Skip to main content

Full text of "The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter"

See other formats



Frontispiece, Vol. III. 

/ w r 















All Rights Reserved. 



( K A I 

_ J? 





CHAPTER I. — The Spread of Evolution. 'Variation 

of Animals and Plants' — 1863-1866 . . . 1 

CHAPTER II. — The Publication of the ' Variation 
of Animals and Plants under Domestication ' — 
Jan. 1867-JuNE 1868 ...... 59 

CHAPTER III.— Work on ' Man '— 1864-1870 . . 89 

CHAPTER IV. — The Publication of the ' Descent of 
Man.' The 'Expression of the Emotions' — 187 1- 
1873 ......... 131 

CHAPTER V. — Miscellanea, including Second Editions 
of ' Coral Reefs,' the ' Descent of Man,' and the 
'Variation of Animals and Plants' — 1874-1875 . 181 

CHAPTER VI. — Miscellanea {continued). A Revival of 
Geological Work — The Book on Earthworms — 
Life of Erasmus Darwin — Miscellaneous Letters — 
1876-1882 ........ 211 

CHAPTER VII. — Fertilisation of Flowers — 1839-1880 254 

CHAPTER VIII.— The 'Effects of Cross- and Self- 
Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom' — 1866- 
1877 ......... 289 

CHAPTER IX. — ' Different Forms of Flowers on 

Plants of the same Species' — 1860-1878 . . 295 

CHAPTER X. — Climbing and Insectivorous Plants — 

1863-1875 ........ 311 





Volume III. 

Frontispiece: Charles Darwin in 1881. From a Photo- 
graph by Messrs. Elliot and Fry. 


CHAPTER XL— The 'Power of Movement in Plants' 

— 1878-1881 3 2 9 

CHAPTER XII. — Miscellaneous Botanical Letters — 

1873-1882 339 

CHAPTER XIII.— Conclusion 355 


APPENDIX I. — The Funeral in Westminster Abbey . 360 

APPENDIX II. — List of Works by C. Darwin . . 362 

APPENDIX III.— Portraits 37 1 

APPENDIX IV.— Honours, Degrees, Societies, &c. . 373 

Index .....••••• 377 


Volume III. 

P. 40, line 13 : for " Magazines " read " Magazine." 
P. 46, footnote, last line : for " contemporaine " read " contemporain." 
P. 58, line 8 '.for " laburnums, Adami-trifacial " read" laburnum Adami, 








1 863-1 866. 

His book on animals and plants under domestication was my 
father's chief employment in the year 1863. His diary 
records the length of time spent over the composition of its 
chapters, and shows the rate at which he arranged and wrote 
out for printing the observations and deductions of several 

The three chapters in vol. ii. on inheritance, which occupy 
84 pages of print, were begun in January and finished on 
April 1st ; the five on crossing, making 106 pages, were written 
in eight weeks, while the two chapters on selection, covering 
57 pages, were begun on June 16th and finished on July 20th. 

The work was more than once interrupted by ill-health, 
and, in September, what proved to be the beginning of a six 
months' illness forced him to leave home for the water-cure 
at Malvern. He returned in October, and remained ill and 
depressed, in spite of the hopeful opinion of one of the most 
cheery and skilful physicians of the day. Thus he wrote to 
Sir J. D. Hooker in November : — 

" Dr. Brinton has been here (recommended by Busk) ; he 



does not believe my brain or heart are primarily affected, but I 
have been so steadily going downhill, I cannot help doubting 
whether I can ever crawl a little uphill again. Unless I can, 
enough to work a little, I hope my life may be very short, 
for to lie on a sofa all day and do nothing but give trouble to 
the best and kindest of wives and good dear children is 

The minor works in this year were a short paper in the 
4 Natural History Review' (N.S. vol. iii. p. 115), entitled "On 
the so-called Auditory- Sac of Cirripedes," and one in the 
* Geological Society's Journal ' (vol. xix.), on the " Thickness of 
the Pampaean Formation near Buenos Ayres." The paper 
on Cirripedes was called forth by the criticisms of a German 
naturalist Krohn,* and is of some interest in illustration of my 
father's readiness to admit an error. 

With regard to the spread of a belief in Evolution, it could 
not yet be said that the battle was won, but the growth of 
belief was undoubtedly rapid. So that, for instance, Charles 
Kingsley could write to F. D. Maurice : — f 

" The state of the scientific mind is most curious ; Darwin 
is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the 
mere force of truth and fact." 

Mr. Huxley was as usual active in guiding and stimulating 
the growing tendency to tolerate or accept the views set forth 
in the ' Origin of Species.' He gave a series of lectures to 
working men at the School of Mines in November, 1862. 
These were printed in 1863 from the shorthand notes of Mr. 
May, as six little blue books, price 4a 7 . each, under the title, 
' Our Knowledge of the Causes of Organic Nature.' When 
.published they were read with interest by my father, who thus 
refers to them in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker : — 

* Krohn stated that the structures orifice described in the 'Mono- 
described by my father as ovaries graph of the Cirripedia ' as the 
were in reality salivary glands, also auditory ?neatus. 
that the oviduct runs down to the f Kingsley's ' Life,' vol. ii. p. 171. 


" I am very glad you like Huxley's lectures. I have been 
very much struck with them, especially with the ' Philosophy 
of Induction.' I have quarrelled with him for overdoing 
sterility and ignoring cases from Gartner and Kolreuter about 
sterile varieties. His geology is obscure ; and I rather doubt 
about man's mind and language. But it seems to me ad- 
mirably done, and, as you say, " Oh my ! " about the praise of 
the ' Origin.' I can't help liking it, which makes me rather 
ashamed of myself." 

My father admired the clearness of exposition shown in the 
lectures, and in the following letter urges their author to 
make use of his powers for the advantage of students :] 

£ Darwin to T. H. Huxley. 

Nov. 5 [1864]. 

I want to make a suggestion to you, but which may pro- 
bably have occurred to you. was reading your Lectures 

and ended by saying, " I wish he would write a book." I 
answered, " he has just written a great book on the skull." " I 
don't call that a book," she replied, and added, " I want 
something that people can read ; he does write so well." 
Now, with your ease in writing, and with knowledge at your 
fingers' ends, do you not think you could write a popular 
Treatise on Zoology ? Of course it would be some waste of 
time, but I have been asked more than a dozen times to 
recommend something for a beginner and could only think of 
Carpenter's Zoology. I am sure that a striking Treatise 
would do real service to science by educating naturalists. If 
you were to keep a portfolio open for a couple of years, and 
throw in slips of paper as subjects crossed your mind, you 
would soon have a skeleton (and that seems to me the diffi- 
culty) on which to put the flesh and colours in your inimitable 
manner. I believe such a book might have a brilliant success, 
but I did not intend to scribble so much about it. 

Give my kindest remembrance to Mrs. Huxley, and tell 

B 2 


her I was looking at ' Enoch Arden/ and as I know how she 
admires Tennyson, I must call her attention to two sweetly 
pretty lines (p. 105) . . . 

. . . and he meant, he said he meant, 
Perhaps he meant, or partly meant, you well. 

Such a gem as this is enough to make me young again, and 
like poetry with pristine fervour. 

My dear Huxley, 

Yours affectionately, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[In another letter (Jan. 1865) he returns to the above 
suggestion, though he was in general strongly opposed to 
men of science giving up to the writing of text-books, or to 
teaching, the time that might otherwise have been given to 
original research. 

" I knew there was very little chance of your having time 
to write a popular treatise on Zoology, but you are about the 
one man who could do it. At the time I felt it would be 
almost a sin for you to do it, as it would of course destroy 
some original work. On the other hand I sometimes think 
that general and popular treatises are almost as important for 
the progress of science as original work." 

