild  animals  freely  cross,  so 
must  such  small  heterogeneous  varieties  be  con- 
stantly counter-balanced  and  lost,  and  a  uniformity 
of  character  [kept  up]  preserved.  The  former 
variation  as  the  direct  and  necessary  effects  of 
causes,  which  we  can  see  can  act  on  them,  as  size 
of  body  from  amount  of  food,  effect  of  certain 
kinds  of  food  on  certain  parts  of  bodies  &c.  &c. ; 
such  new  varieties  may  then  become  adapted  to 
those  external  [natural]  agencies  which  act  on  them. 
But  can  varieties  be  produced  adapted  to  end, 
which  cannot  possibly  influence  their  structure  and 
which  it  is  absurd  to  look  (at)  as  effects  of  chance. 
Can  varieties  like  some  vars  of  domesticated 
animals,  like  almost  all  wild  species  be  produced 
adapted  by  exquisite  means  to  prey  on  one  animal 
or  to  escape  from  another, — or  rather,  as  it  puts  out 
of  question  effects  of  intelligence  and  habits,  can  a 
plant  become  adapted  to  animals,  as  a  plant  which 
cannot  be  impregnated  without  agency  of  insect; 
or  hooked  seeds  depending  on  animal's  existence : 
woolly  animals  cannot  have  any  direct  effect  on 
seeds  of  plant.  This  point  which  all  theories  about 

1  When  the  author  wrote  this  sketch  he  seems  not  to  have  been  so 
fully  convinced  of  the  general  occuirence  of  variation  in  nature  as  he 
afterwards  became.  The  above  passage  in  the  text  possibly  suggests  that 
at  this  time  he  laid  more  stress  on  sports  or  mutations  than  was  afterwards 
the  case. 


6  SELECTION 

climate  adapting  woodpecker l  to  crawl  (?)  up  trees, 
(illegible)  miseltoe,  (sentence  incomplete).     But  if 
every  part  of  a  plant  or  animal  was  to  vary  (il- 
legible), and  if  a  being  infinitely  more  sagacious  than 
man  (not  an  omniscient  creator)  during  thousands 
and  thousands  of  years  were  to  select  all  the  varia- 
tions which  tended  towards  certain  ends  ([or  were 
to  produce  causes  (?)  which  tended  to  the  same  end]), 
for  instance,  if  he  foresaw  a  canine  animal  would  be 
better  off,  owing  to  the  country  producing  more 
hares,  if  he  were  longer  legged  and  keener  sight,- 
greyhound    produced2.      If   he  saw  that  aquatic 
(animal  would  need)  skinned  toes.     If  for  some 
unknown  cause  he  found  it  would  advantage  a  plant, 
which  (?)  like  most  plants  is  occasionally  visited  by 
bees  &c.:    if  that  plant's  seed  were  occasionally 
eaten  by  birds  and  were  then  carried  on  to  rotten 
trees,  he  might  select  trees  with  fruit  more  agreeable 
to  such  birds  as  perched,  to  ensure  their  being 
carried  to  trees;  if  he  perceived  those  birds  more 
often  dropped  the  seeds,  he  might  well  have  selected 
a  bird  who  would  (illegible)  rotten  trees  or  [gradually 
select  plants  which  (he)  had  proved  to  live  on  less 
and  less  rotten  trees].  Who,  seeing  how  plants  vary  in 
garden,  what  blind  foolish  man  has  done3  in  a  few 
years,  will  deny  an  all-seeing  being  in  thousands  of 
years  could  effect  (if  the  Creator  chose  to  do  so), 
either  by  his  own  direct  foresight  or  by  intermediate 
means, — which  will  represent  (?)  the  creator  of  this 
universe.     Seems  usual  means.     Be  it  remembered 
I  have  nothing  to  say  about  life  and  mind  and  all 

1  The  author  may  possibly  have  taken  the  case  of  the  woodpecker  from 
Buffou,  Histoire  Nat.  des  Oiseaux,  T.  vii.  p.  3,  1780,  where  however  it  is 
treated  from  a  different  point  of  view.  He  uses  it  more  than  once,  see  for 
instance  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  3,  60,  184,  vi.  pp.  3,  76,  220.  The  passage  in 
the  text  corresponds  with  a  discussion  on  the  woodpecker  and  the  mistletoe 
in  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  3,  vi.  p.  3. 

-  This  illustration  occurs  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  90,  91,  vi.  pp.  110,  111. 

3  See  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  83,  vi.  p.  102,  where  the  word  Creator  is  replaced 
by  Nature. 


NATURAL  SELECTION  7 

forms  descending  from  one  common  type1.  I  speak 
of  the  variation  of  the  existing  great  divisions  of  the 
organised  kingdom,  how  far  I  would  go,  hereafter  to 

be  seen. 

Before  considering  whether  (there)  be  any  natural 
means  of  selection,  and  secondly  (which  forms  the 
2nd  Part  of  this  sketch)  the  far  more  important 
point  whether  the  characters  and  relations  of 
animated  (things)  are  such  as  favour  the  idea  of 
wild  species  being  races  (?)  descended  from  a  com- 
mon stock,  as  the  varieties  of  potato  or  dahlia  or 
cattle  having  so  descended,  let  us  consider  probable 
character  of  [selected  races]  wild  varieties. 

Natural  Selection.  De  Candolle's  war  of  nature,- 
seeing  contented  face  of  nature, — may  be  well  at 
first  doubted;  we  see  it  on  borders  of  perpetual 
cold2.  But  considering  the  enormous  geometrical 
power  of  increase  in  every  organism  and  as  (?)  every 
country,  in  ordinary  cases  (countries)  must  be 
stocked  to  full  extent,  reflection  will  show  that 
this  is  the  case.  Malthus  on  man, — in  animals  no 
moral  [check]  restraint  (?) — they  breed  in  time  of 
year  when  provision  most  abundant,  or  season  most 
favourable,  every  country  has  its  seasons, — calculate 
robins, — oscillating  from  years  of  destruction3.  If 
proof  were  wanted  let  any  singular  change  of 
climate  (occur)  here  (?),  how  astoundingly  some 
tribes  (?)  increase,  also  introduced  animals4,  the 

1  Note  in  the  original.      "Good  place  to  introduce,   saying  reasons 
hereafter  to  be  given,  how  far  I  extend  theory,  say  to  all  mammalia — 
reasons  growing  weaker  and  weaker." 

2  See  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  62,  63,  vi.  p.  77,  where  similar  reference  is  made 
to  De  Candolle  ;  for  Malthus  see  Origin,  p.  5. 

3  This  may  possibly  refer  to  the  amount  of  destruction  going  on.     See 
Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  68,  vi.  p.  84,  where  there  is  an  estimate  of  a  later  date  as 
to  death-rate  of  birds  in  winter.     "  Calculate  robins  "  probably  refers  to  a 
calculation  of  the  rate  of  increase  of  birds  under  favourable  conditions. 

4  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  64,  65,  vi.  p.  80,  he  instances  cattle  and  horses 
and  certain  plants  in  S.  America  and  American  species  of  plants  in  India, 
and  further  on,  as  unexpected  effects  of  changed  conditions,  the  enclosure 
of  a  heath,  and  the  relation  between  the  fertilisation  of  clover  and  the 
presence  of  cats  (Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  74,  vi.  p.  91). 


8  NATURAL  SELECTION 

pressure  is  always  ready, — capacity  of  alpine  plants 
to  endure  other  climates, — think  of  endless  seeds 
scattered  abroad, — forests  regaining  their  percen- 
tage1,— a  thousand  wedges2  are  being  forced  into 
the  oeconomy  of  nature.  This  requires  much  reflec- 
tion; study  Mai  thus  and  calculate  rates  of  increase 
and  remember  the  resistance, — only  periodical. 

The  unavoidable  effect  of  this  (is)  that  many  of 
every  species  are  destroyed  either  in  egg  or  [young 
or  mature  (the  former  state  the  more  common)].  In 
the  course  of  a  thousand  generations  innnitesimally 
small  differences  must  inevitably  tell3;  when  unusu- 
ally cold  winter,  or  hot  or  dry  summer  comes,  then 
out  of  the  whole  body  of  individuals  of  any  species, 
if  there  be  the  smallest  differences  in  their  structure, 
habits,  instincts  [senses],  health  &c.,  (it)  will  on 
an  average  tell;  as  conditions  change  a  rather  larger 
proportion  will  be  preserved:  so  if  the  chief  check 
to  increase  falls  on  seeds  or  eggs,  so  will,  in  the 
course  of  1000  generations  or  ten  thousand,  those 
seeds  (like  one  with  down  to  fly4)  which  fly  furthest 
and  get  scattered  most  ultimately  rear  most  plants, 
and  such  small  differences  tend  to  be  hereditary  like 
shades  of  expression  in  human  countenance.  So  if 
one  parent  (?)  fish  deposits  its  egg  in  infinitesimally 
different  circumstances,  as  in  rather  shallower  or 
deeper  water  &c.,  it  will  then  (?)  tell. 

Let  hares5  increase  very  slowly  from  change  of 
climate  affecting  peculiar  plants,  and  some  other 

^j     \  j.  •* 

(illegible)  rabbit  decrease  in  same  proportion  [let 
this  unsettle  organisation  of],  a  canine  animal,  who 

1  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  74,  vi.  p.  91.     "It  has  been  observed  that  the  trees 
now  growing  on... ancient  Indian   mounds... display  the   same   beautiful 
diversity  and  proportion  of  kinds  as  in  the  surrounding  virgin  forests." 

2  The  simile  of  the  wedge  occurs  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  67 ;  it  is  deleted 
in  Darwin's  copy  of  the  first  edition  :  it  does  not  occur  in  Ed.  vi. 

3  In  a  rough  summary  at  the  close  of  the  Essay,  occur  the  words  :— 
"  Every  creature  lives  by  a  straggle,  smallest  grain  in  balance  must  tell." 

4  Cf.  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  77,  vi.  p.  94. 

5  This  is  a  repetition  of  what  is  given  at  p.  6. 


NATURAL  SELECTION  9 

formerly  derived  its  chief  sustenance  by  springing 
on  rabbits  or  running  them  by  scent,  must  decrease 
too  and  might  thus  readily  become  exterminated. 
But  if  its  form  varied  very  slightly,  the  long  legged 
fleet  ones,  during  a  thousand  years  being  selected, 
and  the  less  fleet  rigidly  destroyed  must,  if  no  law 
of  nature  be  opposed  to  it,  alter  forms. 

Remember  how  soon  Bakewell  on  the  same 
principle  altered  cattle  and  Western,  sheep, — care- 
fully avoiding  a  cross  (pigeons)  with  any  breed.  We 
cannot  suppose  that  one  plant  tends  to  vary  in  fruit 
and  another  in  flower,  and  another  in  flower  and 
foliage, — some  have  been  selected  for  both  fruit  and 
flower:  that  one  animal  varies  in  its  covering  and 
another  not, —  another  in  its  milk.  Take  any 
organism  and  ask  what  is  it  useful  for  and  on  that 
point  it  will  be  found  to  vary, — cabbages  in  their 
leaf, — corn  in  size  (and)  quality  of  grain,  both  in 
times  of  year,— kidney  beans  for  young  pod  and 
cotton  for  envelope  of  seeds  &c.  &c.:  dogs  in  intellect, 
courage,  fleetness  and  smell  (?):  pigeons  in  pecu- 
liarities approaching  to  monsters.  This  requires 
consideration, — should  be  introduced  in  first  chapter 
if  it  holds,  I  believe  it  does.  It  is  hypothetical  at 
best1. 

Nature's  variation  far  less,  but  such  selection  far 
more  rigid  and  scrutinising.  Man's  races  not  [even 
so  well]  only  not  better  adapted  to  conditions  than 
other  races,  but  often  not  (?)  one  race  adapted  to  its 
conditions,  as  man  keeps  and  propagates  some 
alpine  plants  in  garden.  Nature  lets  (an)  animal 
live,  till  on  actual  proof  it  is  found  less  able  to  do 
the  required  work  to  serve  the  desired  end,  man 
judges  solely  by  his  eye,  and  knows  not  whether 

1  Compare  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  41,  vi.  p.  47.  "I  have  seen  it  gravely 
remarked,  that  it  was  most  fortunate  that  the  strawberry  began  to  vary 
just  when  gardeners  began  to  attend  closely  to  this  plant.  No  doubt  the 
strawberry  had  always  varied  since  it  was  cultivated,  but  the  slight  varieties 
had  been  neglected." 


10  SEXUAL  SELECTION 

nerves,  muscles,  arteries,  are  developed  in  proportion 
to  the  change  of  external  form. 

Besides  selection  by  death,  in  bisexual  animals 
(illegible)  the  selection  in  time  of  fullest  vigour,namely 
struggle  of  males;  even  in  animals  which  pair  there 
seems  a  surplus  (?)  and  a  battle,  possibly  as  in  man 
more  males  produced  than  females,  struggle  of  war 
or  charms1.  Hence  that  male  which  at  that  time 
is  in  fullest  vigour,  or  best  armed  with  arms  or 
ornaments  of  its  species,  will  gain  in  hundreds  of 
generations  some  small  advantage  and  transmit  such 
characters  to  its  offspring.  So  in  female  rearing 
its  young,  the  most  vigorous  and  skilful  and  indus- 
trious, (whose)  instincts  (are)  best  developed,  will 
rear  more  young,  probably  possessing  her  good 
qualities,  and  a  greater  number  will  thus  (be)  pre- 
pared for  the  struggle  of  nature.  Compared  to  man 
using  a  male  alone  of  good  breed.  This  latter 
section  only  of  limited  application,  applies  to 
variation  of  [specific]  sexual  characters.  Introduce 
here  contrast  with  Lamarck, — absurdity  of  habit,  or 
chance  ??  or  external  conditions,  making  a  wood- 
pecker adapted  to  tree2. 

Before  considering  difficulties  of  theory  of 
selection  let  us  consider  character  of  the  races 
produced,  as  now  explained,  by  nature.  Conditions 
have  varied  slowly  and  the  organisms  best  adapted 
in  their  whole  course  of  life  to  the  changed  conditions 
have  always  been  selected, — man  selects  small  dog 
and  afterwards  gives  it  profusion  of  food,— selects  a 
long-backed  and  short-legged  breed  and  gives  it  no 
particular  exercise  to  suit  this  function  &c.  &c.  In 
ordinary  cases  nature  has  not  allowed  her  race  to 

1  Here  we  have  the  two  types  of  sexual  selection  discussed  in  the  Origin, 
Ed.  i.  pp.  88  et  seq.,  vi.  pp.  108  et  seq. 

2  It  is  not  obvious  why  the  author  objects  to  "  chance  "  or  "external  con- 
ditions making  a  woodpecker."     He  allows  that  variation  is  ultimately 
referable  to  conditions  and  that  the  nature  of  the  connexion  is  unknown,  i.e. 
that  the  result  is  fortuitous.     It  is  not  clear  in  the  original  to  how  much  of 
the  passage  the  two  ?  refer. 


STERILITY  11 

be  contaminated  with  a  cross  of  another  race,  and 
agriculturists  know  how  difficult  they  find  always  to 
prevent  this, — effect  would  be  trueness.  This  char- 
acter and  sterility  when  crossed,  and  generally  a 
greater  amount  of  difference,  are  two  main  features, 
which  distinguish  domestic  races  from  species. 

[Sterility  not  universal  admitted  by  all1. 
Gladiolus,  Crinwn,  Calceolaria*  must  be  species  if 
there  be  such  a  thing.  Races  of  dogs  and  oxen:  but 
certainly  very  general ;  indeed  a  gradation  of  sterility 
most  perfect3  very  general.  Some  nearest  species  will 
not  cross  (crocus,  some  heath  (?)),  some  genera  cross 
readily  (fowls4  and  grouse,  peacock  &c.).  Hybrids 
no  ways  monstrous  quite  perfect  except  secretions5 
hence  even  the  mule  has  bred, — character  of  sterility, 
especially  a  few  years  ago  (?)  thought  very  much 
more  universal  than  it  now  is,  has  been  thought  the 
distinguishing  character;  indeed  it  is  obvious  if  all 
forms  freely  crossed,  nature  would  be  a  chaos. 
But  the  very  gradation  of  the  character,  even  if  it 
always  existed  in  some  degree  which  it  does  not, 
renders  it  impossible  as  marks  (?)  those  (?)  suppose 
distinct  as  species6].  Will  analogy  throw  any  light 

1  The  meaning  is  "That  sterility  is  not  universal  is  admitted  by  all." 

2  See   Far.   under  Dom.,  Ed.  2,  i.  p.  388,  where  the  garden  forms  of 
Gladiolus  and  Calceolaria  are  said  to  be  derived  from  crosses  between 
distinct  species.     Herbert's  hybrid  Crinums  are  discussed  in  the  Origin, 
Ed.  i.  p.  250,  vi.  p.  370.     It  is  well  known  that  the  author  believed  in  a 
multiple  origin  of  domestic  dogs. 

3  The  argument  from  gradation  in  sterility  is  given  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i. 
pp.  248,  255,  vi.  pp.  368,  375.     In  the  Origin,  I  have  not  come  across  the 
cases  mentioned,  viz.  crocus,  heath,  or  grouse  and  fowl  or  peacock.     For 
sterility  between  closely  allied  species,  see  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  257,  vi.  p.  377. 
In  the  present  essay  the  author  does  not  distinguish   between  fertility 
between  species  and  the  fertility  of  the  hybrid  offspring,  a  point  on  which 
he  insists  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  245,  vi.  p.  365. 

4  Ackermann  (Ber.  d.  Vereins  f.  Naturkunde  zu  Kassel,  1898,  p.  23) 
quotes  from  Gloger  that  a  cross  has  been  effected  between  a  domestic  hen 
and  a  Tetrao  tetrix  ;  the  offspring  died  when  three  days  old. 

5  No  doubt  the  sexual  cells  are  meant.     I  do  not  know  on  what  evidence 
it  is  stated  that  the  mule  has  bred. 

6  The  sentence  is  all  but  illegible.     I  think  that  the  author  refers  to 
forms  usually  ranked  as  varieties  having  been  marked  as  species  when  it  was 


12  STERILITY 

on  the  fact  of  the  supposed  races  of  nature  being 
sterile,  though  none  of  the  domestic  ones  are  ? 
Mr  Herbert  (and)  Koelreuter  have  shown  external 
differences  will  not  guide  one  in  knowing  whether 
hybrids  will  be  fertile  or  not,  but  the  chief  circum- 
stance is  constitutional  differences1,  such  as  being 
adapted  to  different  climate  or  soil,  differences 
which  [must]  probably  affect  the  whole  body  of  the 
organism  and  not  any  one  part.  Now  wild  animals, 
taken  out  of  their  natural  conditions,  seldom  breed.  I 
do  not  refer  to  shows  or  to  Zoological  Societies  where 
many  animals  unite,  but  (do  not  ?)  breed,  and  others 
will  never  unite,  but  to  wild  animals  caught  and 
kept  quite  tame  left  loose  and  well  fed  about  houses 
and  living  many  years.  Hybrids  produced  almost 
as  readily  as  pure  breds.  St  Hilaire  great  distinc- 
tion of  tame  and  domestic, — elephants, — ferrets2. 
Reproductive  organs  not  subject  to  disease  in 
Zoological  Garden.  Dissection  and  microscope  show 
that  hybrid  is  in  exactly  same  condition  as  another 
animal  in  the  intervals  of  breeding  season,  or  those 
animals  which  taken  wild  and  not  bred  in  domesticity, 
remain  without  breeding  their  whole  lives.  It  should 
be  observed  that  so  far  from  domesticity  being  un- 
favourable in  itself  (it)  makes  more  fertile:  [when 
animal  is  domesticated  and  breeds,  productive  power 
increased  from  more  food  and  selection  of  fertile 
races].  As  far  as  animals  go  might  be  thought  (an) 
effect  on  their  mind  and  a  special  case. 

But  turning  to  plants  we  find  same  class  of  facts. 
I  do  not  refer  to  seeds  not  ripening,  perhaps  the  corn- 
found  that  they  were  sterile  together.  See  the  case  of  the  red  and  blue 
Anagallis  given  from  Gartner  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  247,  vi.  p.  368. 

1  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  258,  where  the  author  speaks  of  constitutional 
differences  in  this  connexion,  he  specifies  that  they  are  confined  to  the 
reproductive  system. 

2  The  sensitiveness  of  the  reproductive  system  to  changed  conditions  is 
insisted  on  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  8,  vi.  p.  10. 

The  ferret  is  mentioned,  as  being  prolific  in  captivity,  in  Var.  under 
Dom.,  Ed.  2,  ii.  p.  90. 


UNDER  DOMESTICATION  13 

monest  cause,  but  to  plants  not  setting,  which  either 
is  owing  to  some  imperfection  of  ovule  or  pollen. 
Lindley  says  sterility  is  the  [curse]  bane  of  all  pro- 
pagators,— Linnseus  about  alpine  plants.  American 
bog  plants, — pollen  in  exactly  same  state  as  in 
hybrids, — same  in  geraniums.  Persian  and  Chinese1 
lilac  will  not  seed  in  Italy  and  England.  Probably 
double  plants  and  all  fruits  owe  their  developed 
parts  primarily  (?)  to  sterility  and  extra  food  thus 
(?)  applied2.  There  is  here  gradation  (in)  sterility 
and  then  parts,  like  diseases,  are  transmitted  here- 
ditarily. We  cannot  assign  any  cause  why  the 
Pontic  Azalea  produces  plenty  of  pollen  and  not 
American3,  why  common  lilac  seeds  and  not  Persian, 
we  see  no  difference  in  healthiness.  We  know  not 
on  what  circumstances  these  facts  depend,  why 
ferret  breeds,  and  cheetah4,  elephant  and  pig  in 
India  will  not. 

Now  in  crossing  it  is  certain  every  peculiarity 
in  form  and  constitution  is  transmitted:  an  alpine 
plant  transmits  its  alpine  tendency  to  its  off- 
spring, an  American  plant  its  American-bog 
constitution,  and  (with)  animals,  those  peculiarities, 
on  which5  when  placed  out  of  their  natural  conditions 
they  are  incapable  of  breeding;  and  moreover  they 
transmit  every  part  of  their  constitution,  their 

1  Lindley's  remark  is  quoted  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  9.     Linnaeus' 
remark  is  to  the  effect  that  Alpine  plants  tend  to  be  sterile  under  cultiva- 
tion (see  Var.  under  Dom.,  Ed.  2,  ii.  p.  147).    In  the  same  place  the  author 
speaks  of  peat-loving  plants  being  sterile  in  our  gardens,— no  doubt  the 
American  bog-plants  referred  to  above.     On  the  following  page  (p.  148)  the 
sterility  of  the  lilac  (Syringa  persica  and  chinensis]  is  referred  to. 

2  The  author  probably  means  that  the  increase  in  the  petals  is  clue  to 
a  greater  food  supply  being  available  for  them  owing  to  sterility.     See  the 
discussion  in  Var.  under  Dom.,  Ed.  2,  ii.  p.  151.     It  must  be  noted  that 
doubleness  of  the  flower  may  exist  without  noticeable  sterility. 

3  I  have  not  come  across  this  case  in  the  author's  works. 

4  For  the  somewhat  doubtful  case  of  the  cheetah  (Felisjubata)  see  Var. 
under  Dom.y  Ed.  2,  ii.  p.  133.     I  do  not  know  to  what  fact  "pig  in  India" 
refers. 

6  This  sentence  should  run  "  on  which  depends  their  incapacity  to  breed 
in  unnatural  conditions." 


14  STERILITY 

respiration,  their  pulse,  their  instinct,  which  are  all 
suddenly  modified,  can  it  be  wondered  at  that  they 
are  incapable  of  breeding?  I  think  it  may  be  truly 
said  it  would  be  more  wonderful  if  they  did.  But  it 
may  be  asked  why  have  not  the  recognised  varieties, 
supposed  to  have  been  produced  through  the  means 
of  man,  [not  refused  to  breed]  have  all  bred1. 
Variation  depends  on  change  of  condition  and 
selection2,  as  far  as  man's  systematic  or  unsystematic 
selection  (has)  gone;  he  takes  external  form,  has 
little  power  from  ignorance  over  internal  invisible 
constitutional  differences.  Races  which  have  long 
been  domesticated,  and  have  much  varied,  are 
precisely  those  which  were  capable  of  bearing  great 
changes,  whose  constitutions  were  adapted  to  a 
diversity  of  climates.  Nature  changes  slowly  and 
by  degrees.  According  to  many  authors  probably 
breeds  of  dogs  are  another  case  of  modified  species 
freely  crossing.  There  is  no  variety  which  (illegible) 
has  been  (illegible)  adapted  to  peculiar  soil  or 
situation  for  a  thousand  years  and  another  rigor- 
ously adapted  to  another,  till  such  can  be  produced, 
the  question  is  not  tried3.  Man  in  past  ages,  could 
transport  into  different  climates,  animals  and  plants 
which  would  freely  propagate  in  such  new  climates. 
Nature  could  effect,  with  selection,  such  changes 
slowly,  so  that  precisely  those  animals  which  are 
adapted  to  submit  to  great  changes  have  given  rise  to 
diverse  races, — and  indeed  great  doubt  on  this  head4. 

1  This  sentence  ends  in  confusion :  it  should  clearly  close  with  the  words 
"refused  to  breed"  in  place  of  the  bracket  and  the  present  concluding 
phrase. 

2  The  author  doubtless  refers  to  the  change  produced  by  the  summation 
of  variation  by  means  of  selection. 

3  The  meaning  of  this  sentence  is  made  clear  by  a  passage  in  the  MS.  of 
1844: — "Until  man  selects  two  varieties  from  the  same  stock,  adapted  to 
two  climates  or  to  other  different  external  conditions,  and  confines  each 
rigidly  for  one  or  several  thousand  years  to  such  conditions,  always  selecting 
the  individuals  best  adapted  to  them,  he  cannot  be  said  to  have  even 
commenced  the  experiment."    That  is,  the  attempt  to  produce  mutually 
sterile  domestic  breeds. 

4  This  passage  is  to  some  extent  a  repetition  of  a  previous  one  and  may 


DIFFICULTIES  15 

Before  leaving  this  subject  well  to  observe  that 
it  was  shown  that  a  certain  amount  of  variation  is 
consequent  on  mere  act  of  reproduction,  both  by 
buds  and  sexually, — is  vastly  increased  when  parents 
exposed  for  some  generations  to  new  conditions1, 
and  we  now  find  that  many  animals  when  exposed 
for  first  time  to  very  new  conditions,  are  (as)  incapable 
of  breeding  as  hybrids.  It  [probably]  bears  also  on 
supposed  fact  of  crossed  animals  when  not  infertile, 
as  in  mongrels,  tending  to  vary  much,  as  likewise 
seems  to  be  the  case,  when  true  hybrids  possess  just 
sufficient  fertility  to  propagate  with  the  parent 
breeds  and  inter  se  for  some  generations.  This 
is  Koelreuter's  belief.  These  facts  throw  light  on 
each  other  and  support  the  truth  of  each  other,  we 
see  throughout  a  connection  between  the  reproduc- 
tive faculties  and  exposure  to  changed  conditions 
of  life  whether  by  crossing  or  exposure  of  the  indi- 
viduals2. 

Difficulties  on  theory  of  selection3.  It  may  be 
objected  such  perfect  organs  as  eye  and  ear, 
could  never  be  formed,  in  latter  less  difficulty 
as  gradations  more  perfect;  at  first  appears  mon- 
strous and  to  (the)  end  appears  difficulty.  But  think 
of  gradation,  even  now  manifest,  (Tibia  and  Fibula). 
Everyone  will  allowif  every  fossil  preserved,  gradation 

have  been  intended  to  replace  an  earlier  sentence.  I  have  thought  it  best 
to  give  both.  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  141,  vi.  p.  176,  the  author  gives  his 
opinion  that  the  power  of  resisting  diverse  conditions,  seen  in  man  and 
his  domestic  animals,  is  an  example  "  of  a  very  common  flexibility  of  con- 
stitution." 

1  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  Chs.  i.  and  v.,  the  author  does  not  admit  repro- 
duction, apart  from  environment,  as  being'a  cause  of  variation.  With  regard 
to  the  cumulative  effect  of  new  conditions  there  are  many  passages  in  the 
Origin,  Ed.  i.  e.g.  pp.  7,  12,  vi.  pp.  8,  14. 

'J  As  already  pointed  out,  this  is  the  important  principle  investigated 
in  the  author's  Cross  and  Self -Fertilisation.  Professor  Bateson  has 
suggested  to  me  that  the  experiments  should  be  repeated  with  gametically 
pure  individuals. 

3  In  the  Origin  a  chapter  is  given  up  to  "  difficulties  on  theory " :  the 
discussion  in  the  pi'esent  essay  seems  slight  even  when  it  is  remembered 
how  small  a  space  is  here  available.  For  Tibia  &c.  see  p.  48. 


16  DIFFICULTIES 

infinitely  more  perfect;  for  possibility  of  selection 
a  perfect  (?)  gradation  is  required.  Different  groups 
of  structure,  slight  gradation  in  each  group, — every 
analogy  renders  it  probable  that  intermediate  forms 
have  existed.  Be  it  remembered  what  strange  meta- 
morphoses ;  part  of  eye,  not  directly  connected  with 
vision,  might  come  to  be  [thus  used]  gradually  worked 
in  for  this  end, — swimming  bladder  by  gradation  of 
structure  is  admitted  to  belong  to  the  ear  system, 
— rattlesnake.  [Woodpecker  best  adapted  to  climb.] 
In  some  cases  gradation  not  possible, — as  vertebrae, 
— actually  vary  in  domestic  animals, — less  difficult 
if  growth  followed.  Looking  to  whole  animals,  a  bat 
formed  not  for  flight1.  Suppose  we  had  flying  fish2 
and  not  one  of  our  now  called  flying  fish  preserved, 
who  would  have  guessed  intermediate  habits. 
Woodpeckers  and  tree-frogs  both  live  in  countries 
where  no  trees3. 

The  gradations  by  which  each  individual  organ 
has  arrived  at  its  present  state,  and  each  individual 
animal  with  its  aggregate  of  organs  has  arrived, 
probably  never  could  be  known,  and  all  present 
great  difficulties.  I  merely  wish  to  show  that  the 
proposition  is  not  so  monstrous  as  it  at  first  appears, 
and  that  if  good  reason  can  be  advanced  for  believing 
the  species  have  descended  from  common  parents, 
the  difficulty  of  imagining  intermediate  forms  of 
structure  not  sufficient  to  make  one  at  once  reject 
the  theory. 

1  This  may  be  interpreted  "  The  general  structure  of  a  bat  is  the  same 
as  that  of  non-flying  mammals." 

2  That  is  truly  winged  fish. 

3  The  terrestrial  woodpecker  of  S.  America  formed  the  subject  of  a  paper 
by  Darwin,  Proc.  Zool.  Soc.,  1870.    See  Life  and  Letters,  vol.  iii.  p.  153. 


INSTINCT  17 


§  in.      (ON  VARIATION  IN  INSTINCTS  AND  OTHER 

MENTAL    ATTRIBUTES.) 

The  mental  powers  of  different  animals  in  wild 
and  tame  state  [present  still  greater  difficulties] 
require  a  separate  section.  Be  it  remembered  I  have 
nothing  to  do  with  origin  of  memory,  attention,  and 
the  different  faculties  of  the  mind1,  but  merely  with 
their  differences  in  each  of  the  great  divisions  of 
nature.  Disposition,  courage,  pertinacity  (?),  sus- 
picion, restlessness,  ill-temper,  sagacity  and  (the) 
reverse  unquestionably  vary  in  animals  and  are 
inherited  (Cuba  wildness  dogs,  rabbits,  fear  against 
particular  object  as  man  Galapagos2).  Habits  purely 
corporeal,  breeding  season  &c.,  time  of  going  to  rest 
&c.,  vary  and  are  hereditary,  like  the  analogous 
habits  of  plants  which  vary  and  are  inherited. 
Habits  of  body,  as  manner  of  movement  d°.  and 
d°.  Habits,  as  pointing  and  setting  on  certain 
occasions  d°.  Taste  for  hunting  certain  objects 
and  manner  of  doing  so, — sheep-dog.  These  are 
shown  clearly  by  crossing  and  their  analogy  with 
true  instinct  thus  shown, — retriever.  Do  not  know 
objects  for  which  they  do  it.  Lord  Brougham's 
definition3.  Origin  partly  habit,  but  the  amount 
necessarily  unknown,  partly  selection.  Young 
pointers  pointing  stones  and  sheep — tumbling 
pigeons — sheep4  going  back  to  place  where  born. 