The series of letters will continue the history of the year 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, Jan. 3 [1863]. 
My DEAR HOOKER. — I am burning with indignation and 
must exhale. ... I could not get to sleep till past 3 last 
night for indignation.* . . . 

* It would serve no useful pur- dishonesty, in which a friend was 

pose if I were to go into the matter the sufferer, but which in no way 

which so strongly roused my father's affected himself, 
anger. It was a question of literary 


Now for pleasanter subjects ; we were all amused at your 
defence of stamp collecting and collecting generally. . . . But, 
by Jove, I can hardly stomach a grown man collecting stamps. 
Who would ever have thought of your collecting Wedgwood- 
ware ! but that is wholly different, like engravings or pictures. 
We are degenerate descendants of old Josiah W., for we have 
not a bit of pretty ware in the house. 

. . . Notwithstanding the very pleasant reason you give for 
our not enjoying a holiday, namely, that we have no vices, it 
is a horrid bore. I have been trying for health's sake to be 
idle, with no success. What I shall now have to do, will be to 
erect a tablet in Down Church, " Sacred to the Memory, &c," 
and officially die, and then publish books, " by the late Charles 
Darwin," for I cannot think what has come over me of late ; I 
always suffered from the excitement of talking, but now it has 
become ludicrous. I talked lately I J hours (broken by tea 
by myself) with my nephew, and I was [ill] half the night. 
It is a fearful evil for self and family. 

Good-night. Ever yours, 

C. Darwin. 

[The following letter to Sir Julius von Haast,* is an 
example of the sympathy which he felt with the spread and 
growth of science in the colonies. It was a feeling not 
expressed once only, but was frequently present in his 
mind, and often found utterance. When we, at Cambridge, 
had the satisfaction of receiving Sir J. von Haast into our 
body as a Doctor of Science (July 1886), I had the oppor- 
tunity of hearing from him of the vivid pleasure which this, 
and other letters from my father, gave him. It was pleasant 
to see how strong had been the impression made by my 
father's warm-hearted sympathy — an impression which seemed, 

* The late Sir Julius von Haast was, in 1862, Government Geologist 
was a German by birth, but had long to the Province of Canterbury, 
been resident in New Zealand. He 


after more than twenty years, to be as fresh as when it was 
first received :] 

C. Darwin to Julius von Haast. 

Down, Jan. 22 [1863]. 

DEAR Sir, — I thank you most sincerely for sending me 
your Address and the Geological Report* I have seldom in 
my life read anything more spirited and interesting than your 
address. The progress of your colony makes one proud, and 
it is really admirable to see a scientific institution founded in 
so young a nation. I thank you for the very honourable 
notice of my ' Origin of Species.' You will easily believe 
how much I have been interested by your striking facts on 
the old glacial period, and I suppose the world might be 
.searched in vain for so grand a display of terraces. You 
have, indeed, a noble field for scientific research and dis- 
■covery. I have been extremely much interested by what you 
.say about the tracks of supposed [living] mammalia. Might 
I ask, if you succeed in discovering what the creatures are, 
you would have the great kindness to inform me ? Perhaps 
they may turn out something like the Solenhofen bird 
creature, with its long tail and fingers, with claws to its 
wings ! I may mention that in South America, in com- 
pletely uninhabited regions, I found spring rat-traps, baited 
with cheese, were very successful in catching the smaller 
mammals. I would venture to suggest to you to urge on 
some of the capable members of your institution to observe 
annually the rate and manner of spreading of European 
weeds and insects, and especially to observe what native 
plants most fail ; this latter point has never been attended to. 
Do the introduced hive-bees replace any other insect? &c. 
All such points are, in my opinion, great desiderata in 

* Address to the ' Philosophical Zealand Government Gazette, Pro- 
Institute of Canterbury (N.Z.).' vince of Canterbury, Oct. 1862. 
The " Report " is given in the New 


science. What an interesting discovery that of the remains 
of prehistoric man ! 

Believe me, dear Sir, 

With the most cordial respect and thanks, 
Yours very faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

C. Darwin to Camille Dareste* 

Down, Feb. 16 [1863]. 

Dear and respected Sir. — I thank you sincerely for 
your letter and your pamphlet. I had heard (I think in one 
of M. Ouatrefages' books) of your work, and was most 
anxious to read it, but did not know where to find it. You 
could not have made me a more valuable present. I have 
only just returned home, and have not yet read your work ; 
when I do if I wish to ask any questions I will venture to 
trouble you. Your approbation of my book on Species has 
gratified me extremely. Several naturalists in England, 
North America, and Germany, have declared that their 
opinions on the subject have in some degree been modified, 
but as far as I know, my book has produced no effect what- 
ever in France, and this makes me the more gratified by your 
very kind expression of approbation. Pray believe me, dear 
Sir, with much respect, 

Yours faithfully and obliged, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker, 

Down, Feb. 24 [1863]. 
My dear Hooker. — I am astonished at your note. I have 

* Professor Dareste is a well- to Paris. My father took a special 

known worker in Animal Terato- interest in Dareste's work on the 

logy. He was in 1863 living at production of monsters, as bearing 

Lille, but has since then been called on the causes of variation. 



[I86 3 . 

not seen the Athenceum* but I have sent for it, and may get 
it to-morrow ; and will then say what I think. 

I have read Lyell's book. [* The Antiquity of Man.'] The 
whole certainly struck me as a compilation, but of the highest 
class, for when possible the facts have been verified on the 
spot, making it almost an original work. The Glacial chapters 
seem to me best, and in parts magnificent. I could hardly 
judge about Man, as all the gloss of novelty was completely 
worn off. But certainly the aggregation of the evidence 
produced a very striking effect on my mind. The chapter 
comparing language and changes of species, seems most 
ingenious and interesting. He has shown great skill in 
picking out salient points in the argument for change of 
species ; but I am deeply disappointed (I do not mean 
personally) to find that his timidity prevents him giving 
any judgment. . . . From all my communications with him 
I must ever think that he has really entirely lost faith in 
the immutability of species ; and yet one of his strongest 
sentences is nearly as follows : " If it should ever f be 
rendered highly probable that species change by variation 
and natural selection," &c. &c. I had hoped he would have 
guided the public as far as his own belief went. . . . One 
thing does please me on this subject, that he seems to 
appreciate your work. No doubt the public or a part may be 
induced to think that, as he gives to us a larger space than 
to Lamarck, he must think there is something in our views. 
When reading the brain chapter, it struck me forcibly that if 

* In the 'Antiquity of Man,' 
first edition, p. 480, Lyell criticised 
somewhat severely Owen's account 
of the difference between the Hu- 
man and Simian brains. The num- 
ber of the AthencEU77i here referred 
to (1863, p. 262) contains a reply 
by Professor Owen to Lyell's stric- 
tures. The surprise expressed by 
my father was at the revival of a 

controversy which every one be- 
lieved to be closed. Prof. Huxley 
{Medical Times, Oct. 25, 1862, 
quoted in l Man's Place in Nature,' 
p. 117) spoke of the "two years 
during which this preposterous con- 
troversy has dragged its weary 
length." And this no doubt ex- 
pressed a very general feeling, 
f The italics are not Lyell's. 