!  The  same  proviso  occurs  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  207,  vi.  p.  319. 

2  The  lameness  of  the  birds  in  the  Galapagos  is  described  in  the  Journal 
of  Researches  (1860),  p.  398.     Dogs  and  rabbits  are  probably  mentioned  as 
cases  in  which  the  hereditary  fear  of  man  has  been  lost.     In  the  1844  MS. 
the  author  states  that  the  Cuban  feral  dog  shows  great  natural  wildness, 
even  when  caught  quite  young. 

3  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  207,  vi.  p.  319,  he  refuses  to  define  instinct. 
For  Lord   Brougham's   definition  see  his   Dissertations  on  Subjects  of 
Science  etc.,  1839,  p.  27. 

4  See  James  Hogg  (the  Ettrick  Shepherd),  Works,   1865,    Tales  and 
Sketches,  p.  403. 


D. 


18  INSTINCT 

Instinct  aided  by  reason,  as  in  the  taylor-bird1. 
Taught  by  parents,  cows  choosing  food,  birds  singing. 
Instincts  vary  in  wild  state  (birds  get  wilder)  often 
lost2;  more  perfect, — nest  without  roof.  These 
facts  [only  clear  way]  show  how  incomprehensibly 
brain  has  power  of  transmitting  intellectual  opera- 
tions. 

Faculties3  distinct  from  true  instincts, — finding 
[way].  It  must  I  think  be  admitted  that  habits 
whether  congenital  or  acquired  by  practice  [some- 
times] often  become  inherited4;  instincts,  influence, 
equally  with  structure,  the  preservation  of  animals; 
therefore  selection  must,  with  changing  conditions 
tend  to  modify  the  inherited  habits  of  animals.  If 
this  be  admitted  it  will  be  found  possible  that  many 
of  the  strangest  instincts  may  be  thus  acquired.  I 
may  observe,  without  attempting  definition,  that  an 
inherited  habit  or  trick  (trick  because  may  be  born) 
fulfils  closely  what  we  mean  by  instinct.  A  habit  is 
often  performed  unconsciously,  the  strangest  habits 
become  associated,  d°.  tricks,  going  in  certain  spots 
&c.  &c.,  even  against  will,  is  excited  by  external 
agencies,  and  looks  not  to  the  end, — a  person  playing 
a  pianoforte.  If  such  a  habit  were  transmitted  it 
would  make  a  marvellous  instinct.  Let  us  consider 
some  of  the  most  difficult  cases  of  instincts,  whether 
they  could  be  possibly  acquired.  I  do  not  say 
probably,  for  that  belongs  to  our  3rd  Part5, 1  beg 
this  may  be  remembered,  nor  do  I  mean  to  attempt 
to  show  exact  method.  I  want  only  to  show  that 

1  This  refers  to  the  tailor-bird  making  use  of  manufactured  thread 
supplied  to  it,  instead  of  thread  twisted  by  itself. 

2  Often  lost  applies  to  instinct :  birds  get  wilder  is  printed  in  a  paren- 
thesis because  it  was  apparently  added  as  an  after-thought.    Nest  without 
roof  refers  to  the  water-ousel  omitting  to  vault  its  nest  when  building 
in  a  protected  situation. 

3  In  the  MS.  of  1844  is  an  interesting  discussion  on  faculty  as  distinct 
from  instinct. 

4  At  this  date  and  for  long  afterwards  the  inheritance  of  acquired 
characters  was  assumed  to  occur. 

5  Part  II.  is  here  intended  :  see  the  Introduction. 


INSTINCT  19 

whole  theory  ought  not  at  once  to  be  rejected  on  this 
score. 

Every  instinct  must,  by  my  theory,  have  been 
acquired  gradually  by  slight  changes  (illegible)  of 
former  instinct,  each  change  being  useful  to  its  then 
species.  Shamming  death  struck  me  at  first  as 
remarkable  objection.  I  found  none  really  sham 
death1,  and  that  there  is  gradation;  now  no  one 
doubts  that  those  insects  which  do  it  either  more  or 
less,  do  it  for  some  good,  if  then  any  species  was  led 
to  do  it  more,  and  then  (?)  escaped  &c.  &c. 

Take  migratory  instincts,  faculty  distinct  from 
instinct,  animals  have  notion  of  time, — like  savages. 
Ordinary  finding  way  by  memory,  but  how  does 
savage  find  way  across  country, — as  incompre- 
hensible to  us,  as  animal  to  them, — geological 
changes, — fishes  in  river, — case  of  sheep  in  Spain2. 
Architectural  instincts, — a  manufacturer's  employee 
in  making  single  articles  extraordinary  skill, — often 
said  seem  to  make  it  almost  (illegible),  child  born 
with  such  a  notion  of  playing3, — we  can  fancy 
tailoring  acquired  in  same  perfection, — mixture 
of  reason, — water-ouzel, — taylor-bird, — gradation  of 
simple  nest  to  most  complicated. 

Bees  again,  distinction  of  faculty, — howtheymake 
a  hexagon, — Waterhouse's  theory4, — the  impulse  to 
use  whatever  faculty  they  possess, — the  taylor-bird 
has  the  faculty  of  sewing  with  beak,  instinct  impels 
him  to  do  it. 

Last  case  of  parent  feeding  young  with  different 
food  (take  case  of  Galapagos  birds,  gradation  from 

1  The   meaning  is  that  the  attitude  assumed  in  shamming  is  not 
accurately  like  that  of  death. 

2  This  refers  to  the  transandantes  sheep  mentioned  in  the  MS.  of  1844, 
as  having  acquired  a  migratory  instinct. 

3  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  209,  vi.  p.  321,  Mozart's  pseudo-instinctive 
skill  in  piano-playing  is  mentioned.     See  Phil.  Trans.,  1770,  p.  54. 

4  In  the  discussion  on  bees'  cells,  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  225,  vi.  p.  343,  the 
author  acknowledges  that  his  theory  originated  in  Waterhouse's  obser- 
vations. 

2—2 


20  SUMMARY 

Hawfinch  to  Sylvia)  selection  and  habit  might 
lead  old  birds  to  vary  taste  (?)  and  form,  leaving 
their  instinct  of  feeding  their  young  with  same  food  \ 

-or  I  see  no  difficulty  in  parents  being  forced 
or  induced  to  vary  the  food  brought,  and  selection 
adapting  the  young  ones  to  it,  and  thus  by  degree  any 
amount  of  diversity  might  be  arrived  at.  Although 
we  can  never  hope  to  see  the  course  revealed  by 
which  different  instincts  have  been  acquired,  for 
we  have  only  present  animals  (not  well  known)  to 
judge  of  the  course  of  gradation,  yet  once  grant  the 
principle  of  habits,  whether  congenital  or  acquired 
by  experience,  being  inherited  and  I  can  see  no 
limit  to  the  [amount  of  variation]  extraordinari- 
ness  (?)  of  the  habits  thus  acquired. 

Summing  up  this  Division.  If  variation  be 
admitted  to  occur  occasionally  in  some  wild  animals, 
and  how  can  we  doubt  it,  when  we  see  [all]  thousands 
(of)  organisms,  for  whatever  use  taken  by  man,  do 
vary.  If  we  admit  such  variations  tend  to  be 
hereditary,  and  how  can  we  doubt  it  when  we 
(remember)  resemblances  of  features  and  character, 
— disease  and  monstrosities  inherited  and  endless 
races  produced  (1200  cabbages).  If  we  admit  selec- 
tion is  steadily  at  work,  and  who  will  doubt  it,  when 
he  considers  amount  of  food  on  an  average  fixed 
and  reproductive  powers  act  in  geometrical  ratio. 
If  we  admit  that  external  conditions  vary,  as  all 
geology  proclaims,  they  have  done  and  are  now  doing, 

-then,  if  no  law  of  nature  be  opposed,  there  must 
occasionally  be  formed  races,  [slightly]  differing  from 
the  parent  races.  So  then  any  such  law2,  none  is 

1  The  hawfinch-  and  Sylvia-types  are  figured  in  the  Journal  of  Researches, 
p.  379.     The  discussion  of  change  of  form  in  relation  to  change  of  instinct 
is  not  clear,  and  I  find  it  impossible  to  suggest  a  paraphrase. 

2  I  should  interpret  this  obscure  sentence  as  follows,  "No  such  opposing 
law  is  known,  but  in  all  works  on  the  subject  a  law  is  (in  flat  contradiction 
to  all  known  facts)  assumed  to  limit  the  possible  amount  of  variation."    In 
the  Origin,  the  author  never  limits  the  power  of  variation,  as  far  as  I  know. 


OF  PART  I.  21 

known,  but  in  all  works  it  is  assumed,  in  (?)  flat 
contradiction  to  all  known  facts,  that  the  amount  of 
possible  variation  is  soon  acquired.  Are  not  all  the 
most  varied  species,  the  oldest  domesticated:  who 
(would)  think  that  horses  or  corn  could  be  produced  ? 
Take  dahlia  and  potato,  who  will  pretend  in  5000 
years1  (that  great  changes  might  not  be  effected): 
perfectly  adapted  to  conditions  and  then  again 
brought  into  varying  conditions.  Think  what  has 
been  done  in  few  last  years,  look  at  pigeons,  and 
cattle.  With  the  amount  of  food  man  can  produce 
he  may  have  arrived  at  limit  of  fatness  or  size,  or 
thickness  of  wool  (?),  but  these  are  the  most  trivial 
points,  but  even  in  these  I  conclude  it  is  impossible  to 
say  we  know  the  limit  of  variation.  And  therefore  with 
the  [adapting]  selecting  power  of  nature,  infinitely 
wise  compared  to  those  of  man,  (I  conclude)  that  it 
is  impossible  to  say  we  know  the  limit  of  races, 
which  would  be  true  (to  their)  kind ;  if  of  different 
constitutions  would  probably  be  infertile  one  with 
another,  and  which  might  be  adapted  in  the  most 
singular  and  admirable  manner,  according  to  their 
wants,  to  external  nature  and  to  other  surrounding 
organisms, — such  races  would  be  species.  But  is 
there  any  evidence  (that)  species  (have)  been  thus 
produced,  this  is  a  question  wholly  independent  of 
all  previous  points,  and  which  on  examination  of 
the  kingdom  of  nature  (we)  ought  to  answer  one 
way  or  another. 

1  In  Var.  under  Dom.  Ed.  2,  ii.  p.  263,  the  Dahlia  is  described 
as  showing  sensitiveness  to  conditions  in  1841.  All  the  varieties  of  the 
Dahlia  are  said  to  have  arisen  since  1804  (ibid.  i.  p.  393). 


22 


PART  II1. 

§§  IV.  &  V.      (ON  THE   EVIDENCE   FROM   GEOLOGY.) 

I  may  premise,  that  according  to  the  view 
ordinarily  received,  the  myriads  of  organisms 
peopling  this  world  have  been  created  by  so  many 
distinct  acts  of  creation.  As  we  know  nothing  of 
the  (illegible)  will  of  a  Creator, — we  can  see  no  reason 
why  there  should  exist  any  relation  between  the 
organisms  thus  created;  or  again,  they  might  be 
created  according  to  any  scheme.  But  it  would 
be  marvellous  if  this  scheme  should  be  the  same  as 
would  result  from  the  descent  of  groups  of  organisms 
from  [certain]  the  same  parents,  according  to  the 
circumstances,  just  attempted  to  be  developed. 

With  equal  probability  did  old  cosmogonists  say 
fossils  were  created,  as  we  now  see  them,  with  a  false 
resemblance  to  living  beings2;  what  would  the  As- 
tronomer say  to  the  doctrine  that  the  planets  moved 
(not)  according  to  the  law  of  gravitation,  but  from 
the  Creator  having  willed  each  separate  planet  to 
move  in  its  particular  orbit  ?  I  believe  such  a  pro- 
position (if  we  remove  all  prejudices)  would  be  as 
legitimate  as  to  admit  that  certain  groups  of  living 
and  extinct  organisms,  in  their  distribution,  in  their 
structure  and  in  their  relations  one  to  another 
and  to  external  conditions,  agreed  with  the  theory 

1  In  the  original  MS.  the  heading  is:  Part  III.;  but  Part  II.  is  clearly 
intended  ;    for  details  see  the  Introduction.     I  have  not  been  able    to 
discover  where  §  IV.  ends  and  §  v.  begins. 

2  This  passage  corresponds  roughly  to  the  conclusion  of  the  Origin,  see 
Ed.  i.  p.  482,  vi.  p.  661. 


GEOLOGY  23 

and  showed  signs  of  common  descent,  and  yet  were 
created  distinct.  As  long-  as  it  was  thought  im- 
possible that  organisms  should  vary,  or  should  any- 
how become  adapted  to  other  organisms  in  a  com- 
plicated manner,  and  yet  be  separated  from  them  by 
an  impassable  barrier  of  sterility1,  it  was  justifiable, 
even  with  some  appearance  in  favour  of  a  common 
descent,  to  admit  distinct  creation  according  to  the 
will  of  an  Omniscient  Creator ;  or,  for  it  is  the  same 
thing,  to  say  with  Whewell  that  the  beginnings  of  all 
things  surpass  the  comprehension  of  man.  In  the 
former  sections  I  have  endeavoured  to  show  that 
such  variation  or  specification  is  not  impossible,  nay, 
in  many  points  of  view  is  absolutely  probable.  What 
then  is  the  evidence  in  favour  of  it  and  what  the 
evidence  against  it.  With  our  imperfect  knowledge 
of  past  ages  [surely  there  will  be  some]  it  would  be 
strange  if  the  imperfection  did  not  create  some 
unfavourable  evidence. 

Give  sketch  of  the  Past, — beginning  with  facts 
appearing  hostile  under  present  knowledge, — then 
proceed  to  geograph.  distribution, — order  of  appear- 
ance,— affinities, — morphology  &c.,  &c. 

Our  theory  requires  a  very  gradual  introduction 
of  new  forms2,  and  extermination  of  the  old  (to 
which  we  shall  revert).  The  extermination  of  old 
may  sometimes  be  rapid,  but  never  the  introduction. 
In  the  groups  descended  from  common  parent,  our 
theory  requires  a  perfect  gradation  not  differing  more 
than  breed(s)  of  cattle,  or  potatoes,  or  cabbages  in 
forms.  I  do  not  mean  that  a  graduated  series  of 
animals  must  have  existed,  intermediate  between 
horse,  mouse,  tapir^,  elephant  [or  fowl  and  peacock], 

1  A  similar  passage  occurs  in  the  conclusion  of  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  481, 
vi.  p.  659. 

a  See  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  312,  vi.  p.  453. 

3  See  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  280,  281,  vi.  p.  414.  The  author  uses  his 
experience  of  pigeons  for  examples  for  what  he  means  by  intermediate  ;  the 
instance  of  the  horse  and  tapir  also  occurs. 