1863.] 'ANTIQUITY OF MAN.' 9 

he had said openly that he believed in change of species, and 
as a consequence that man was derived from some Quadru- 
manous animal, it would have been very proper to have 
discussed by compilation the differences in the most important 
organ, viz. the brain. As it is, the chapter seems to me to 
come in rather by the head and shoulders. I do not think 
(but then I am as prejudiced as Falconer and Huxley, or more 
so) that it is too severe ; it struck me as given with judicial 
force. It might perhaps be said with truth that he had no 
business to judge on a subject on which he knows nothing ; 
but compilers must do this to a certain extent. (You know I 
value and rank high compilers, being one myself!) I have 
taken you at your word, and scribbled at great length. If I 
get the Athenceum to-morrow, I will add my impression of 
Owen's letter. 

. . . The Lyells are coming here on Sunday evening to 
stay till Wednesday. I dread it, but I must say how much 
disappointed I am that he has not spoken out on species, still 
less on man. And the best of the joke is that he thinks he 
has acted with the courage of a martyr of old. I hope I may 
have taken an exaggerated view of his timidity, and shall 
particularly be glad of your opinion on this head.* When 
I got his book I turned over the pages, and saw he had dis- 
cussed the subject of species, and said that I thought he would 
do more to convert the public than all of us, and now (which 
makes the case worse for me) I must, in common honesty, 
retract. I wish to Heaven he had said not a word on the 

Wednesday morning: I have read the Athenceum. I do 
not think Lyell will be nearly so much annoyed as you 
expect. The concluding sentence is no doubt very stinging. 

* On this subject my father I am to hear that I have not been 

wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker : " Cor- unjust about the species-question to- 

dial thanks for your deeply inter- wards Lyell. I feared I had been 

esting letters about Lyell, Owen, unreasonable." 
and Co. I cannot say how glad 


No one but a good anatomist could unravel Owen's letter ; 
at least it is quite beyond me. 

. . . Lyell's memory plays him false when he says all anato- 
mists were astonished at Owen's paper ;* it was often quoted 
with approbation. I well remember Lyell's admiration at this 
new classification ! (Do not repeat this.) I remember it, 
because, though I knew nothing whatever about the brain, I 
felt a conviction that a classification thus founded on a single 
character would break down, and it seemed to me a great 
error not to separate more completely the Marsupialia. . . . 

What an accursed evil it is that there should be all this quar- 
relling within, what ought to be, the peaceful realms of science. 

I will go to my own present subject of inheritance and 
forget it all for a time. Farewell, my dear old friend, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray, 

Down, Feb. 23 [1863]. 

... If you have time to read you will be interested by 
parts of Lyell's book on man ; but I fear that the best part, 
about the Glacial period, may be too geological for any one 
except a regular geologist. He quotes you at the end with 
gusto. By the way, he told me the other day how pleased 
some had been by hearing that they could purchase your 
pamphlet. The Partheno?i also speaks of it as the ablest 
contribution to the literature of the subject. It delights me 
when I see your work appreciated. 

The Lyells come here this day week, and I shall grumble 
at his excessive caution. . . . The public may well say, if such 
a man dare not or will not speak out his mind, how can we 
who are ignorant form even a guess on the subject? Lyell 
was pleased when I told him lately that you thought that 
language might be used as an excellent illustration of deriva- 

* " On the Characters, &c., of the Class Mammalia," ' Linn. Soc. 
Journal,' ii. 1858. 


tion of species ; you will see that he has an admirable chapter 
on this. . . . 

I read Cairns' s excellent Lecture,* which shows so well 
how your quarrel arose from Slavery. It made me for a time 
wish honestly for the North ; but I could never help, though I 
tried, all the time thinking how we should be bullied and 
forced into a war by you, when you were triumphant. But I 
do most truly think it dreadful that the South, with its 
accursed slavery, should triumph, and spread the evil. I think 
if I had power, which, thank God, I have not, I would let you 
conquer the border States, and all west of the Mississippi, and 
then force you to acknowledge the cotton States. For do 
you not now begin to doubt whether you can conquer and 
hold them ? I have inflicted a long tirade on you. 

The Times is getting more detestable (but that is too weak 
a word) than ever. My good wife wishes to give it up, but I 
tell her that is a pitch of heroism to which only a woman is 
equal. To give up the " Bloody Old Times!' as Cobbett 
used to call it, would be to give up meat, drink and air. 
Farewell, my dear Gray, 

Yours most truly, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to C. LyelL 

Down, March 6, [1863]. 

... I have been of course deeply interested by your book.f 
I have hardly any remarks worth sending, but will scribble a 
little on what most interested me. But I will first get out 
what I hate saying, viz. that I have been greatly disappointed 
that you have not given judgment and spoken fairly out what 
you think about the derivation of species. I should have 
been contented if you had boldly said that species have not 

* Prof. J. E. Cairns, 'The Slave American contest.' 1862. 
Power, &c. : an attempt to explain f 'Antiquity of Man. 5 

the real issues involved in the 


been separately created, and had thrown as much doubt as 
you like on how far variation and natural selection suffices. 
I hope to Heaven I am wrong (and from what you say about 
Whewell it seems so), but I cannot see how your chapters can 
do more good than an extraordinary able review. I think 
the Parthenon is right, that you will leave the public in a fog. 
No doubt they may infer that as you give more space to 
myself, Wallace, and Hooker, than to Lamarck, you think 
more of us. But I had always thought that your judgment 
would have been an epoch in the subject. All that is over 
with me, and I will only think on the admirable skill with 
which you have selected the striking points, and explained 
them. No praise can be too strong, in my opinion, for the 
inimitable chapter on language in comparison with species. 

p. 505 — A sentence * at the top of the page makes me 
groan. . . . 

I know you will forgive me for writing with perfect freedom, 
for you must know how deeply I respect you as my old 
honoured guide and master. I heartily hope and expect that 
your book will have gigantic circulation and may do in many 
ways as much good as it ought to do. I am tired, so no more. 
I have written so briefly that you will have to guess my 
meaning. I fear my remarks are hardly worth sending. 
Farewell, with kindest remembrance to Lady Lyell. 

Ever yours, 
C. Darwin. 

[Mr. Huxley has quoted (Vol. II. p. 193) some passages from 
Lyell's letters which show his state of mind at this time. The 
following passage, from a letter of March nth to my father, 
is also of much interest : — 

* After speculating on the sudden which separated the highest stage 

appearance of individuals far above of the unprogressive intelligence of 

the average of the human race, the inferior animals from the first 

Lyell asks if such leaps upwards in and lowest form of improvable 

the scale of intellect may not " have reason manifested by man." , 
cleared at one bound the space 

1863.] 'ANTIQUITY OF MAN.' 1 3 

"My feelings, however, more than any thought about 
policy or expediency, prevent me from dogmatising as to 
the descent of man from the brutes, which, though I am 
prepared to accept it, takes away much of the charm from 
my speculations on the past relating to such matters. . . . 
But you ought to be satisfied, as I shall bring hundreds 
towards you who, if I treated the matter more dogmatically, 
would have rebelled."] 

C. Darwin to C. Lyell. 

Down, 1 2th [March, 1863]. 

My DEAR Lyell, — I thank you for your very interesting 
and kind, I may say, charming letter. I feared you might be 
huffed for a little time with me. I know some men would 
have been so. I have hardly any more criticisms, anyhow, 
worth writing. But I may mention that I felt a little surprise 
that old B. de Perthes * was not rather more honourably men- 
tioned. I would suggest whether you could not leave out 
some references to the ' Principles ; ' one for the real student 
is as good as a hundred, and it is rather irritating, and gives 
a feeling of incompleteness to the general reader to be often 
referred to other books. As you say that you have gone as far 
as you believe on the species question, I have not a word to 
say ; but I must feel convinced that at times, judging from 
conversation, expressions, letters, &c, you have as completely 
given up belief in immutability of specific forms as I have 
done. I must still think a clear expression from you, if you 
could have given it, would have been potent with the public, 
and all the more so, as you formerly held opposite opinions. 
The more I work, the more satisfied I become with variation 
and natural selection, but that part of the case I look at as 
less important, though more interesting to me personally. As 
you ask for criticisms on this head (and believe me that 

* Born 1788, died 1868. See footnote, p. 16. 


I should not have made them unasked), I may specify 
(pp. 412, 413) that such words as " Mr. D. labours to show," 
"is believed by the author to throw light," would lead a 
common reader to think that you yourself do not at all agree, 
but merely think it fair to give my opinion. Lastly, you 
refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of Lamarck's 
doctrine of development and progression. If this is your 
deliberate opinion there is nothing to be said, but it does 
not seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my grandfather before 
Lamarck, and others, propounded the obvious view that if 
species were not created separately they must have descended 
from other species, and I can see nothing else in common 
between the ' Origin ' and Lamarck. I believe this way of 
putting the case is very injurious to its acceptance, as it 
implies necessary progression, and closely connects Wallace's 
and my views with what I consider, after two deliberate 
readings, as a wretched book, and one from which (I well 
remember my surprise) I gained nothing. But I know you 
rank it higher, which is curious, as it did not in the least 
shake your belief. But enough, and more than enough. 
Please remember you have brought it all down on yourself! ! 

I am very sorry to hear about Falconer's " reclamation." * 
I hate the very word, and have a sincere affection for him. 

Did you ever read anything so wretched as the A thenceinn 
reviews of you, and of Huxley \ especially. Your object to 
make man old, and Huxley's object to degrade him. The 
wretched writer has not a glimpse what the discovery of 
scientific truth means. How splendid some pages are in 
Huxley, but I fear the book will not be popular. . . . 

* " Falconer, whom I referred to prove it. I offered to alter any- 

oftener than to any other author, thing in the new edition, but this 

says I have not done justice to the he declined." — C. Lyell to C. Dar- 

part he took in resuscitating the win, March 11, 1863 ; Lyell's ' Life,' 

cave question, and says he shall vol. ii. p. 364. 
come out with a separate paper to f 'Man's Place in Nature,' 1863. 

1863.] 'ANTIQUITY OF MAN.' 1 5 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down [March 13, 1863]. 

I should have thanked you sooner for the Athenamn and 
very pleasant previous note, but I have been busy, and not a 
little uncomfortable from frequent uneasy feeling of fullness, 
slight pain and tickling about the heart. But as I have no 
other symptoms of heart complaint I do not suppose it is 
affected. ... I have had a most kind and delightfully candid 
letter from Lyell, who says he spoke out as far as he believes. 
I have no doubt his belief failed him as he wrote, for I feel 
sure that at times he no more believed in Creation than you 
or I. I have grumbled a bit in my answer to him at his 
ahvays classing my work as a modification of Lamarck's, 
which it is no more than any author who did not believe in 
immutability of species, and did believe in descent. I am 
very sorry to hear from Lyell that Falconer is going to 
publish a formal reclamation of his own claims. . . . 

It is cruel to think of it, but we must go to Malvern in the 
middle of April ; it is ruin to me.' 


C. Darwin to C. Lyell. 

Down, March 17 [1863]. 

My DEAR Lyell, — I have been much interested by your 
letters and enclosure, and thank you sincerely for giving me 
so much time when you must be so busy. What a curious 
letter from B. de P. [Boucher de Perthes]. He seems per- 
fectly satisfied, and must be a very amiable man. I know 
something about his errors, and looked at his book many 
years ago, and am ashamed to think that I concluded the 

* He went to Hartfield, in Sussex, on April 27, and to Malvern in 
the autumn. 


whole was rubbish ! Yet he has done for man something 
like what Agassiz did for glaciers.* 

I cannot say that I agree with Hooker about the public 
not liking to be told what to conclude, if coming from one in 
your position. But I am heartily sorry that I was led to make 
complaints, or something very like complaints, on the manner 
in which you have treated the subject, and still more so any- 
thing about myself. I steadily endeavour never to forget my 
firm belief that no one can at all judge about his own work. 
As for Lamarck, as you have such a man as Grove with you, 
you are triumphant ; not that I can alter my opinion that to 
me it was an absolutely useless book. Perhaps this was 
owing to my always searching books for facts, perhaps from 
knowing my grandfather's earlier and identically the same 
speculation. I will only further say that if I can analyse my 
own feelings (a very doubtful process), it is nearly as much 
for your sake as for my own, that I so much wish that your 
state of belief could have permitted you to say boldly and 
distinctly out that species were not separately created. I 
have generally told you the progress of opinion, as I have 
heard it, on the species question. A first-rate German natur- 
alist f (I now forget the name !), who has lately published a 
grand folio, has spoken out to the utmost extent on the 
1 Origin.' De Candolle, in a very good paper on " Oaks," 
goes, in Asa Gray's opinion, as far as he himself does ; but 
De Candolle, in writing to me, says we, " we think this and 
that ;" so that I infer he really goes to the full extent with me, 
and tells me of a French good botanical palaeontologist (name 

* In his ' Antiquites Celtiques ' quity of Man,' first edition, p. 95.) 
(1847), Boucher de Perthes de- f No doubt Haeckel, whose mo- 
scribed the flint tools found at nograph on the Radiolaria was 
Abbeville with bones of rhinoceros, published in 1862. In the same 
hyaena, &c. " But the scientific year Professor W. Preyer of Jena 
world had no faith in the statement published a Dissertation on A lea 
that works of art, however rude, impennis, which was one of the 
had been met with in undisturbed earliest pieces of special work on 
beds of such antiquity." (' Anti- the basis of the ' Origin of Species.' 

1 863.] 



forgotten),* who writes to De Candolle that he is sure that 
my views will ultimately prevail. But I did not intend to 
have written all this. It satisfies me with the final results, 
but this result, I begin to see, will take two or three life- 
times. The entomologists are enough to keep the subject 
back for half a century. I really pity your having to 
balance the claims of so many eager aspirants for notice ; it 
is clearly impossible to satisfy all. . . . Certainly I was struck 
with the full and due honour you conferred on Falconer. 
I have just had a note from Hooker. ... I am heartily glad 
that you have made him so conspicuous ; he is so honest, so 
candid, and so modest. . . . 

I have read . I could find nothing to lay hold of, 

which in one sense I am very glad of, as I should hate a 
controversy ; but in another sense I am very sorry for, as 
I long to be in the same boat with all my friends. ... I am 
heartily glad the book is going off so well. 

Ever yours, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down [March 29, 1863]. 

. . . Many thanks for Athenceum, received this morning, 
and to be returned to-morrow morning. Who would have 
ever thought of the old stupid Athenceum taking to Oken-like 
transcendental philosophy written in Owenian style ! f . . . . 

* The Marquis de Saporta. 

f This refers to a review of Dr. 
Carpenter's ' Introduction to the 
study of Foraminifera,' that ap- 
peared in the Athenceum of 
March 28, 1863 (p. 417). The re- 
viewer attacks Dr. Carpenter's 
views in as much as they support 
the doctrine of Descent ; and he 
upholds spontaneous generation 
(Heterogeny) in place of what Dr. 