( 


24  GEOLOGY 

bat  that  these  must  have  had  a  common  parent,  and 
between  horse  and  this  (?)  parent  &c.,  &c.,  but  the 
common  parent  may  possibly  have  differed  more 
from  either  than  the  two  do  now  from  each  other. 
Now  what  evidence  of  this  is  there?  So  perfect 
gradation  in  some  departments,  that  some  naturalists 
have  thought  that  in  some  large  divisions,  if  all  ex- 
isting forms  were  collected,  a  near  approach  to  perfect 
gradation  would  be  made.  But  such  a  notion  is 
preposterous  with  respect  to  all,  but  evidently  so 
with  mammals.  Other  naturalists  have  thought 
this  would  be  so  if  all  the  specimens  entombed  in 
the  strata  were  collected1.  I  conceive  there  is  no 
probability  whatever  of  this ;  nevertheless  it  is  certain 
all  the  numerous  fossil  forms  fall  in(to),  as  Buckland 
remarks,  not  present  classes,  families  and  genera, 
they  fall  between  them :  so  is  it  with  new  discoveries 
of  existing  forms.  Most  ancient  fossils,  that  is  most 
separated  (by)  space  of  time,  are  most  apt  to  fall  be- 
tween the  classes — (but  organisms  from  those  coun- 
tries most  separated  by  space  also  fall  between  the 
classes  (e.g.)  Ornithorhyncus  ?).  As  far  as  geological 
discoveries  (go)  they  tend  towards  such  gradation 2. 
Illustrate  it  with  net.  Toxodon, — tibia  and  fibula,- 
dog  and  otter, — but  so  utterly  improbable  is  (it), 
in  ex.  gr.  Pachydermata,  to  compose  series  as  per- 
fect as  cattle,  that  if,  as  many  geologists  seem  to 

1  The  absence  of  intermediate  forms  between  living  organisms  (and  also 
as  regards  fossils)  is  discussed  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  279,  280,  vi.  p.  413. 
In  the  above  discussion  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  author  felt  this  difficulty 
so  strongly  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  299, — as  perhaps  "the 
most  obvious  and  gravest  objection  that  can  be  urged  against  my  theory." 
But  in  a  rough  summary  written  on  the  back  of  the  penultimate  page  of 
the  MS.  he  refers  to  the  geological  evidence  : — "  Evidence,  as  far  as  it  does 
go,  is  favourable,  exceedingly  incomplete, — greatest  difficulty  on  this  theory. 
I  am  convinced  not  insuperable."  Buckland's  remarks  are  given  in  the 
Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  329,  vi.  p.  471. 

'•  That  the  evidence  of  geology,  as  far  as  it  goes,  is  favourable  to  the 
theory  of  descent  is  claimed  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  343 — 345,  vi.  pp.  490 
—492.  For  the  reference  to  net  in  the  following  sentence,  see  Note  1,  p.  48, 
of  this  Essay. 


GEOLOGY  25 

infer,  each  separate  formation  presents  even  an 
approach  to  a  consecutive  history,  my  theory  must 
be  given  up.  Even  if  it  were  consecutive,  it  would 
only  collect  series  of  one  district  in  our  present  state 
of  knowledge ;  bat  what  probability  is  there  that 
any  one  formation  during  the  immense  period  which 
has  elapsed  during  each  period  will  generally  present 
a  consecutive  history.  [Compare  number  living  at 
one  period  to  fossils  preserved — look  at  enormous 
periods  of  time.] 

Referring  only  to  marine  animals,  which  are 
obviously  most  likely  to  be  preserved,  they  must 
live  where  (?)  sediment  (of  a  kind  favourable  for  pre- 
servation, not  sand  and  pebble)1  is  depositing  quickly 
and  over  large  area  and  must  be  thickly  capped, 
(illegible)  littoral  deposits:  for  otherwise  denudation 
(will  destroy  them), — they  must  live  in  a  shallow  space 
which  sediment  will  tend  to  fill  up, — as  movement 
is  (in?)  progress  if  soon  brought  (?)  up  (?)  subject 
to  denudation, — [if]  as  during  subsidence  favour- 
able, accords  with  facts  of  European  deposits2,  but 
subsidence  apt  to  destroy  agents  which  produce 
sediment3. 

I  believe  safely  inferred  (that)  groups  of  marine  (?) 
fossils  only  preserved  for  future  ages  where  sediment 
goes  on  long  (and)  continuous(ly)  and  with  rapid  but 
not  too  rapid  deposition  in  (an)  area  of  subsidence. 
In  how  few  places  in  any  one  region  like  Europe 
will  (?)  these  contingencies  be  going  on  ?  Hence  (?)  in 

1  See  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  288,  vi.  p.  422.     "  The  remains  that  do  become 
embedded,  if  in  sand  and  gravel,  will,  when  the  beds  are  upraised,  generally 
be  dissolved  by  the  percolation  of  rain-water." 

2  The  position  of  the  following  is  not  clear : — "  Think  of  immense 
differences  in  nature  of   European  deposits, — without  interposing   new 
causes, — think  of  time  required  by  present  slow  changes,  to  cause,  on  very 
same  area,  such  diverse  deposits,  iron-sand,  chalk,  sand,  coral,  clay ! " 

3  The  paragraph  which  ends  here  is  difficult  to  interpret.     In  spite  of 
obscurity  it  is  easy  to  recognize  the  general  resemblance  to  the  discussion 
on  the  importance  of  subsidence  given  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  290  et  seq., 
vi.  pp.  422  et  seq. 


26  GEOLOGY 

past  ages  mere  [gaps]  pages  preserved1.  Ly ell's 
doctrine  carried  to  extreme, — we  shall  understand 
difficulty  if  it  be  asked: — what  chance  of  series  of 
gradation  between  cattle  by  (illegible)  at  age  (illegible) 
as  far  back  as  Miocene2?  We  know  then  cattle 
existed.  Compare  number  of  living, — immense  dura- 
tion of  each  period, — fewness  of  fossils. 

This  only  refers  to  consecutiveness  of  history  of 
organisms  of  each  formation. 

The  foregoing  argument  will  show  firstly,  that 
formations  are  distinct  merely  from  want  of  fossils 
(of  intermediate  beds),  and  secondly,  that  each  for- 
mation is  full  of  gaps,  has  been  advanced  to  account 
for  fewness  of  preserved  organisms  compared  to 
what  have  lived  on  the  world.  The  very  same 
argument  explains  why  in  older  formations  the 
organisms  appear  to  come  on  and  disappear  sud- 
denly,— but  in  [later]  tertiary  not  quite  suddenly3, 
in  later  tertiary  gradually, — becoming  rare  and 
disappearing, — some  have  disappeared  within  man's 
time.  It  is  obvious  that  our  theory  requires  gradual 
and  nearly  uniform  introduction,  possibly  more 
sudden  extermination, — subsidence  of  continent  of 
Australia  &c.,  &c. 

Our  theory  requires  that  the  first  form  which 
existed  of  each  of  the  great  divisions  would  present 
points  intermediate  between  existing  ones,  but  im- 
mensely different.  Most  geologists  believe  Silurian4 
fossils  are  those  which  first  existed  in  the  whole  world, 

1  See  Note  3,  p.  27. 

2  Compare  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  298,  vi.  p.  437.     "We  shall,  perhaps,  best 
perceive  the  improbability  of  our  being  enabled  to  connect  species  by 
numerous,  fine,  intermediate,  fossil  links,  by  asking  ourselves  whether,'  for 
instance,  geologists  at  some  future  period  will  be  able  to  prove  that  our 
different  breeds  of  cattle,  sheep,  horses,  and  dogs  have  descended  from  a 
single  stock  or  from  several  aboriginal  stocks." 

!  The  sudden  appearance  of  groups  of  allied  species  in  the  lowest  known 
fossiliferous  strata  is  discussed  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  306,  vi.  p.  446.  The 
gradual  appearance  in  the  later  strata  occurs  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i. 
p.  312,  vi.  p.  453. 

4  Compare  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  307,  vi.  p.  448. 


GEOLOGY  27 

not  those  which  have  chanced  to  be  the  oldest  not 
destroyed, — or  the  first  which  existed  in  profoundly 
deep  seas  in  progress  of  conversion  from  sea  to  land : 
if  they  are  first  they  {?  we)  give  up.  Not  so  Button 
or  Lyell :  if  first  reptile1  of  Red  Sandstone  (?)  really 
was  first  which  existed :  if  Pachyderm2  of  Paris  was 
first  which  existed  :  fish  of  Devonian :  dragon  fly  of 
Lias  :  for  we  cannot  suppose  them  the  progenitors : 
they  agree  too  closely  with  existing  divisions.  But 
geologists  consider  Europe  as  (?)  a  passage  from  sea 
to  island  (?)  to  continent  (except  Wealden,  see  Lyell). 
These  animals  therefore,  I  consider  then  mere  intro- 
duction (?)  from  continents  long  since  submerged. 

Finally,  if  views  of  some  geologists  be  correct,  my 
theory  must  be  given  up.  [Lyell's  views,  as  far  as 
they  go,  are  in  favour,  but  they  go  so  little  in  favour, 
and  so  much  more  is  required,  that  it  may  (be) 
viewed  as  objection.]  If  geology  present  us  with 
mere  pages  in  chapters,  towards  end  of  (a)  history, 
formed  by  tearing  out  bundles  of  leaves,  and  each 
page  illustrating  merely  a  small  portion  of  the 
organisms  of  that  time,  the  facts  accord  perfectly 
with  my  theory3. 

1  I  have  interpreted  as  Sandstone  a  scrawl  which  I  first  read  as  Sea ; 
I  have  done  so  at  the  suggestion  of  Professor  Judd,  who  points  out  that 
"  footprints  in  the  red  sandstone  were  known  at  that  time,  and  geologists 
were  not  then  particular  to  distinguish  between  Amphibians  and  Reptiles." 

2  This  refers  to  Cuvier's  discovery  of  Palceotherium  &c.  at  Montmartre. 

3  This  simile  is  more  fully  given  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  310,  vi.  p.  452. 
"  For  my  part,   following  out  Lyell's  metaphor,  •  I  look  at  the  natural 
geological    record,   as   a   history    of   the   world   imperfectly   kept,    and 
written  in  a  changing  dialect ;  of  this  history  we  possess  the  last  volume 
alone,  relating  only  to  two  or  three  countries.     Of  this  volume,  only  here 
and  there  a  short  chapter  has  been  preserved  ;  and  of  each  page,  only  here 
and  there  a  few  lines.     Each  word  of  the  slowly-changing  language,  in 
which  the  history  is  supposed  to  be  written,  being  more  or  less  different 
in  the  interrupted  succession  of  chapters,  may  repi'esent  the  apparently 
abruptly  changed  forms  of  life,  entombed  in  our  consecutive,  but  widely 
separated  formations."    Professor  Judd  has  been  good  enough  to  point  out 
to  me,  that  Darwin's  metaphor  is  founded  on  the  comparison  of  geology  to 
history  in  Ch.  i.  of  the  Principles  of  Geology,  Ed.  i.  1830,  vol.  i.  pp.  1 — 4. 
Professor  Judd  has  also  called  my  attention  to  another  passage, — Principles, 
Ed.  i.  1833,  vol.  iii.  p.  33,  when  Lyell  imagines  an  historian  examining  "two 
buried  cities  at  the  foot  of  Vesuvius,  immediately  superimposed  upon  each 


28  EXTERMINATION 

Extermination.  We  have  seen  that  in  later 
periods  the  organisms  have  disappeared  by  degrees 
and  [perhaps]  probably  by  degrees  in  earlier,  and  I 
have  said  our  theory  requires  it.  As  many  naturalists 
seem  to  think  extermination  a  most  mysterious  cir- 
cumstance1 and  call  in  astonishing  agencies,  it  is  well 
to  recall  what  we  have  shown  concerning  the  struggle 
of  nature.  An  exterminating  agency  is  at  work  with 
every  organism :  we  scarcely  see  it :  if  robins  would 
increase  to  thousands  in  ten  years  how  severe  must 
the  process  be.  How  imperceptible  a  small  in- 
crease :  fossils  become  rare :  possibly  sudden  exter- 
mination as  Australia,  but  as  present  means  very 
slow  and  many  means  of  escape,  I  shall  doubt  very 
sudden  exterminations.  Who  can  explain  why  some 
species  abound  more, — why  does  marsh  titmouse,  or 
ring-ouzel,  now  little  change, — why  is  one  sea-slug 
rare  and  another  common  on  our  coasts, — why  one 
species  of  Rhinoceros  more  than  another, — why  is 
(illegible)  tiger  of  India  so  rare?  Curious  and 
general  sources  of  error,  the  place  of  an  organism  is 
instantly  filled  up. 

We  know  state  of  earth  has  changed,  and  as 
earthquakes  and  tides  go  on,  the  state  must  change,- 
many  geologists  believe  a  slow  gradual  cooling.  Now 
let  us  see  in  accordance  with  principles  of  [variation] 
specification  explained  in  Sect.  n.  how  species  would 
probably  be  introduced  and  how  such  results  accord 
with  what  is  known. 

other."  The  historian  would  discover  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  lower 
town  were  Greeks  while  those  of  the  upper  one  were  Italians.  But  he 
would  be  wrong  in  supposing  that  there  had  been  a  sudden  change  from 
the  Greek  to  the  Italian  language  in  Campania.  I  think  it  is  clear  that 
Darwin's  metaphor  is  partly  taken  from  this  passage.  See  for  instance  (in 
the  above  passage  from  the  Origin)  such  phrases  as  "history... written  in  a 
changing  dialect" — "apparently  abruptly  changed  forms  of  life."  The 
passage  within  [  ]  in  the  above  paragraph : — "Lyell's  views  as  far  as 
they  go  &c.,"  no  doubt  refers,  as  Professor  Judd  points  out,  to  Lyell  not 
going  so  far  as  Darwin  on  the  question  of  the  imperfection  of  the  geological 
record. 

1  On  rarity  and  extinction  see  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  109,  319,  vi.  pp.  133,  461. 


GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION        29 

The  first  fact  geology  proclaims  is  immense 
number  of  extinct  forms,  and  new  appearances. 
Tertiary  strata  leads  to  belief,  that  forms  gradually 
become  rare  and  disappear  and  are  gradually  sup- 
plied by  others.  We  see  some  forms  now  becoming 
rare  and  disappearing,  we  know  of  no  sudden 
creation :  in  older  periods  the  forms  appear  to 
come  in  suddenly,  scene  shifts:  but  even  here 
Devonian,  Permian  &c.  [keep  on  supplying  new 
links  in  chain]— Genera  and  higher  forms  come  on 
and  disappear,  in  same  way  leaving  a  species  on 
one  or  more  stages  below  that  in  which  the  form 
abounded. 

(GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION.) 

§  vi.  Let  us  consider  the  absolute  state  of  dis- 
tribution of  organisms  of  earth's  face. 

Referring  chiefly,  but  not  exclusively  (from 
difficulty  of  transport,  fewness,  and  the  distinct 
characteristics  of  groups)  to  Mammalia;  and  first 
considering  the  three  or  four  main  [regions]  divi- 
sions; North  America,  Europe,  Asia,  including 
greater  part  of  E.  Indian  Archipelago  and  Africa 
are  intimately  allied.  Africa  most  distinct,  especially 
most  southern  parts.  And  the  Arctic  regions,  which 
unite  N.  America,  Asia  and  Europe,  only  separated 
(if  we  travel  one  way  by  Behring's  St.)  by  a  narrow 
strait,  is  most  intimately  allied,  indeed  forms  but  one 
restricted  group.  Next  comes  S.  America, — then 
Australia,  Madagascar  (and  some  small  islands  which 
stand  very  remote  from  the  land).  Looking  at  these 
main  divisions  separately,  the  organisms  vary  accord- 
ing to  changes  in  condition1  of  different  parts.  But 
besides  this,  barriers  of  every  kind  seem  to  separate 

1  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  346,  vi.  p.  493,  the  author  begins  his  discussion 
on  geographical  distribution  by  minimising  the  effect  of  physical  conditions. 
He  lays  great  stress  on  the  effect  of  barriers,  as  in  the  present  Essay. 


30       GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION 

regions  in  a  greater  degree  than  proportionally  to 
the  difference  of  climates  on  each  side.  Thus  great 
chains  of  mountains,  spaces  of  sea  between  islands 
and  continents,  even  great  rivers  and  deserts.  In 
fact  the  amount  (of)  difference  in  the  organisms 
bears  a  certain,  but  not  invariable  relation  to  the 
amount  of  physical  difficulties  to  transit1. 