Carpenter, naturally enough, be- 
lieved in, viz. the genetic connec- 
tion of living and extinct Foramini- 
fera. In the next number is a letter 
by Dr. Carpenter, which chiefly 
consists of a protest against the 
reviewer's somewhat contemptuous 
classification of Dr. Carpenter and 
my father as disciple and master. 
In the course of the letter Dr. Car- 
penter says — p. 461 : — 





It will be some time before we see " slime, protoplasm, &c." 
generating a new animal.* But I have long regretted that I 
truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term 
of creation,f by which I really meant " appeared " by some 
wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at 
present of the origin of life ; one might as well think of the 
origin of matter. 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, Friday night [April 17, 1863]. 

My DEAR HOOKER, — I have heard from Oliver that you 
will be now at Kew, and so I am going to amuse myself by 
scribbling a bit. I hope you have thoroughly enjoyed your 

" Under the influence of his fore- 
gone conclusion that I have ac- 
cepted Mr. Darwin as my master, 
and his hypothesis as my guide, 
your reviewer represents me as 
blind to the significance of the 
general fact stated by me, that 
* there has been no advance in the 
foraminiferous type from the palae- 
ozoic period to the present time.' 
But for such a foregone conclusion 
he would have recognised in this 
statement the expression of my 
conviction that the present state of 
scientific evidence, instead of sanc- 
tioning the idea that the descend- 
ants of the primitive type or types 
of Foraminifera can ever rise to 
any higher grade, justifies the anti- 
Darwinian inference, that however 
widely they diverge from each other 
and from their originals, they still 
remain Foraminifera." 

* On the same subject my father 
wrote in 1871 : "It is often said 
that all the conditions for the first 
production of a living organism are 

now present, which could ever have 
been present. But if (and oh ! 
what a big if !) we could conceive 
in some warm little pond, with all 
sorts of ammonia and phosphoric 
salts, light, heat, electricity, &c, 
present, that a proteine compound 
was chemically formed ready to 
undergo still more complex changes, 
at the present day such matter 
would be instantly devoured or ab- 
sorbed, which would not have been 
the case before living creatures 
were formed." 

f This refers to a passage in 
which the reviewer of Dr. Car- 
penter's book speaks of " an opera- 
tion of force," or " a concurrence 
of forces which have now no place 
in nature," as being, " a creative 
force, in fact, which Darwin could 
only express in Pentateuchal terms 
as the primordial form ' into which 
life was first breathed.' " The con- 
ception of expressing a creative 
force as a primordial form is the 




tour. I never in my life saw anything like the spring flowers 
this year. What a lot of interesting things have been lately 
published. I liked extremely your review of De Candolle. 
What an awfully severe article that by Falconer on Lyell ; * 
I am very sorry for it ; I think Falconer on his side does not 

do justice to old Perthes and Schmerling I shall be 

very curious to see how he [Lyell] answers it to-morrow. (I 
have been compelled to take in the A tketueum for a while.) I 
am very sorry that Falconer should have written so spitefully, 
even if there is some truth in his accusations ; I was rather 
disappointed in Carpenter's letter, no one could have given a 
better answer, but the chief object of his letter seems to me 
to be to show that though he has touched pitch he is not 
defiled. No one would suppose he went so far as to believe all 
birds came from one progenitor. I have written a letter to the 
A thencsum \ (the first and last time I shall take such a step) 

* AthencEum, April 4, 1863, 
p. 459. The writer asserts that 
justice has not been done either to 
himself or Mr. Prestwich — that 
Lyell has not made it clear that it 
was their original work which sup- 
plied certain material for the ' An- 
tiquity of Man.' Falconer attempts 
to draw an unjust distinction be- 
tween a " philosopher " (here used 
as a polite word for compiler) like 
Sir Charles Lyell, and original 
observers, presumably such as him- 
self and Mr. Prestwich. Lyell's 
reply was published in the A the?icB- 
U7ti, April 18, 1863. It ought to 
be mentioned that a letter from 
Mr. Prestwich (Athenczum, p. 
555), which formed part of the con- 
troversy, though of the nature of 
a reclamation, was written in a very 
different spirit and tone from Dr. 

t AthencEum, 1863, p. 554 : 
" The view given by me on the 

origin or derivation of species, 
whatever its weaknesses may be, 
connects (as has been candidly ad- 
mitted by some of its opponents, 
such as Pictet, Bronn, &c), by an 
intelligible thread of reasoning, a 
multitude of facts : such as the 
formation of domestic races by 
man's selection, — the classification 
and affinities of all organic beings, 
— the innumerable gradations in 
structure and instincts, — the simi- 
larity of pattern in the hand, wing, 
or paddle of animals of the same 
great class, — the existence of organs 
become rudimentary by disuse, — 
the similarity of an embryonic 
reptile, bird and mammal, with the 
retention of traces of an apparatus 
fitted for aquatic respiration ; the 
retention in the young calf of in- 
cisor teeth in the upper jaw, &c. — 
the distribution of animals and 
plants, and their mutual affinities 
within the same region, — their 

C 2 




to say, under the cloak of attacking Heterogeny, a word in 
my own defence. My letter is to appear next week, so the 
Editor says ; and I mean to quote Lyell's sentence * in his 
second edition, on the principle if one puffs oneself, one had 
better puff handsomely. . . . 

C. Darwin to C. LyelL 

Down, April 18 [1863]. 
My DEAR LYELL, — I was really quite sorry that you had 
sent me a second copy \ of your valuable book. But after a 
few hours my sorrow vanished for this reason : I have written 
a letter to the Athencsum/m. order, under the cloak of attack- 
ing the monstrous article on Heterogeny, to say a word for 
myself in answer to Carpenter, and now I have inserted a 
few sentences in allusion to your analogous objection % about 

general geological succession, and 
the close relationship of the fossils 
in closely consecutive formations 
and within the same country ; ex- 
tinct marsupials having preceded 
living marsupials in Australia, and 
armadillo-like animals having pre- 
ceded and generated armadilloes 
in South America, — and many other 
phenomena, such as the gradual 
extinction of old forms and their 
gradual replacement by new forms 
better fitted for their new condi- 
tions in the struggle for life. When 
the advocate of Heterogeny can 
thus connect large classes of facts, 
and not until then, he will have 
respectful and patient listeners." 

* See the next letter. 

f The second edit, of the ' Anti- 
quity of Man ' was published a few 
months after the first had appeared. 

% Lyell objected that the mam- 
malia (e.g. bats and seals) which 
alone have been able to reach 

oceanic islands ought to have be- 
come modified into various terres- 
trial forms fitted to fill various 
places in their new homes. My 
father pointed out in the Athenceum 
that Sir Charles has in some mea- 
sure answered his own objection, 
and went on to quote the " amend- 
ed sentence " (' Antiquity of Man,' 
2nd edit. p. 469) as showing how 
far Lyell agreed with the general 
doctrines of the ' Origin of Species ' : 
" Yet we ought by no means to 
undervalue the importance of the 
step which will have been made, 
should it hereafter become the 
generally received opinion of men 
of science (as I fully expect it will) 
that the past changes of the or- 
ganic world have been brought 
about by the subordinate agency 
of such causes as Variation and 
Natural Selection." In the first 
edition the words " as I fully expect 
it will," do not occur. 


bats on islands, and then with infinite slyness have quoted 
your amended sentence, with your parenthesis (" as I fully 
believe ") * ; I do not think you can be annoyed at my doing 
this, and you see, that I am determined as far as I can, that 
the public shall see how far you go. This is the first time I 
have ever said a word for myself in any journal, and it shall, 
I think, be the last. My letter is short, and no great things. 
I was extremely concerned to see Falconer's disrespectful 
and virulent letter. I like extremely your answer just read ; 
you take a lofty and dignified position, to which you are so 
well entitled .f 

I suspect that if you had inserted a few more superlatives in 
speaking of the several authors there would have been none 
of this horrid noise. No one, I am sure, who knows you 
could doubt about your hearty sympathy with every one who 
makes any little advance in science. I still well remember my 
surprise at the manner in which you listened to me in Hart 
Street on my return from the Beagle's voyage. You did me 
a world of good. It is horridly vexatious that so frank and 
apparently amiable a man as Falconer should have behaved 
so. J Well, it will all soon be forgotten 

[In reply to the above-mentioned letter of my father's 
to the Athenceuwt) an article appeared in that Journal 
(May 2nd, 1863, p. 586), accusing my father of claiming 
for his views the exclusive merit of " connecting by an in- 
telligible thread of reasoning" a number of facts in mor- 
phology, &c. The writer remarks that, a The different 
generalisations cited by Mr. Darwin as being connected by 
an intelligible thread of reasoning exclusively through his 

* My father here quotes Lyell greatly sink scientific men. I have 

incorrectly ; see the footnote on the seen sneers already in the Times." 

previous page. t It is to this affair that the 

f In a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker extract from a letter to Falconer, 

he wrote : " I much like Lyell's given Vol. I. p. 158, refers, 
letter. But all this squabbling will 


attempt to explain specific transmutation are in fact related 
to it in this wise, that they have prepared the minds of 
naturalists for a better reception of such attempts to explain 
the way of the origin of species from species." 

To this my father replied as follows in the Athenaeum, of 
May 9th, 1863 :] 

Down, May 5 [1863]. 

I hope that you will grant me space to own that your 
reviewer is quite correct when he states that any theory of 
descent will connect, " by an intelligible thread of reasoning," 
the several generalizations before specified. I ought to have 
made this admission expressly ; with the reservation, how- 
ever, that, as far as I can judge, no theory so well explains or 
connects these several generalizations (more especially the 
formation of domestic races in comparison with natural 
species, the principles of classification, embryonic resemblance, 
&c.) as the theory, or hypothesis, or guess, if the reviewer so 
likes to call it, of Natural Selection. Nor has any other 
satisfactory explanation been ever offered of the almost 
perfect adaptation of all organic beings to each other, and to 
their physical conditions of life. Whether the naturalist 
believes in the views given by Lamarck, by Geoffroy St. 
Hilaire, by the author of the ' Vestiges/ by Mr. Wallace and 
myself, or in any other such view, signifies extremely little in 
comparison with the admission that species have descended 
from other species, and have not been created immutable ; 
for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field 
opened to him for further inquiry. I believe, however, from 
what I see of the progress of opinion on the Continent, and in 
this country, that the theory of Natural Selection will 
ultimately be adopted, with, no doubt, many subordinate 
modifications and improvements. 

Charles Darwin. 




[In the following, he refers to the above letter to the 
A thenceum :] 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Leith Hill Place, 

Saturday [May II, 1863]. 

My dear Hooker, — You give good advice about not 
writing in newspapers ; I have been gnashing my teeth at 

my own folly ; and this not caused by 's sneers, which 

were so good that I almost enjoyed them. I have written 
once again to own to a certain extent of truth in what he 
says, and then if I am ever such a fool again, have no mercy 
on me. I have read the squib in Public Opinion ; * it is 
capital ; if there is more, and you have a copy, do lend it. It 
shows well that a scientific man had better be trampled in 
dirt than squabble. I have been drawing diagrams, dissecting 
shoots, and muddling my brains to a hopeless degree about 
the divergence of leaves, and have of course utterly failed. 
But I can see that the subject is most curious, and indeed 


[The next letter refers to Mr. Bentham's presidential 

* Public Opinion, April 23, 
1863. A lively account of a police 
case, in which the quarrels of 
scientific men are satirised. Mr. 
John Bull gives evidence that — 

" The whole neighbourhood was 
unsettled by their disputes ; Hux- 
ley quarrelled with Owen, Owen 
with Darwin, Lyell with Owen, 
Falconer and Prestwich with Lyell, 
and Gray the menagerie man with 
everybody. He had pleasure, how- 
ever, in stating that Darwin was 
the quietest of the set. They were 
always picking bones with each 
other and fighting over their gains. 
If either of the gravel sifters or 
stone breakers found anything, he 

was obliged to conceal it imme- 
diately, or one of the old bone 
collectors would be sure to appro- 
priate it first and deny the theft 
afterwards, and the consequent 
wrangling and disputes were as 
endless as they were wearisome. 

" Lord Mayor. — Probably the 
clergyman of the parish might 
exert some influence over them? 

" The gentleman smiled, shook 
his head, and stated that he re- 
gretted to say that no class of men 
paid so little attention to the 
opinions of the clergy as that to 
which these unhappy men be- 


address to the Linnean Society (May 25, 1863). Mr. Bentham 
does not yield to the new theory of Evolution, " cannot 
surrender at discretion so long as many important outworks 
remain contestable." But he shows that the great body of 
scientific opinion is flowing in the direction of belief. 

The mention of Pasteur by Mr. Bentham is in reference 
to the promulgation "as it were ex cathedral'' of a theory 
of spontaneous generation by the reviewer of Dr. Carpenter 
in the Athenceum (March 28, 1863). Mr. Bentham points 
out that in ignoring Pasteur's refutation of the supposed 
facts of spontaneous generation, the writer fails to act with 
"that impartiality which every reviewer is supposed to 

£ Darwin to G. Bentham, 

Down, May 22 [1863]. 

My dear Bentham. — I am much obliged for your kind 
and interesting letter. I have no fear of anything that a 
man like you will say annoying me in the very least degree. 
On the other hand, any approval from one whose judgment 
and knowledge I have for many years so sincerely respected, 
will gratify me much. The objection which you well put, of 
certain forms remaining unaltered through long time and 
space, is no doubt formidable in appearance, and to a certain 
extent in reality according to my judgment. But does not 
the difficulty rest much on our silently assuming that we know 
more than we do ? I have literally found nothing so difficult 
as to try and always remember our ignorance. I am never 
weary, when walking in any new adjoining district or country, 
of reflecting how absolutely ignorant we are why certain old 
plants are not there present, and other new ones are, and 
others in different proportions. If we once fully feel this, then 
in judging the theory of Natural Selection, which implies that 
a form will remain unaltered unless some alteration be to its 

1863.] MR. BENTHAM. 25 

benefit, is it so very wonderful that some forms should change 
much slower and much less, and some few should have 
changed not at all under conditions which to us (who really 
know nothing what are the important conditions) seem very 
different. Certainly a priori we might have anticipated that 
all the plants anciently introduced into Australia would have 
undergone some modification ; but the fact that they have 
not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight 
enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments. I 
have expressed myself miserably, but I am far from well 

I am very glad that you are going to allude to Pasteur ; I 
was struck with infinite admiration at his work. With cordial 
thanks, believe me, dear Bentham, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. — In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present 
be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its 
being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence ; and the 
certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) 
From the analogy of change under domestication by man's 
selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under 
an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend 
to details, we can prove that no one species has changed 
[i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed] ; 
nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, 
which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we 
explain why some species have changed and others have 
not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to 
understand precisely and in detail than the former case of 
supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist 
school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears 
than another mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than 
another plant. 


C. Darwin to G. Bentham. 

Down, June 19 [1863]. 