There  are  some  curious  exceptions,  namely, 
similarity  of  fauna  of  mountains  of  Europe  and  N. 
America  and  Lapland.  Other  cases  just  (the)  reverse, 
mountains  of  eastern  S.  America,  Altai  (?),  S.  India 
(?)2:  mountain  summits  of  islands  often  eminently 
peculiar.  Fauna  generally  of  some  islands,  even 
when  close,  very  dissimilar,  in  others  very  similar. 
[I  am  here  led  to  observe  one  or  more  centres  of 
creation3.] 

The  simple  geologist  can  explain  many  of  the 
foregoing  cases  of  distribution.  Subsidence  of  a 
continent  in  which  free  means  of  dispersal,  would 
drive  the  lowland  plants  up  to  the  mountains, 
now  converted  into  islands,  and  the  semi-alpine 
plants  would  take  place  of  alpine,  and  alpine  be 
destroyed,  if  mountains  originally  were  not  of  great 
height.  So  we  may  see,  during  gradual  changes4  of 
climate  on  a  continent,  the  propagation  of  species 
would  vary  and  adapt  themselves  to  small  changes 

1  Note  in  the  original,  "Would  it  be  more  striking  if  we  took  animals, 
take  Rhinoceros,  and  study  their  habitats  ?" 

2  Note  by  Mr  A.  R.  Wallace.     "The  want  of  similarity  referred  to,  is, 
between  the  mountains  of  Brazil  and  Guiana  and  those  of  the  Andes.    Also 
those  of  the  Indian  peninsula  as  compared  with  the  Himalayas.     In  both 
cases  there  is  continuous  intervening  land. 

"The  islands  referred  to  were,  no  doubt,  the  Galapagos  for  dissimilarity 
from  S.  America ;  our  own  Islands  as  compared  with  Europe,  and  perhaps 
Java,  for  similarity  with  continental  Asia." 

3  The  arguments  against  multiple  centres  of  creation  are  given  in  the 
Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  352,  vi.  p.  499. 

4  In  the  Orii/in,  Ed.  i.  p.  366,  vi.  p.  516,  the  author  does  not  give  his 
views  on  the  distribution  of  alpine  plants  as  original  but  refers  to  Edward 
Forbes'  work  (GeoJog.    Survey  Memoirs,   1846).     In  his  autobiography, 
Darwin  refers  to  this.     " I  was  forestalled"  he  says,  "in  only  one  important 
point,  which  my  vanity  has  always  made  me  regret."    (Life  and  Letters,  i. 
p.  88.) 


ALPINE  PLANTS  31 

causing  much  extermination1.  The  mountains  of 
Europe  were  quite  lately  covered  with  ice,  and  the 
lowlands  probably  partaking  of  the  Arctic  climate 
and  Fauna.  Then  as  climate  changed,  arctic  fauna 
would  take  place  of  ice,  and  an  inundation  of  plants 
from  different  temperate  countries  (would)  seize  the 
lowlands,  leaving  islands  of  arctic  forms.  But  if  this 
had  happened  on  an  island,  whence  could  the  new 
forms  have  come, — here  the  geologist  calls  in  crea- 
tionists. If  island  formed,  the  geologist  will  suggest 
(that)  many  of  the  forms  might  have  been  borne  from 
nearest  land,  but  if  peculiar,  he  calls  in  creationist, — 
as  such  island  rises  in  height  &c.,  he  still  more  calls 
in  creation.  The  creationist  tells  one,  on  a  (illegible) 
spot  the  American  spirit  of  creation  makes  Orpheus 
and  Tyrannus  and  American  doves,  and  in  accord- 
ance with  past  and  extinct  forms,  but  no  persistent 
relation  between  areas  and  distribution,  Geologico- 
Geograph.-Distribution. 

1  (The  following  is  written  on  the  back  of  a  page  of  the  MS.)  Discuss 
one  or  more  centres  of  creation :  allude  strongly  to  facilities  of  dispersal  and 
amount  of  geological  change  :  allude  to  mountain-summits  afterwards  to 
be  referred  to.  The  distribution  varies,  as  everyone  knows,  according  to 
adaptation,  explain  going  from  N.  to  S.  how  we  come  to  fresh  groups  of 
species  in  the  same  general  region,  but  besides  this  we  find  difference, 
according  to  greatness  of  barriers,  in  greater  proportion  than  can  be  well 
accounted  for  by  adaptation.  (On  representive  species  see  Origin,  Ed.  i. 
p.  349,  vi.  p.  496.)  This  very  striking  when  we  think  of  cattle  of  Pampas, 
plants  (?)  &c.  &c.  Then  go  into  discussion ;  this  holds  with  3  or  4  main 
divisions  as  well  as  the  endless  minor  ones  in  each  of  these  4  great  ones  :  in 
these  I  chiefly  refer  to  mammalia  &c.  &c.  The  similarity  of  type,  but  not 
in  species,  in  same  continent  has  been  much  less  insisted  on  than  the 
dissimilarity  of  different  great  regions  generically:  it  is  more  striking. 

(I  have  here  omitted  an  incomprehensible  sentence.)  Galapagos  Islands, 
Tristan  d'Acunha,  volcanic  islands  covered  with  craters  we  know  lately  did  not 
support  any  organisms.  How  unlike  these  islands  in  nature  to  neighbouring 
lands.  These  facts  perhaps  more  striking  than  almost  any  others. 
[Geology  apt  to  affect  geography  therefore  we  ought  to  expect  to  find 
the  above.]  Geological-geographical  distribution.  In  looking  to  past  times 
we  find  Australia  equally  distinct.  S.  America  was  distinct,  though  with 
more  forms  in  common.  N.  America  its  nearest  neighbour  more  in  common, 
—in  some  respects  more,  in  some  less  allied  to  Europe.  Europe  we  find  (?) 
equally  European.  For  Europe  is  now  part  of  Asia  though  not  (illegible). 
Africa  unknown, — examples,  Elephant,  Rhinoceros,  Hippopotamus,  Hyaena. 
As  geology  destroys  geography  we  cannot  be  surprised  in  going  far  back  we 
find  Marsupials  and  Edentata  in  Europe  :  but  geology  destroys  geography. 


32        GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION 

Now  according  to  analogy  of  domesticated 
animals  let  us  see  what  would  result.  Let  us 
take  case  of  farmer  on  Pampas,  where  everything 
approaches  nearer  to  state  of  nature.  He  works  on 
organisms  having  strong  tendency  to  vary :  and  he 
knows  (that  the)  only  way  to  make  a  distinct  breed 
is  to  select  and  separate.  It  would  be  useless  to 
separate  the  best  bulls  and  pair  with  best  cows 
if  their  offspring  run  loose  and  bred  with  the  other 
herds,  and  tendency  to  reversion  not  counteracted ; 
he  would  endeavour  therefore  to  get  his  cows  on 
islands  and  then  commence  his  work  of  selection. 
If  several  farmers  in  different  rincons1  were  to  set 
to  work,  especially  if  with  different  objects,  several 
breeds  would  soon  be  produced.  So  would  it  be 
with  horticulturist  and  so  history  of  every  plant 
shows;  the  number  of  varieties2  increase  in  propor- 
tion to  care  bestowed  on  their  selection  and,  with 
crossing  plants,  separation.  Now,  according  to  this 
analogy,  change  of  external  conditions,  and  isolation 
either  by  chance  landing  (of)  a  form  on  an  island,  or 
subsidence  dividing  a  continent,  or  great  chain  of 
mountains,  and  the  number  of  individuals  not  being 
numerous  will  best  favour  variation  and  selection3. 
No  doubt  change  could  be  effected  in  same  country 
without  any  barrier  by  long  continued  selection  on 
one  species :  even  in  case  of  a  plant  not  capable  of 
crossing  would  easier  get  possession  and  solely 

1  Rincon  in  Spanish  means  a  nook  or  corner,  it  is  here  probably  used  to 
mean  a  small  farm. 

2  The  following  is  written  across  the  page  :  "  No  one  would  expect  a  set 
of  similar  varieties  to  be  produced  in  the  different  countries,  so  species 
different." 

3  (The  following  passage  seems  to  have  been  meant  to  follow  here.)    The 
parent  of  an  organism,  we  may  generally  suppose  to  be  in  less  favourable 
condition   than   the  selected  offspring  and  therefore  generally  in  fewer 
numbers.     (This  is  not  borne  out  by  horticulture,  mere  hypothesis ;  as  an 
organism  in  favourable  conditions  might  by  selection  be  adapted  to  still 
more  favourable  conditions.) 

Barrier  would  further  act  in  preventing  species  formed  in  one  part 
migrating  to  another  part. 


ISOLATION  33 

occupy  an  island1.  Now  we  can  at  once  see  that  (if) 
two  parts  of  a  continent  isolated,  new  species  thus 
generated  in  them,  would  have  closest  affinities,  like 
cattle  in  counties  of  England :  if  barrier  afterwards 
destroyed  one  species  might  destroy  the  other  or 
both  keep  their  ground.  So  if  island  formed  near 
continent,  let  it  be  ever  so  different,  that  continent 
would  supply  inhabitants,  and  new  species  (like  the 
old)  would  be  allied  with  that  continent.  An  island 
generally  very  different  soil  and  climate,  and  number 
and  order  of  inhabitants  supplied  by  chance,  no 
point  so  favourable  for  generation  of  new  species2, — 
especially  the  mountains,  hence,  so  it  is.  As  isolated 
mountains  formed  in  a  plain  country  (if  such  happens) 
is  an  island.  As  other  islands  formed,  the  old  species 
would  spread  and  thus  extend  and  the  fauna  of  dis- 
tant island  might  ultimately  meet  and  a  continent 
formed  between  them.  No  one  doubts  continents 
formed  by  repeated  elevations  and  depressions3. 
In  looking  backwards,  but  not  so  far  that  all 
geographical  boundaries  are  destroyed,  we  can 
thus  at  once  see  why  existing  forms  are  related  to 
the  extinct  in  the  same  manner  as  existing  ones  are 
in  some  part  of  existing  continent.  By  chance  we 
might  even  have  one  or  two  absolute  parent  fossils. 

The  detection  of  transitional  forms  would  be 
rendered  more  difficult  on  rising  point  of  land. 

The  distribution  therefore  in  the  above  enumer- 

1  (The  following  notes  occur  on  the  back  of  the  page.)  Number  of  species 
not  related  to  capabilities  of  the  country  :  furthermore  not  always  those  best 
adapted,  perhaps  explained  by  creationists  by  changes  and  progress.    (See 
p.  34,  note  1.) 

Although  creationists  can,  by  help  of  geology,  explain  much,  how 
can  he  explain  the  marked  relation  of  past  and  present  in  same  area, 
the  varying  relation  in  other  cases,  between  past  and  present,  the  relation 
of  different  parts  of  same  great  area.  If  island,  to  adjoining  continent,  if 
quite  different,  on  mountain  summits, — the  number  of  individuals  not 
being  related  to  capabilities,  or  how  &c. — our  theory,  I  believe,  can  throw 
much  light  and  all  facts  accord. 

2  See  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  390,  vi.  p.  543. 

3  On  oscillation  see  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  291,  vi.  p.  426. 


D. 


34        GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION 

ated  points,  even  the  trivial  ones,  which  on  any 
other  {theory  ?)  can  be  viewed  as  so  many  ultimate 
facts,  all  follow  (in)  a  simple  manner  on  the  theory 
of  the  occurrence  of  species  by  (illegible)  and  being 
adapted  by  selection  to  (illegible),  conjoined  with 
their  power  of  dispersal,  and  the  steady  geographico- 
geological  changes  which  are  now  in  progress  and 
which  undoubtedly  have  taken  place.  Ought  to 
state  the  opinion  of  the  immutability  of  species  and 
the  creation  by  so  many  separate  acts  of  will  of 
the  Creator1. 

1  (From  the  back  of  MS.)  Effect  of  climate  on  stationary  island  and 
on  continent,  but  continent  once  island.  Moreover  repeated  oscillations 
fresh  diffusion  when  non -united,  then  isolation,  when  rising  again  immigra- 
tion prevented,  new  habitats  formed,  new  species,  when  united  free  immi- 
gration, hence  uniform  characters.  Hence  more  forms  (on  ?)  the  island. 
Mountain  summits.  Why  not  true  species.  First  let  us  recall  in  Part  I, 
conditions  of  variation  :  change  of  conditions  during  several  generations, 
and  if  frequently  altered  so  much  better  [perhaps  excess  of  food].  Secondly, 
continued  selection  [while  in  wild  state].  Thirdly,  isolation  in  all  or  nearly 
all, — as  well  to  recall  advantages  of. 

£.n  continent,  if  we  look  to  terrestrial  animal,  long  continued  change 
t  go  on,  which  would  only  cause  change  in  numerical  number 
(?  proportions) :  if  continued  long  enough  might  ultimately  affect  all,  though 
to  most  continents  (there  is)  chance  of  immigration.  Some  few  of  whole 
body  of  species  must  be  long  affected  and  entire  selection  working  same 
way.  But  here  isolation  absent,  without  barrier,  cut  off  such  (illegible).  We 
can  see  advantage  of  isolation.  But  let  us  take  case  of  island  thrown  up 
by  volcanic  agency  at  some  distances,  here  we  should  have  occasional 
visitants,  only  in  few  numbers  and  exposed  to  new  conditions  and  (illegible) 
more  important, — a  quite  new  grouping  of  organic  beings,  which  would 
open  out  new  sources  of  subsistence,  or  (would)  control  (?)  old  ones.  The 
number  would  be  few,  can  old  have  the  very  best  opportunity.  (The  con- 
quest of  the  indigenes  by  introduced  organisms  shows  that  the  indigenes 
were  not  perfectly  adapted,  see  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  390.)  Moreover  as  the 
island  continued  changing, — continued  slow  changes,  river,  marshes,  lakes, 
mountains  &c.  &c.,  new  races  as  successively  formed  and  a  fresh  occasional 
visitant. 

If  island  formed  continent,  some  species  would  emerge  and  immigrate. 
Everyone  admits  continents.  We  can  see  why  Galapagos  and  C.  Verde 
differ  (see  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  398)],  depressed  and  raised.  We  can  see  from 
this  repeated  action  and  the  time  required  for  a  continent,  why  many  more 
forms  than  in  New  Zealand  (see  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  389  for  a  comparison  be- 
tween New  Zealand  and  the  Cape)  no  mammals  or  other  classes  (see  however, 
Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  393  for  the  case  of  the  frog).  We  can  at  once  see  how  it 
comes  when  there  has  been  an  old  channel  of  migration, — Cordilleras ;  we 
can  see  why  Indian  Asiatic  Flora, — [why  species]  having  a  wide  range  gives 
better  chance  of  some  arriving  at  new  points  and  being  selected,  and 
adapted  to  new  ends.  I  need  hardly  remark  no  necessity  for  change. 


AFFINITIES  AND  CLASSIFICATION     35 

§  vii.    (AFFINITIES  AND  CLASSIFICATION.) 

Looking  now  to  the  affinities  of  organisms,  with- 
out relation  to  their  distribution,  and  taking  all 
fossil  and  recent,  we  see  the  degrees  of  relationship 
are  of  different  degrees  and  arbitrary, — sub-genera, 
-genera, — sub-families,  families,  orders  and  classes 
and  kingdoms.  The  kind  of  classification  which 
everyone  feels  is  most  correct  is  called  the  natural 
system,  but  no  can  define  this.  If  we  say  with 
Whewell  (that  we  have  an)  undefined  instinct  of  the 
importance  of  organs1,  we  have  no  means  in  lower 

Finally,  as  continent  (most  extinction  (?)  during  formation  of  continent) 
is  formed  after  repeated  elevation  and  depression,  and  interchange  of  species 
we  might  foretell  much  extinction,  and  that  the  survivor  would  belong  to 
same  type,  as  the  extinct,  in  same  manner  as  different  part  of  same  continent, 
which  were  once  separated  by  space  as  they  are  by  time  (see  Origin,  Ed.  i. 
pp.  339  and  349). 