MY DEAR Bentham, — I have been extremely much pleased 
and interested by your address, which you kindly sent me. 
It seems to be excellently done, with as much judicial calm- 
ness and impartiality as the Lord Chancellor could have 
shown. But whether the " immutable " gentlemen would 
agree with the impartiality may be doubted, there is too 
much kindness shown towards me, Hooker, and others, they 
might say. Moreover I verily believe that your address, 
written as it is, will do more to shake the unshaken and bring 
on those leaning to our side, than anything written directly in 
favour of transmutation. I can hardly tell why it is, but your 
address has pleased me as much as Lyell's book disappointed 
me, that is, the part on species, though so cleverly written. I 
agree with all your remarks on the reviewers. By the way, 
Lecoq* is a believer in the change of species. I, for one, can 
conscientiously declare that I never feel surprised at any one 
sticking to the belief of immutability ; though I am often not 
a little surprised at the arguments advanced on this side. I 
remember too well my endless oscillations of doubt and diffi- 
culty. It is to me really laughable, when I think of the years 
which elapsed before I saw what I believe to be the explana- 
tion of some parts of the case ; I believe it was fifteen years 
after I began before I saw the meaning and cause of the 
divergence of the descendants of any one pair. You pay me 
some most elegant and pleasing compliments. There is much 
in your address which has pleased me much, especially your 
remarks on various naturalists. I am so glad that you have 
alluded so honourably to Pasteur. I have just read over this 
note ; it does not express strongly enough the interest which 
I have felt in reading your address. You have done, I 

* Author of * Geographic Botanique.' 9 vols. 1854-58. 

1864.] ILLNESS. 27 

believe, a real good turn to the right side. Believe me, dear 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 


[In my father's diary for 1864 is the entry, " 111 all January, 
February, March." About the middle of April (seven months 
after the beginning of the illness in the previous autumn) his 
health took a turn for the better. As soon as he was able 
to do any work, he began to w T rite his papers on Lythrum, 
and on Climbing Plants, so that the work which now con- 
cerns us did not begin until September, when he again set to 
work on ' Animals and Plants.' A letter to Sir J. D. Hooker 
gives some account of the re-commencement of the work : 
"I have begun looking over my old MS., and it is as fresh 
as if I had never written it ; parts are astonishingly dull, but 
yet worth printing, I think ; and other parts strike me as very 
good. I am a complete millionaire in odd and curious little 
facts, and I have been really astounded at my own industry 
whilst reading my chapters on Inheritance and Selection. 
God knows when the book will ever be completed, for I find 
that I am very weak and on my best days cannot do more 
than one or one and a half hours' work. It is a good deal 
harder than writing about my dear climbing plants." 

In this year he received the greatest honour which a scientific 
man can receive in this country — the Copley Medal of the 
Royal Society. It is presented at the Anniversary Meeting 
on St. Andrew's Day (Nov. 30), the medallist being usually 
present to receive it, but this the state of my father's health 
prevented. He wrote to Mr. Fox on this subject : — 

" I was glad to see your hand-writing. The Copley, 
being open to all sciences and all the world, is reckoned a 
great honour ; but excepting from several kind letters, such 
things make little difference to me. It shows, however, that 


Natural Selection is making some progress in this country, and 
that pleases me. The subject, however, is safe in foreign lands." 
To Sir J. D. Hooker, also, he wrote : — 
" How kind you have been about this medal ; indeed, I am 
blessed with many good friends, and I have received four or 
five notes which have warmed my heart. I often wonder that 
so old a worn-out dog as I am is not quite forgotten. Talking 
of medals, has Falconer had the Royal ? he surely ought to 
have it, as ought John Lubbock. By the way, the latter tells 
me that some old members of the Royal are quite shocked at 
my having the Copley. Do you know who ? " 
He wrote to Mr. Huxley : — 

" I must and will answer you, for it is a real pleasure for me 
to thank you cordially for your note. Such notes as this of 
yours, and a few others, are the real medal to me, and not the 
round bit of gold. These have given me a pleasure which 
will long endure ; so believe in my cordial thanks for your note." 
Sir Charles Lyell, writing to my father in November 1864 
(' Life,' vol. ii. p. 384), speaks of the supposed malcontents as 
being afraid to crown anything so unorthodox as the ' Origin.' 
But he adds that if such were their feelings " they had the 
good sense to draw in their horns." It appears, however, from 
the same letter, that the proposal to give the Copley Medal 
to my father in the previous year failed owing to a similar 
want of courage — to Lyell's great indignation. 

In the Reader, December 3, 1864, General Sabine's presi- 
dential address at the Anniversary Meeting is reported at 
some length. Special weight was laid on my father's work in 
Geology, Zoology, and Botany, but the ' Origin of Species' is 
praised chiefly as containing " a mass of observations," &c. 
It is curious that as in the case of his election to the French 
Institute, so in this case, he was honoured not for the great 
work of his life, but for his less important work in special 
lines. The paragraph in General Sabine's address which 
refers to the ' Origin of Species/ is as follows : — 




" In his most recent work ' On the Origin of Species,' although 
opinions may be divided or undecided with respect to its 
merits in some respects, all will allow that it contains a mass 
of observations bearing upon the habits, structure, affinities, 
and distribution of animals, perhaps unrivalled for interest, 
minuteness, and patience of observation. Some amongst us 
may perhaps incline to accept the theory indicated by the 
title of this work, while others may perhaps incline to refuse, 
or at least to remit it to a future time, when increased know- 
ledge shall afford stronger grounds for its ultimate acceptance 
or rejection. Speaking generally and collectively, we have 
expressly omitted it from the grounds of our award." 

I believe I am right in saying that no little dissatisfaction 
at the President's manner of allusion to the ' Origin ' was 
felt by some Fellows of the Society. 

The presentation of the Copley Medal is of interest in 
another way, inasmuch as it led to Sir C. Lyell making, in 
his after-dinner speech, a "confession of faith as to the 
' Origin. 5 " He wrote to my father (' Life,' vol. ii. p. 384), " I 
said I had been forced to give up my old faith without 
thoroughly seeing my way to a new one. But I think you 
would have been satisfied with the length I went."] 

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley. 

Down, Oct. 3 [1864]. 

MY DEAR HUXLEY, — If I do not pour out my admiration 
of your article * on Kolliker, I shall explode. I never read 

* "Criticisms on the Origin of 
Species," ' Nat. Hist. Review,' 1864. 
Republished in ' Lay Sermons,' 
1870, p. 328. The work of Professor 
Kolliker referred to is ' Ueber die 
Darwin'sche Schopfungstheorie ' 
(Leipzig, 1864). Toward Professor 
Kolliker my father felt not only the 

respect due to so distinguished a 
naturalist (a sentiment well ex- 
pressed in Professor Huxley's re- 
view), but he had also a personal 
regard for him, and often alluded 
with satisfaction to the visit which 
Professor Kolliker paid at Down. 


anything better done. I had much wished his article answered, 
and indeed thought of doing so myself, so that I considered 
several points. You have hit on all, and on some in addition, 
and oh ! by Jove, how well you have done it. As I read on 
and came to point after point on which I had thought, I could 
not help jeering and scoffing at myself, to see how infinitely 
better you had done it than I could have done. Well, if any 
one, who does not understand Natural Selection, will read this, 
he will be a blockhead if it is not as clear as daylight. Old 
Flourens * was hardly worth the powder and shot ; but how 
capitally you bring in about the Academician, and your 
metaphor of the sea-sand is inimitable. 

It is a marvel to me how you can resist becoming a regular 
reviewer. Well, I have exploded now, and it has done me a 
deal of good. . . . 