As  all  mammals  have  descended  from  one  stock,  we  ought  to  expect  that 
every  continent  has  been  at  some  time  connected,  hence  obliteration  of 
present  ranges.  I  do  not  mean  that  the  fossil  mammifers  found  in  S. 
America  are  the  lineal  successors  (ancestors)  of  the  present  forms  of  S. 
America  :  for  it  is  highly  improbable  that  more  than  one  or  two  cases  (who 
will  say  how  many  races  after  Plata  bones)  should  be  found.  I  believe 
this  from  numbers,  who  have  lived, — mere  (?)  chance  of  fewness.  Moreover 
in  every  case  from  very  existence  of  genera  and  species  only  few  at  one  time 
will  leave  progeny,  under  form  of  new  species,  to  distant  ages ;  and  the  more 
distant  the  ages  the  fewer  the  progenitors.  An  observation  may  be  here 
appended,  bad  chance  of  preservation  on  rising  island,  the  nurseries  of  new 
species,  appeal  to  experience  (see  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  292).  This  observation 
may  be  extended,  that  in  all  cases,  subsiding  land  must  be,  in  early  stages, 
less  favourable  to  formation  of  new  species ;  but  it  will  isolate  them,  and 
then  if  land  recommences  rising  how  favourable.  As  preoccupation  is  bar 
to  diffusion  to  species,  so  would  it  be  to  a  selected  variety.  But  it  would 
not  be  if  that  variety  was  better  fitted  to  some  not  fully  occupied  station ; 
so  during  elevation  or  the  formation  of  new  stations,  is  scene  for  new 
species.  But  during  elevation  not  favourable  to  preservation  of  fossil 
(except  in  caverns  (?)) ;  when  subsidence  highly  favourable  in  early  stages  to 
preservation  of  fossils  ;  when  subsidence,  less  sediment.  So  that  our  strata, 
as  general  rule  will  be  the  tomb  of  old  species  (not  undergoing  any  change) 
when  rising  land  the  nursery.  But  if  there  be  vestige  will  generally  be 
preserved  to  future  ages,  the  new  ones  will  not  be  entombed  till  fresh  subsi- 
dence supervenes.  In  this  long  gap  we  shall  have  no  record :  so  that 
wonderful  if  we  should  get  transitional  forms.  I  do  not  mean  every  stage, 
for  we  cannot  expect  that,  as  before  shown,  until  geologists  will  be  prepared 
to  say  that  although  under  unnaturally  favourable  condition  we  can  trace 
in  future  ages  short-horn  and  Herefordshire  (see  note  2,  p.  26). 

1  After  "  organs  "  is  inserted,  apparently  as  an  afterthought : — "  no,  and 
instance  metamorphosis,  afterwards  explicable." 


36    AFFINITIES  AND  CLASSIFICATION 

animals  of  saying  which  is  most  important,  and  yet 
everyone  feels  that  some  one  system  alone  deserves 
to  be  called  natural.  The  true  relationship  of 
organisms  is  brought  before  one  by  considering 
relations  of  analogy,  an  otter-like  animal  amongst 
mammalia  and  an  otter  amongst  marsupials.  In 
such  cases  external  resemblance  and  habit  of  life 
and  the  final  end  of  ivhole  organization  very  strong, 
yet  no  relation1.  Naturalists  cannot  avoid  these 
terms  of  relation  and  affinity  though  they  use  them 
metaphorically.  If  used  in  simple  earnestness  the 
natural  system  ought  to  be  a  genealogical  (one); 
and  our  knowledge  of  the  points  which  are  most 
easily  affected  in  transmission  are  those  which  we 
least  value  in  considering  the  natural  system,  and 
practically  when  we  find  they  do  vary  we  regard 
them  of  less  value2.  In  classifying  varieties  the 
same  language  is  used  and  the  same  kind  of 
division :  here  also  (in  pine-apple)3  we  talk  of  the 
natural  classification,  overlooking  similarity  of  the 
fruits,  because  whole  plant  differs.  The  origin  of 
sub-genera,  genera,  &c.,  &c.,  is  not  difficult  on  notion 
of  genealogical  succession,  and  accords  with  what  we 
know  of  similar  gradations  of  affinity  in  domesticated 
organisms.  In  the  same  region  the  organic  beings 
are  (illegible)  related  to  each  other  and  the  external 
conditions  in  many  physical  respects  are  allied4 
and  their  differences  of  same  kind,  and  therefore 
when  a  new  species  has  been  selected  and  has 
obtained  a  place  in  the  economy  of  nature,  we 

1  For  analogical  resemblances  see  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  427,  vi.  p.  582. 

2  "  Practically  when  naturalists  are  at  work,  they  do  not  trouble  them- 
selves about  the  physiological  value  of  the  characters.... If  they  find  a 
character  nearly  uniform,... they  use  it  as  one  of  high  value,"  Origin,  Ed.  i. 
p.  417,  vi.  p.  573. 

3  "We  are  cautioned... not  to  class  two  varieties  of  the  pine-apple 
together,  merely  because  their  fruit,  though  the  most   important  part, 
happens  to  be  nearly  identical,"  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  423,  vi.  p.  579. 

4  The  whole  of  this  passage  is  obscure,  but  the  text  is  quite  clear,  except 
for  one  illegible  word. 


AFFINITIES  AND  CLASSIFICATION     37 

may  suppose  that  generally  it  will  tend  to  extend 
its  range  during  geographical  changes,  and  thus, 
becoming  isolated  and  exposed  to  new  conditions, 
will  slightly  alter  and  its  structure  by  selection  be- 
come slightly  remodified,  thus  we  should  get  species 
of  a  sub-genus  and  genus, — as  varieties  of  merino- 
sheep, — varieties  of  British  and  Indian  cattle.  Fresh 
species  might  go  on  forming  and  others  become  ex- 
tinct and  all  might  become  extinct,  and  then  we 
should  have  (an)  extinct  genus;  a  case  formerly 
mentioned,  of  which  numerous  cases  occur  in  Palae- 
ontology. But  more  often  the  same  advantages 
which  caused  the  new  species  to  spread  and  become 
modified  into  several  species  would  favour  some  of 
the  species  being  preserved :  and  if  two  of  the 
species,  considerably  different,  each  gave  rise  to 
group  of  new  species,  you  would  have  two  genera ; 
the  same  thing  will  go  on.  We  may  look  at  case  in 
other  way,  looking  to  future.  According  to  mere 
chance  every  existing  species  may  generate  another, 
but  if  any  species,  A,  in  changing  gets  an  advantage 
and  that  advantage  (whatever  it  may  be,  intellect, 
&c.,  &c.,  or  some  particular  structure  or  constitution) 
is  inherited1,  A  will  be  the  progenitor  of  several 
genera  or  even  families  in  the  hard  struggle  of 
nature.  A  will  go  on  beating  out  other  forms, 
it  might  come  that  A  would  people  earth, — we  may 
now  not  have  one  descendant  on  our  globe  of  the 
one  or  several  original  creations2.  External  con- 
ditions air,  earth,  water  being  same3  on  globe,  and 
the  communication  not  being  perfect,  organisms  of 
widely  different  descent  might  become  adapted  to 

1  (The  exact  position  of  the  following  passage  is  uncertain :)  "just  as  it  is 
not  likely  every  present  breed  of  fancy  birds  and  cattle  will  propagate,  only 
some  of  the  best." 

2  This  suggests  that  the  author  was  not  far  from  the  principle  of  diver- 
gence on  which  he  afterwards  laid  so  much  stress.     See  Origin,  Ed.  i. 
p.  Ill,  vi.  p.  134,  also  Life  and  Letters,  i.  p.  84. 

3  That  is  to  say  the  same  conditions  occurring  in  different  parts  of 
the  globe. 


38  UNITY  OF  TYPE 

the  same  end  and  then  we  should  have  cases  of 
analogy1,  [they  might  even  tend  to  become  numeri- 
cally representative].  From  this  often  happening 
each  of  the  great  divisions  of  nature  would  have 
their  representative  eminently  adapted  to  earth,  to 
(air)2,  to  water,  and  to  these  in  (illegible)  and  then 
these  great  divisions  would  show  numerical  relations 
in  their  classification. 


§  vm.    UNITY  [OR  SIMILARITY]  OF  TYPE  IN  THE 

GREAT   CLASSES. 

Nothing  more  wonderful  in  Nat.  Hist,  than  look- 
ing at  the  vast  number  of  organisms,  recent  and 
fossil,  exposed  to  the  most  diverse  conditions,  living 
in  the  most  distant  climes,  and  at  immensely  remote 
periods,  fitted  to  wholely  different  ends,  yet  to  find 
large  groups  united  by  a  similar  type  of  structure. 
When  we  for  instance  see  bat,  horse,  porpoise-fin, 
hand,  all  built  on  same  structure3,  having  bones4  with 
same  name,  we  see  there  is  some  deep  bond  of  union 
between  them5,  to  illustrate  this  is  the  foundation  and 
objects  (?)  (of)  what  is  called  the  Natural  System; 
and  which  is  foundation  of  distinction  (?)  of  true  and 
adaptive  characters6.  Now  this  wonderful  fact  of 
hand,  hoof,  wing,  paddle  and  claw  being  the  same,  is 
at  once  explicable  on  the  principle  of  some  parent- 
forms,  which  might  either  be  (illegible)  or  walking 
animals,  becoming  through  infinite  number  of  small 

1  The  position  of  the  following  is  uncertain,  "  greyhound  and  racehorse 
have  an  analogy  to  each  other."   The  same  comparison  occurs  in  the  Origin, 
Ed.  i.  p.  427,  vi.  p.  583. 

2  Air  is  evidently  intended;  in  the  MS.  water  is  written  twice. 

3  Written  between   the  lines  occurs :—"  extend  to  birds    and  other 
classes." 

4  Written  between  the  lines  occurs: — "many  bones  merely  represented." 

5  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  434,  vi.  p.  595,  the  term  morphology  is  taken 
as  including  unity  of  type.    The  paddle  of  the  porpoise  and  the  wing  of 
the  bat  are  there  used  as  instances  of  morphological  resemblance. 

c  The  sentence  is  difficult  to  decipher. 


MORPHOLOGY  39 

selections  adapted  to  various  conditions.  We  know 
that  proportion,  size,  shape  of  bones  and  their  accom- 
panying soft  parts  vary,  and  hence  constant  selection 
would  alter,  to  almost  any  purpose  (?)  the  framework 
of  an  organism,  but  yet  would  leave  a  general,  even 
closest  similarity  in  it. 

[We  know  the  number  of  similar  parts,  as  verte- 
brse  and  ribs  can  vary,  hence  this  also  we  might 
expect.]  Also  (if)  the  changes  carried  on  to  a  certain 
point,  doubtless  type  will  be  lost,  and  this  is  case 
with  Plesiosaurus1.  The  unity  of  type  in  past  and 
present  ages  of  certain  great  divisions  thus  un- 
doubtedly receives  the  simplest  explanation. 

There  is  another  class  of  allied  and  almost 
identical  facts,  admitted  by  the  soberest  physio- 
logists, [from  the  study  of  a  certain  set  of  organs  in 
a  group  of  organisms]  and  refers  (?  referring)  to  a 
unity  of  type  of  different  organs  in  the  same  in- 
dividual, denominated  the  science  of  "  Morphology." 
The  (?  this)  discovered  by  beautiful  and  regular 
series,  and  in  the  case  of  plants  from  monstrous 
changes,  that  certain  organs  in  an  individual  are 
other  organs  metamorphosed.  Thus  every  botanist 
considers  petals,  nectaries,  stamens,  pistils,  germeii 
as  metamorphosed  leaf.  They  thus  explain,  in 
the  most  lucid  manner,  the  position  and  number 
of  all  parts  of  the  flower,  and  the  curious  conversion 
under  cultivation  of  one  part  into  another.  The 
complicated  double  set  of  jaws  and  palpi  of  crusta- 
ceans2, and  all  insects  are  considered  as  metamor- 
phosed (limbs)  and  to  see  the  series  is  to  admit  this 
phraseology.  The  skulls  of  the  vertebrates  are  un- 
doubtedly composed  of  three  metamorphosed  verte- 
brae; thus  we  can  understand  the  strange  form  of 

1  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  436,  vi.  p.  598,  the  author  speaks  of  the 
"  general  pattern  "  being  obscured  in  the  paddles  of  "  extinct  gigantic  sea- 
lizards." 

a  See  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  437,  vi.  p.  599. 


40  MORPHOLOGY  AND 

the  separate  bones  which  compose  the  casket  holding 
man's  brain.  These1  facts  differ  but  slightly  from 
those  of  last  section,  if  with  wing,  paddle,  hand  and 
hoof,  some  common  structure  was  yet  visible,  or 
could  be  made  out  by  a  series  of  occasional  mon- 
strous conversions,  and  if  traces  could  be  discovered 
of  (the)  whole  having  once  existed  as  walking  or 
swimming  instruments,  these  organs  would  be  said 
to  be  metamorphosed,  as  it  is  they  are  only  said  to 
exhibit  a  common  type. 

This  distinction  is  not  drawn  by  physiologists,  and 
is  only  implied  by  some  by  their  general  manner  of 
writing.  These  facts,  though  affecting  every  organic 
being  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  which  has  existed,  or 
does  exist,  can  only  be  viewed  by  the  Creationist  as 
ultimate  and  inexplicable  facts.  But  this  unity  of 
type  through  the  individuals  of  a  group,  and  this 
metamorphosis  of  the  same  organ  into  other  organs, 
adapted  to  diverse  use,  necessarily  follows  on  the 
theory  of  descent2.  For  let  us  take  case  of 
Vertebrata,  which  if3  they  descended  from  one 
parent  and  by  this  theory  all  the  Vertebrata  have 
been  altered  by  slow  degrees,  such  as  we  see  in 
domestic  animals.  We  know  that  proportions  alter, 
and  even  that  occasionally  numbers  of  vertebrae 
alter,  that  parts  become  soldered,  that  parts  are 
lost,  as  tail  and  toes,  but  we  know  (that  ?}  here  we 
can  see  that  possibly  a  walking  organ  might  (?)  be 
converted  into  swimming  or  into  a  gliding  organ 
and  so  on  to  a  flying  organ.  But  such  gradual 
changes  would  not  alter  the  unity  of  type  in  their 
descendants,  as  parts  lost  and  soldered  and  vertebrae. 

1  The  following  passage  seems  to  have  been  meant  to  precede  the 
sentence  beginning  "  These  facts "  : — "  It  is  evident,  that  when  in  each 
individual  species,  organs  are  metamorph.  a  unity  of  type  extends." 

2  This  is,  I  believe,  the  first  place  in  which  the  author  uses  the  words 
"  theory  of  descent." 

3  The  sentence  should  probably  run,  "Let  us  take  the  case  of  the  verte- 
brata :  if  we  assume  them  to  be  descended  from  one  parent,  then  by  this 
theory  they  have  been  altered  &c." 


THEORY  OF  DESCENT  41 

But  we  can  see  that  if  this  carried  to  extreme,  unity 
lost, — Plesiosaurus.  Here  we  have  seen  the  same 
organ  is  formed  (?)  (for)  different  purposes  (ten  words 
illegible) :  and  if,  in  several  orders  of  vertebrata,  we 
could  trace  origin  (of)  spinous  processes  and  mon- 
strosities &c.  we  should  say,  instead  of  there 
existing  a  unity  of  type,  morphology1,  as  we  do 
when  we  trace  the  head  as  being  the  vertebrse 
metamorphosed.  Be  it  observed  that  Naturalists, 
as  they  use  terms  of  affinity  without  attaching  real 
meaning,  here  also  they  are  obliged  to  use  meta- 
morphosis, without  meaning  that  any  parent  of 
crustacean  was  really  an  animal  with  as  many  legs 
as  crustacean  has  jaws.  The  theory  of  descent 
at  once  explains  these  wonderful  facts. 

Now  few  of  the  physiologists  who  use  this 
language  really  suppose  that  the  parent  of  insect 
with  the  metamorphosed  jaw,  was  an  insect  with 
[more]  so  many  legs,  or  that  the  parent  of  flowering 
plants,  originally  had  no  stamens,  or  pistils  or 
petals,  but  some  other  means  of  propagation, — and 
so  in  other  cases.  Now  according  to  our  theory 
during  the  infinite  number  of  changes,  we  might 
expect  that  an  organ  used  for  a  purpose  might  be 
used  for  a  different  one  by  his  descendant,  as  must 
have  been  the  case  by  our  theory  with  the  bat, 
porpoise,  horse,  &c.,  which  are  descended  from  one 
parent.  And  if  it  so  chanced  that  traces  of  the 
former  use  and  structure  of  the  part  should  be 
retained,  which  is  manifestly  possible  if  not  pro- 
bable, then  we  should  have  the  organs,  on  which 
morphology  is  founded  and  which  instead  of  being 
metaphorical  becomes  plain  and  (and  instead  of 
being)  utterly  unintelligible  becomes  simple  matter 
of  fact2. 

1  That  is  "  we  should  call  it  a  morphological  fact." 

2  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  438,  vi.  p.  602,  the  author,  referring  to  the 
expressions  used  by  naturalists  in  regard  to  morphology  and  metamorphosis, 
says  "  On  my  view  these  terms  may  be  used  literally." 


42  EMBRYOLOGY 

(Embryology.)  This  general  unity  of  type  in 
great  groups  of  organisms  (including  of  course  these 
morphological  cases)  displays  itself  in  a  most  striking 
manner  in  the  stages  through  which  the  foetus 
passes  \  In  early  stage,  the  wing  of  bat,  hoof,  hand, 
paddle  are  not  to  be  distinguished.  At  a  still  earlier 
(stage)  there  is  no  difference  between  fish,  bird, 
&c.  &c.  and  mammal.  It  is  not  that  they  cannot 
be  distinguished,  but  the  arteries 2  (illegible).  It  is 
not  true  that  one  passes  through  the  form  of  a  lower 
group,  though  no  doubt  fish  more  nearly  related  to 
foetal  state3. 

This  similarity  at  the  earliest  stage  is  remark- 
ably shown  in  the  course  of  the  arteries  which 
become  greatly  altered,  as  foetus  advances  in  life 
and  assumes  the  widely  different  course  and  number 
which  characterize  full-grown  fish  and  mammals. 
How  wonderful  that  in  egg,  in  water  or  air,  or  in 
womb  of  mother,  artery 4  should  run  in  same  course. 

Light  can  be  thrown  on  this  by  our  theory.  The 
structure  of  each  organism  is  chiefly  adapted  to  the 
sustension  of  its  life,  when  full-grown,  when  it  has 
to  feed  itself  and  propagate 5.  The  structure  of  a 
kitten  is  quite  in  secondary  degree  adapted  to  its 
habits,  whilst  fed  by  its  mother's  milk  and  prey. 
Hence  variation  in  the  structure  of  the  full-grown 
species  will  chiefly  determine  the  preservation  of  a 

1  See  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  439,  vi.  p.  605. 

2  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  440,  vi.  p.  606,  the  author  argues  that  the 
"loop-like    course    of   the  arteries"  in   the  vertebrate  embryo  has  no 
direct  relation  to  the  conditions  of  existence. 

3  The  following  passages  are  written   across  the  page :— "  They  pass 
through  the  same  phases,  but  some,  generally  called  the  higher  groups,  are 
further  metamorphosed. 

?  Degradation  and  complication  ?  no  tendency  to  perfection. 
?  Justly  argued  against  Lamarck  ? " 

4  An  almost  identical  passage  occurs  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  440,  vi. 
p.  606. 

5  The  following:   "Deaths  of  brothers  (when)  old  by  same  peculiar 
disease "  which  is  written  between  the  lines  seems  to  have  been  a  memo- 
randum which  is  expanded  a  few  lines  lower.     I  believe  the  case  of  the 
brothers  came  from  Dr  R.  W.  Darwin. 


EMBRYOLOGY  43 

species  now  become  ill-suited  to  its  habitat,  or  rather 
with  a  better  place  opened  to  it  in  the  economy  of 
Nature.  It  would  not  matter  to  the  full-grown  cat 
whether  in  its  young  state  it  was  more  or  less 
eminently  feline,  so  that  it  become  so  when  full- 
grown.  No  doubt  most  variation,  (not  depending 
on  habits  of  life  of  individual)  depends  on  early 
change l  and  we  must  suspect  that  at  whatever  time 
of  life  the  alteration  of  fetus  is  effected,  it  tends 
to  appear  at  same  period.  When  we  (see)  a  ten- 
dency to  particular  disease  in  old  age  transmitted 
by  the  male,  we  know  some  effect  is  produced 
during  conception,  on  the  simple  cell  of  ovule, 
which  will  not  produce  its  effect  till  half  a  century 
afterwards  and  that  effect  is  not  visible2.  So  we 
see  in  grey-hound,  bull-dog,  in  race-horse  and  cart- 
horse, which  have  been  selected  for  their  form  in 
full-life,  there  is  much  less  (?)  difference  in  the  few 
first  days  after  birth 3,  than  when  full-grown :  so  in 
cattle,  we  see  it  clearly  in  cases  of  cattle,  which 
differ  obviously  in  shape  and  length  of  horns.  If 
man  were  during  10,000  years  to  be  able  to  select, 
far  more  diverse  animals  from  horse  or  cow,  I 
should  expect  there  would  be  far  less  differences  in 
the  very  young  and  foetal  state :  and  this,  I  think, 
throws  light  on  above  marvellous  fact.  In  larvae, 
which  have  long  life  selection,  perhaps,  does 
much, — in  the  pupa  not  so  much4.  There  is  no 

1  See  the  discussion  to  this  effect  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  443-4,  vi.  p. 
610.    The  author  there  makes  the  distinction  between  a  cause  affecting  the 
germ-cell  and  the  reaction  occurring  at  a  late  period  of  life. 

2  Possibly  the  sentence  was  meant  to  end  "  is  not  visible  till  then." 

3  See  Origin,  Ed.  i.  pp.  444-5,  vi.  p.  611.     The  query  appended  to  much 
less  is  justified,  since  measurement  was  necessary  to  prove  that  the  grey- 
hound and  bulldog  puppies  had  not  neai'ly  acquired  "  their  full  amount  of 
proportional  difference." 

4  (The  following  discussion,  from  the  back  of  the  page,  is  in  large  measure 
the  same  as  the  text.)   I  think  light  can  be  thrown  on  these  facts.   From  the 
following  peculiarities  being  hereditary,  [we  know  that  some  change  in  the 
germinal  vesicle  is  effected,  which  will  only  betray  itself  years  after]  diseases 
—man,  goitre,  gout,  baldness,  fatness,  size,  [longevity  (illegible)  time  of 


44  EMBRYOLOGY 

object  gained  in  varying  form  &c.  of  foetus  (beyond 
certain  adaptations  to  mother's  womb)  and  there- 
fore selection  will  not  further  act  on  it,  than  in 
giving  to  its  changing  tissues  a  tendency  to  certain 
parts  afterwards  to  assume  certain  forms. 

Thus  there  is  no  power  to  change  the  course  of 

reproduction,  shape  of  horns,  case  of  old  brothers  dying  of  same  disease]. 
And  we  know  that  the  germinal  vesicle  must  have  been  affected,  though  no 
effect  is  apparent  or  can  be  apparent  till  years  afterwards, — no  more 
apparent  than  when  these  peculiarities  appear  by  the  exposure  of  the  full- 
grown  individual.  (That  is,  "  the  young  individual  is  as  apparently  free  from 
the  hereditary  changes  which  will  appear  later,  as  the  young  is  actually  free 
from  the  changes  produced  by  exposure  to  certain  conditions  in  adult  life.") 
So  that  when  we  see  a  variety  in  cattle,  even  if  the  variety  be  due  to  act  of 
reproduction,  we  cannot  feel  sure  at  what  period  this  change  became 
apparent.  It  may  have  been  effected  during  early  age  of  free  life  (or)  fetal 
existence,  as  monsters  show.  From  arguments  before  used,  and  crossing, 
we  may  generally  suspect  in  germ  ;  but  I  repeat  it  does  not  follow,  that  the 
change  should  be  apparent  till  life  fully  developed  ;  any  more  than  fatness 
depending  on  heredity  should  be  apparent  during  early  childhood,  still 
less  during  fetal  existence.  In  case  of  horns  of  cattle,  which  when  inherited 
must  depend  on  germinal  vesicle,  obviously  no  effect  till  cattle  full-grown. 
Practically  it  would  appear  that  the  [hereditary]  peculiarities  characterising 
our  domestic  races,  therefore  resulting  from  vesicle,  do  not  appear  with 
their  full  characters  in  very  early  states  ;  thus  though  two  breeds  of  cows 
have  calves  different,  they  are  not  so  different, — grey-hound  and  bull-dog. 
And  this  is  what  is  (to)  be  expected,  for  man  is  indifferent  to  characters  of 
young  animals  and  hence  would  select  those  full-grown  animals  which 
possessed  the  desirable  characteristics.  So  that  from  mere  chance  we 
might  expect  that  some  of  the  characters  would  be  such  only  as  became 
fully  apparent  in  mature  life.  Furthermore  we  may  suspect  it  to  be  a  law, 
that  at  whatever  time  a  new  character  appears,  whether  from  vesicle,  or 
effects  of  external  conditions,  it  would  appear  at  corresponding  time 
(see  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  444).  Thus  diseases  appearing  in  old  age  produce 
children  with  d°.,— early  maturity, — longevity, — old  men,  brothers,  of 
same  disease — young  children  of  d°.  I  said  men  do  not  select  for 
quality  of  young, — calf  with  big  bullocks.  Silk-worms,  peculiarities  which, 
appear  in  caterpillar  state  or  cocoon  state,  are  transmitted  to  corre- 
sponding states.  The  effect  of  this  would  be  that  if  some  peculiarity  was 
bora  in  a  young  animal,  but  never  exercised,  it  might  be  inherited  in  young 
animal ;  but  if  exercised  that  part  of  structure  would  be  increased  and 
would  be  inherited  in  corresponding  time  of  life  after  such  training. 

I  have  said  that  man  selects  in  full-life,  so  would  it  be  in  Nature.  In 
struggle  of  existence,  it  matters  nothing  to  a  feline  animal,  whether  kitten 
eminently  feline,  as  long  as  it  sucks.  Therefore  natural  selection  would  act 
equally  well  on  character  which  was  fully  (developed)  only  in  full  age. 
Selection  could  tend  to  alter  no  character  in  foetus,  (except  relation  to 
mother)  it  would  alter  less  in  young  state  (putting  on  one  side  larva  condition) 
but  alter  every  part  in  full-grown  condition.  Look  to  a  fetus  and  its  parent, 
and  again  after  ages  fetus  and  its  (i.e.  the  above  mentioned  parents) 
descendant ;  the  parent  more  variable  (?)  than  fetus,  which  explains  all. 


RUDIMENTARY  ORGANS  45 

the  arteries,  as  long  as  they  nourish  the  foetus;  it 
is  the  selection  of  slight  changes  which  supervene  at 
any  time  during  (illegible)  of  life. 

The  less  differences  of  foetus, — this  has  obvious 
meaning  on  this  view :  otherwise  how  strange  that  a 
[monkey]  horse,  a  man,  a  bat  should  at  one  time  of 
life  have  arteries,  running  in  a  manner,  which  is  only 
intelligibly  useful  in  a  fish !  The  natural  system 
being  on  theory  genealogical,  we  can  at  once  see, 
why  foetus,  retaining  traces  of  the  ancestral  form, 
is  of  the  highest  value  in  classification. 


§  ix.    (ABORTIVE  ORGANS.) 

There  is  another  grand  class  of  facts  relating  to 
what  are  called  abortive  organs.  These  consist  of 
organs  which  the  same  reasoning  power  that  shows 
us  how  beautifully  these  organs  in  some  cases  are 
adapted  to  certain  end,  declares  in  other  cases 
are  absolutely  useless.  Thus  teeth  in  Rhinoceros1, 
whale,  narwhal, — bone  on  tibia,  muscles  which  do  not 
move, — little  bone  of  wing  of  Apteryx, — bone  repre- 
senting extremities  in  some  snake, — little  wings 
within  (?)  soldered  cover  of  beetles, — men  and 
bulls,  mammae :  filaments  without  anthers  in  plants, 
mere  scales  representing  petals  in  others,  in  feather- 
hyacinth  whole  flower.  Almost  infinitely  numerous. 
No  one  can  reflect  on  these  without  astonishment, 
can  anything  be  clearer  than  that  wings  are  to  fly 
and  teeth  (to  bite),  and  yet  we  find  these  organs 
perfect  in  every  detail  in  situations  where  they 
cannot  possibly  be  of  their  normal  use2. 

The  term  abortive  organ  has  been  thus  applied 

1  Some  of  these  examples  occur  in   Origin,   Ed.   i.   pp.   450-51,  vi. 
pp.  619-20. 

2  The  two  following  sentences  are  written,  one  down  the  margin,  the 
other  across  the  page.     "  Abortive  organs  eminently  useful  in  classification. 
Embryonic  state  of  organs.     Rudiments  of  organs." 


46  RUDIMENTARY  ORGANS 

to  above  structure  (as  invariable  as  all  other  parts1) 
from  their  absolute  similarity  to  monstrous  cases, 
where  from  accident,  certain  organs  are  not  de- 
veloped; as  infant  without  arms  or  fingers  with 
mere  stump  representing  them:  teeth  represented 
by  mere  points  of  ossification:  headless  children 
with  mere  button, — viscera  represented  by  small 
amorphous  masses,  &c., — the  tail  by  mere  stump,- 
a  solid  horn  by  minute  hanging  one2.  There  is  a 
tendency  in  all  these  cases,  when  life  is  preserved, 
for  such  structures  to  become  hereditary.  We  see 
it  in  tailless  dogs  and  cats.  In  plants  we  see  this 
strikingly, — in  Thyme,  in  Linuinflavum, — stamen  in 
Geranium pyrenaicwm?.  Nectaries  abort  into  petals 
in  Columbine  (Aquilegia],  produced  from  some  acci- 
dent and  then  become  hereditary,  in  some  cases 
only  when  propagated  by  buds,  in  other  cases  by 
seed.  These  cases  have  been  produced  suddenly 
by  accident  in  early  growth,  but  it  is  part  of  law  of 
growth  that  when  any  organ  is  not  used  it  tends  to 
diminish  (duck's  wing4  ?)  muscles  of  dog's  ears,  (and 
of)  rabbits,  muscles  wither,  arteries  grow  up.  When 
eye  born  defective,  optic  nerve  (Tuco  Tuco)  is  atro- 
phied. As  every  part  whether  useful  or  not  (diseases, 
double  flowers)  tends  to  be  transmitted  to  offspring, 
the  origin  of  abortive  organs  whether  produced  at 
the  birth  or  slowly  acquired  is  easily  understood  in 
domestic  races  of  organisms:  [a  struggle  between 
the  atrophy  and  hereditariness.  Abortive  organs 
in  domestic  races.]  There  will  always  be  a  struggle 
between  atrophy  of  an  organ  rendered  useless,  and 

1  I  imagine  the  meaning  to  be  that  abortive  organs  are  specific  characters 
in  contrast  to  monstrosities. 

2  Minute  hanging  horns  are  mentioned  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  454,  vi.  p. 
625,  as  occurring  in  hornless  breeds  of  cattle. 

3  Linum  flacum  is  dimorphic :  thyme  gynodisecious.     It  is  not  clear 
what  point  is  referred  to  under  Geranium  pyrenaicum. 

4  The  author's  work  on  duck's  wings  &c.  is  in  Var.  under  Dom.,  Ed.  2, 
i.  p.  299. 


RUDIMENTARY  ORGANS  47 

hereditariness1.  Because  we  can  understand  the 
origin  of  abortive  organs  in  certain  cases,  it  would 
be  wrong  to  conclude  absolutely  that  all  must  have 
had  same  origin,  but  the  strongest  analogy  is  in 
favour  of  it.  And  we  can  by  our  theory,  for  during 
infinite  changes  some  organ,  we  might  have  anti- 
cipated, would  have  become  useless.  (We  can) 
readily  explain  the  fact,  so  astounding  on  any  other 
view,  namely  that  organs  possibly  useless  have  been 
formed  often  with  the  same  exquisite  care  as  when 
of  vital  importance. 

Our  theory,  I  may  remark  would  permit  an  organ 
(to)  become  abortive  with  respect  to  its  primary  use, 
to  be  turned  to  any  other  purpose,  (as  the  buds  in 
a  cauliflower)  thus  we  can  see  no  difficulty  in  bones 
of  male  marsupials  being  used  as  fulcrum  of  muscles, 
or  style  of  marygold2, — indeed  in  one  point  of  view, 
the  heads  of  [vertebrated]  animal  may  be  said  to  be 
abortive  vertebrae  turned  into  other  use:  legs  of 
some  Crustacea  abortive  jaws,  &c.,  &c.  De  Candolle's 
analogy  of  table  covered  with  dishes3. 

(The  following  passage  was  possibly  intended  to 
be  inserted  here.)  Degradation  and  complication  see 
Lamarck:  no  tendency  to  perfection:  if  room, 
[even]  high  organism  would  have  greater  power  in 
beating  lower  one,  thought  (?)  to  be  selected  for 
a  degraded  end. 


1  The  words  vis  medicatrix  are  inserted  after  "  useless,"  apparently  as  a 
memorandum. 

2  In  the  male  florets  of  certain  Composites  the  style  functions  merely  as 
a  piston  for  forcing  out  the  pollen. 

3  (On  the  back  of  the  page  is  the  following.)    If  abortive  organs  are  a 
trace  preserved  by  hereditary  tendency,  of  organ  in  ancestor  of  use,  we  can 
at  once  see  why  important  in  natural  classification,  also  why  more  plain  in 
young  animal  because,  as  in  last  section,  the  selection  has  altered  the  old 
animal  most.     I  repeat,  these  wondrous  facts,  of  parts  created  for  no  use  in 
past  and  present  time,  all  can  by  my  theory  receive  simple  explanation  ;  or 
they  receive  none  and  we  must  be  content  with  some  such  empty  metaphor, 
as  that  of  De  Candolle,  who  compares  creation  to  a  well  covered  table,  and 
says  abortive  organs  may  be  compared  to  the  dishes  (some  should  be  empty) 
placed  symmetrically ! 


48  RECAPITULATION 


§  x.     RECAPITULATION  AND  CONCLUSION. 

Let  us  recapitulate  the  whole  (?)  (of)  these  latter 
sections  by  taking  case  of  the  three  species  of 
Rhinoceros,  which  inhabit  Java,  Sumatra,  and  main- 
land of  Malacca  or  India.  We  find  these  three  close 
neighbours,  occupants  of  distinct  but  neighbouring 
districts,  as  a  group  having  a  different  aspect  from 
the  Rhinoceros  of  Africa,  though  some  of  these 
latter  inhabit  very  similar  countries,  but  others 
most  diverse  stations.  We  find  them  intimately 
related  [scarcely  (?)  differences  more  than  some 
breeds  of  cattle]  in  structure  to  the  Rhinoceros, 
which  for  immense  periods  have  inhabited  this  one, 
out  of  three  main  zoological  divisions  of  the  world. 
Yet  some  of  these  ancient  animals  were  fitted  to 
very  different  stations:  we  find  all  three  (illegible) 
of  the  generic  character  of  the  Rhinoceros,  which 
form  a  [piece  of  net]1  set  of  links  in  the  broken  chain 
representing  the  Pachydermata,  as  the  chain  like- 
wise forms  a  portion  in  other  and  longer  chains. 
We  see  this  wonderfully  in  dissecting  the  coarse  leg 
of  all  three  and  finding  nearly  the  same  bones  as  in 
bat's  wings  or  man's  hand,  but  we  see  the  clear 
mark  in  solid  tibia  of  the  fusion  into  it  of  the  fibula. 
In  all  three  we  find  their  heads  composed  of  three 
altered  vertebrae,  short  neck,  same  bones  as  giraffe. 
In  the  upper  jaws  of  all  three  we  find  small  teeth 
like  rabbit's.  In  dissecting  them  in  foetal  state  we 
find  at  a  not  very  early  stage  their  form  exactly 
alike  the  most  different  animals,  and  even  with 
arteries  running  as  in  a  fish:  and  this  similarity 
holds  when  the  young  one  is  produced  in  womb, 
pond,  egg  or  spawn.  Now  these  three  undoubted 
species  scarcely  differ  more  than  breeds  of  cattle, 

1  The  author  doubtless  meant  that  the  complex  relationships  between 
organisms  can  be  roughly  represented  by  a  net  in  which  the  knots  stand 
for  species. 


RECAPITULATION  49 

are  probably  subject  to  many  the  same  contagious 
diseases;  if  domesticated  these  forms  would  vary, 
and  they  might  possibly  breed  together,  and  fuse 
into  something1  different  (from)  their  aboriginal 
forms;  might  be  selected  to  serve  different  ends. 

Now  the  Creationist  believes  these  three  Rhi- 
noceroses were  created 2  with  their  deceptive 
appearance  of  true,  not  (illegible)  relationship ; 
as  well  can  I  believe  the  planets  revolve  in  their 
present  courses  not  from  one  law  of  gravity  but 
from  distinct  volition  of  Creator. 

If  real  species,  sterile  one  with  another,  differ- 
ently adapted,  now  inhabiting  different  countries, 
with  different  structures  and  instincts,  are  ad- 
mitted to  have  common  descent,  we  can  only 
legitimately  stop  where  our  facts  stop.  Look  how 
far  in  some  case  a  chain  of  species  will  lead  us. 
(This  probably  refers  to  the  Crustacea,  where  the 
two  ends  of  the  series  have  "  hardly  a  character  in 
common."  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  419.)  May  we  not  jump 
(considering  how  much  extermination,  and  how  im- 
perfect geological  records)  from  one  sub-genus  to 
another  sub-genus.  Can  genera  restrain  us ;  many 
of  the  same  arguments,  which  made  us  give  up 
species,  inexorably  demand  genera  and  families  and 
orders  to  fall,  and  classes  tottering.  We  ought  to 
stop  only  when  clear  unity  of  type,  independent  of 
use  and  adaptation,  ceases. 

Be  it  remembered  no  naturalist  pretends  to  give 
test  from  external  characters  of  species;  in  many 
genera  the  distinction  is  quite  arbitrary3.  But 
there  remains  one  other  way  of  comparing  species 

1  Between  the  lines  occurs  : — "  one  (?)  form  be  lost." 

2  The  original  sentence  is  here  broken  up  by  the  insertion  of: — "out  of 
the  dust  of  Java,  Sumatra,  these  (?)  allied  to  past  and  present  age  and 
(illegible),  with  the  stamp  of  inutility  in  some  of  their  organs  and  conversion 
in  others." 

3  Between  the  lines  occur  the  words  : — "  Species  vary  according  to  same 
general  laws  as  varieties  ;  they  cross  according  to  same  laws." 


D. 


50  CONCLUSION 

with  races;  it  is  to  compare  the  effects  of  crossing 
them.  Would  it  not  be  wonderful,  if  the  union  of 
two  organisms,  produced  by  two  separate  acts  of 
Creation,  blended  their  characters  together  when 
crossed  according  to  the  same  rules,  as  two  races 
which  have  undoubtedly  descended  from  same 
parent  stock;  yet  this  can  be  shown  to  be  the 
case.  For  sterility,  though  a  usual  {?),  is  not  an 
invariable  concomitant,  it  varies  much  in  degree 
and  has  been  shown  to  be  probably  dependent  on 
causes  closely  analogous  with  those  which  make 
domesticated  organisms  sterile.  Independent  of 
sterility  there  is  no  difference  between  mongrels 
and  hybrids,  as  can  be  shown  in  a  long  series  of 
facts.  It  is  strikingly  seen  in  cases  of  instincts, 
when  the  minds  of  the  two  species  or  races  become 
blended  together1.  In  both  cases  if  the  half-breed 
be  crossed  with  either  parent  for  a  few  generations, 
all  traces  of  the  one  parent  form  is  lost  (as  Kolreuter 
in  two  tobacco  species  almost  sterile  together),  so 
that  the  Creationist  in  the  case  of  a  species,  must 
believe  that  one  act  of  creation  is  absorbed  into 
another ! 

CONCLUSION. 

Such  are  my  reasons  for  believing  that  specific 
forms  are  not  immutable.  The  affinity  of  different 
groups,  the  unity  of  types  of  structure,  the  repre- 
sentative forms  through  which  foetus  passes,  the 
metamorphosis  of  organs,  the  abortion  of  others 
cease  to  be  metaphorical  expressions  and  become 
intelligible  facts.  We  no  longer  look  (an)  on  animal 
as  a  savage  does  at  a  ship2,  or  other  great  work  of 
art,  as  a  thing  wholly  beyond  comprehension,  but  we 

1  "  A  cross  with  a  bull-dog  has  affected  for  many  generations  the  courage 
and  obstinacy  of  greyhounds,"  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  214,  vi.  p.  327. 

2  The  simile  of  the  savage  and  the  ship  occurs  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i. 
p.  485,  vi.  p.  665. 


p 

•V,     •"( 

- 

1    ff 
A    fcj          Q 

"""^               L  ' 

v\ 

*J 

' 

I 

• 
o 

•• 

o 

• 

> 

>    t     -    ! 

1 

Nj>                 4 

t                T^. 

•-       .                                         4           v        <jJ 

j                                      > 
'         ^J  *si 

7^  v1 

j  ll^J 

N     W  -4 

J                          \ 

& 

?  V    "^.f  'K    ^ 

:1^>1 

^   <S                                            ^ 
<>       K 

•W            -i. 

£3 
- 
< 

1                                                               V 

s 

4    i 

3 


C 
O 

JG 

o. 
« 

bb 

rt 

a 
D, 

(LI 


IH 
U 

01 

C 

6 

^- 

rt 
C 

O 

1) 


en 
u 

rt 


CONCLUSION  51 

feel  far  more  interest  in  examining  it.  How  in- 
teresting is  every  instinct,  when  we  speculate  on 
their  origin  as  an  hereditary  or  congenital  habit  or 
produced  by  the  selection  of  individuals  differing 
slightly  from  their  parents.  We  must  look  at  every 
complicated  mechanism  and  instinct,  as  the  sum- 
mary of  a  long  history,  (as  the  summing  up)  of1  useful 
contrivances,  much  like  a  work  of  art.  How  in- 
teresting does  the  distribution  of  all  animals 
become,  as  throwing  light  on  ancient  geography. 
[We  see  some  seas  bridged  over.]  Geology  loses  in 
its  glory  from  the  imperfection  of  its  archives2,  but 
how  does  it  gain  in  the  immensity  of  the  periods  of 
its  formations  and  of  the  gaps  separating  these 
formations.  There  is  much  grandeur  in  looking  at 
the  existing  animals  either  as  the  lineal  descendants 
of  the  forms  buried  under  thousand  feet  of  matter, 
or  as  the  coheirs  of  some  still  more  ancient  ancestor. 
It  accords  with  what  we  know  of  the  law  impressed 
on  matter  by  the  Creator,  that  the  creation  and 
extinction  of  forms,  like  the  birth  and  death  of 
individuals  should  be  the  effect  of  secondary  [laws] 
means3.  It  is  derogatory  that  the  Creator  of 
countless  systems  of  worlds  should  have  created 
each  of  the  myriads  of  creeping  parasites  and 
[slimy]  worms  which  have  swarmed  each  day  of 
life  on  land  and  water  (on)  [this]  one  globe.  We 
cease  being  astonished,  however  much  we  may 
deplore,  that  a  group  of  animals  should  have  been 
directly  created  to  lay  their  eggs  in  bowels  and 
flesh  of  other, — that  some  organisms  should  delight 
in  cruelty, — that  animals  should  be  led  away  by 
false  instincts, — that  annually  there  should  be  an 

1  In  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  486,  vi.  p.  665,  the  author  speaks  of  the  "  sum- 
ming up  of  many  contrivances " :   I  have  therefore  introduced  the  above 
words  which  make  the  passage  clearer.     In  the  Origin  the  comparison  is 
with  "a  great  mechanical  invention," — not  with  a  work  of  art. 

2  See  a  similar  passage  in  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  487,  vi.  p.  667. 

3  See  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  488,  vi.  p.  668. 


52  CONCLUSION 

incalculable  waste  of  eggs  and  pollen.  From  death, 
famine,  rapine,  and  the  concealed  war  of  nature  we 
can  see  that  the  highest  good,  which  we  can  con- 
ceive, the  creation  of  the  higher  animals  has  directly 
come.  Doubtless  it  at  first  transcends  our  humble 
powers,  to  conceive  laws  capable  of  creating  in- 
dividual organisms,  each  characterised  by  the  most 
exquisite  workmanship  and  widely- extended  adap- 
tations. It  accords  better  with  [our  modesty]  the 
lowness  of  our  faculties  to  suppose  each  must  require 
the  fiat  of  a  creator,  but  in  the  same  proportion  the 
existence  of  such  laws  should  exalt  our  notion  of 
the  power  of  the  omniscient  Creator1.  There  is  a 
simple  grandeur  in  the  view  of  life  with  its  powers 
of  growth,  assimilation  and  reproduction,  being 
originally  breathed  into  matter  under  one  or  a 
few  forms,  and  that  whilst  this  our  planet  has  gone 
circling  on  according  to  fixed  laws,  and  land  and 
water,  in  a  cycle  of  change,  have  gone  on  replacing 
each  other,  that  from  so  simple  an  origin,  through 
the  process  of  gradual  selection  of  infinitesimal 
changes,  endless  forms  most  beautiful  and  most 
wonderful  have  been  evolved2. 

1  The  following  discussion,  together  with  some  memoranda  are  on  the 
last  page  of  the  MS.     "  The  supposed  creative  spirit  does  not  create  either 
number  or  kind  which  (are)  from  analogy  adapted  to  site  (viz.  New  Zealand) : 
it  does  not  keep  them  all  permanently  adapted  to  any  country, — it  works  on 
spots  or  areas  of  creation, — it  is  not  persistent  for  great  periods, — it  creates 
forms  of  same  groups  in  same  regions,  with  no  physical  similarity, — it 
creates,  on  islands  or  mountain  summits,  species  allied  to  the  neighbouring 
ones,  and  not  allied  to  alpine  nature  as  shown  in  other  mountain  summits 
—even  different  on  different  island  of  similarly  constituted  archipelago,  not 
created  on  two  points  :  never  mammifers  created  on  small  isolated  island ; 
nor  number  of  organisms  adapted  to  locality :  its  power  seems  influenced  or 
related  to  the  range  of  other  species  wholly  distinct  of  the  same  genus, — it 
does  not  equally  effect,  in  amount  of  difference,  all  the  groups  of  the  same 
class." 

2  This  passage  is  the  ancestor  of  the  concluding  words  in  the  first  edition 
of  the  Origin  of  Species  which  have  remained  substantially  unchanged 
throughout  subsequent  editions,  "There  is  grandeur  in  this  view  of  life, 
with  its  several  powers,  having  been  originally  breathed  into  a  few  forms 
or  into  one ;  and  that  whilst  this  planet  has  gone  cycling  on  according  to  the 
fixed  law  of  gravity,   from  so  simple  a  beginning  endless  forms  most 


CONCLUSION  53 

N.B. — There  ought  somewhere  to  be  a  discussion 
from  Lyell  to  show  that  external  conditions  do  vary, 
or  a  note  to  Lyell's  works  (work  ?). 

Besides  other  difficulties  in  ii.  Part,  non -ac- 
climatisation of  plants.  Difficulty  when  asked  how 
did  white  and  negro  become  altered  from  common 
intermediate  stock :  no  facts.  We  do  NOT  know  that 
species  are  immutable,  on  the  contrary.  What 
arguments  against  this  theory,  except  our  not  per- 
ceiving every  step,  like  the  erosion  of  valleys1. 

beautiful  and  most  wonderful  have  been,  and  are  being,  evolved."    In  the 
2nd  edition  "  by  the  Creator  "  is  introduced  after  "  originally  breathed." 

1  Compare  the  Origin,  Ed.  i.  p.  481,  vi.  p.  659,  "The  difficulty  is  the 
same  as  that  felt  by  so  many  geologists,  when  Lyell  first  insisted  that  long 
lines  of  inland  cliffs  had  been  formed,  and  great  valleys  excavated,  by  the 
slow  action  of  the  coast-waves." 


»  .    a 


9      V