("In the same article in the ' Natural History Review,' Mr. 
Huxley speaks of the book above alluded to by Flourens, the 
Secretaire Perpetuel of the French Academy, as one of the 
two " most elaborate criticisms " of the ' Origin of Species ' 
of the year. He quotes the following passage : — 

" M. Darwin continue : • Aucune distinction absolue n'a ete 
et ne peut etre etablie entre les especes et les varietes ! Je 
vous ai deja dit que vous vous trompiez ; une distinction 
absolue separe les varietes d'avec les especes." Mr. Huxley 
remarks on this, " Being devoid of the blessings of an Aca- 
demy in England, we are unaccustomed to see our ablest men 
treated in this way even by a Perpetual Secretary." After 
demonstrating M. Flourens' misapprehension of Natural 
Selection, Mr. Huxley says, " How one knows it all by heart, 
and with what relief one reads at p. 65, 'Je laisse M. 
Darwin.' " 

On the same subject my father wrote to Mr. Wallace : — 

"A great gun, Flourens, has written a little dull book 

* ' Examen du livre de M. Darwin sur l'origine des especes. Par 
P. Flourens.' 8vo. Paris, 1864. 


against me, which pleases me much, for it is plain that our 
good work is spreading in France. He speaks of the 
i engouement ' about this book ■ so full of empty and 
presumptuous thoughts.' " The passage here alluded to is 
as follows : — 

" ' Enfin l'ouvrage de M. Darwin a paru. On ne peut 
qu'etre frappe du talent de l'auteur. Mais que d'idees ob- 
scures, que d'idees fausses ! Quel jargon metaphysique jete 
mal a propos dans l'histoire naturelle, qui tombe dans le 
galimatias des qu'elle sort des idees claires, des idees justes. 
Quel langage pretentieux et vide ! Quelles personnifications 
pueriles et surannees ! O lucidite ! O solidite de l'esprit 
francais, que devenez-vous ? ' "] 


[This was again a time of much ill-health, but towards the 
close of the year he began to recover under the care of the 
late Dr. Bence-Jones, who dieted him severely, and as he 
expressed it, "half-starved him to death." He was able to 
work at ' Animals and Plants ' until nearly the end of April, 
and from that time until December he did practically no work, 
with the exception of looking over the ' Origin of Species ' 
for a second French edition. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : 
— " I am, as it were, reading the ' Origin ' for the first time, 
for I am correcting for a second French edition : and upon 
my life, my dear fellow, it is a very good book, but oh ! my 
gracious, it is tough reading, and I wish it were done." * 

The following letter refers to the Duke of Argyll's address 
to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, December 5th, 1864, in 
which he criticises the ' Origin of Species.' My father seems 
to have read the Duke's address as reported in the Scotsman 
of December 6th, 1865. In a letter to my father (Jan. 16, 

* Towards the end of the year my the distinguished American natural- 
father received the news of a new ist Lesquereux. He wrote to Sir J. D. 
convert to his views, in the person of Hooker : " I have had an enormous 




1865, 'Life/ vol. ii. p. 385), Lyell wrote, "The address is 
a great step towards your views — far greater, I believe, than 
it seems when read merely with reference to criticisms and 
objections " :] 

C. Darwin to C. Lyell. 

Down, January 22, 1865. 

My DEAR Lyell, — I thank you for your very interesting 
letter. I have the true English instinctive reverence for rank, 
and therefore liked to hear about the Princess Royal* You 
ask what I think of the Duke's address, and I shall be glad to 
tell you. It seems to me extremely clever, like everything I 
have read of his ; but I am not shaken — perhaps you will say 
that neither gods nor men could shake me. I demur to the 
Duke reiterating his objection that the brilliant plumage of 
the male humming-bird could not have been acquired through 
selection, at the same time entirely ignoring my discussion 
(p. 93, 3rd edition) on beautiful plumage being acquired 
through sexual selection. The Duke may think this insuf- 
ficient, but that is another question. All analogy makes me 
quite disagree with the Duke that the difference in the beak, 
wing, and tail, are not of importance to the several species. 
In the only two species which I have watched, the difference 
in flight and in the use of the tail was conspicuously great. 

The Duke, who knows my Orchid book so well, might have 
learnt a lesson of caution from it, with respect to his doctrine 

letter from Leo Lesquereux (after 
doubts, I did not think it worth 
sending you) on Coal Flora. He 
wrote some excellent articles in 
' Silliman ' against ' Origin ' views ; 
but he says now, after repeated 
reading of the book, he is a con- 
vert ! " 

* " I had ... an animated con- 

versation on Darwinism with the 
Princess Royal, who is a worthy 
daughter of her father, in the read- 
ing of good books, and thinking of 
what she reads. She was very 
much au fait at the ' Origin,' and 
Huxley's book, the ■ Antiquity/ 
&c."— LyelPs ' Life,' vol. ii. p. 385. 


of differences for mere variety or beauty. It may be con- 
fidently said that no tribe of plants presents such grotesque 
and beautiful differences, which no one until lately, conjectured 
were of any use ; but now in almost every case I have been 
able to show their important service. It should be re- 
membered that with humming-birds or orchids, a modification 
in one part will cause correlated changes in other parts. I 
agree with what you say about beauty. I formerly thought 
a good deal on the subject, and was led quite to repudiate the 
doctrine of beauty being created for beauty's sake. I demur 
also to the Duke's expression of " new births." That may be 
a very good theory, but it is not mine, unless indeed he calls 
a bird born with a beak yj^th of an inch longer than usual 
" a new birth ; " but this is not the sense in which the term 
would usually be understood. The more I work, the more I 
feel convinced that it is by the accumulation of such extremely 
slight variations that new species arise. I do not plead guilty 
to the Duke's charge, that I forget that natural selection means 
only the preservation of variations which independently arise.* 
I have expressed this in as strong language as I could use, 
but it would have been infinitely tedious had I on every 
occasion thus guarded myself. I will cry " peccavi " when I 
hear of the Duke or you attacking breeders for saying that 
man has made his improved shorthorns, or pouter pigeons, or 
bantams. And I could quote still stronger expressions used 
by agriculturists. Man does make his artificial breeds, for his 
selective power is of such importance relatively to that of the 
slight spontaneous variations. But no one will attack breeders 
for using such expressions, and the rising generation will not 
blame me. 

Many thanks for your offer of sending me the ' Elements.' f 

* " Strictly speaking, therefore, failure of such new forms as may 

Mr. Darwin's theory is not a theory be born into the world." — Scots- 

on the Origin of Species at all, but man, Dec. 6, 1864. 

only a theory on the causes which f Sixth edition in one volume, 
lead to the relative success and 



I hope to read it all, but unfortunately reading makes my 
head whiz more than anything else. I am able most days to 
work for two or three hours, and this makes all the difference 
in my happiness. I have resolved not to be tempted astray, 
and to publish nothing till my volume on Variation is com- 
pleted. You gave me excellent advice about the footnotes in 
my Dog chapter, but their alteration gave me infinite trouble, 
and I often wished all the dogs, and I fear sometimes you 
yourself, in the nether regions. 

We (dictator and writer) send our best love to Lady Lyell. 

Yours affectionately, 

Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — If ever you should speak with the Duke on the sub- 
ject, please say how much interested I was with his address. 

[In his autobiographical sketch, my father has remarked 
(p. 40) that owing to certain early memories he felt the 
honour of being elected to the Royal and Royal Medical 
Societies of Edinburgh " more than any similar honour." 
The following extract from a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker 
refers to his election to the former of these societies. The 
latter part of the extract refers to the Berlin Academy, to 
which he was elected in 1878 : — 

" Here is a really curious thing, considering that Brewster 
is President and Balfour Secretary. I have been elected 
Honorary Member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. And 
this leads me to a third question. Does the Berlin Academy 
of Sciences send their Proceedings to Honorary Members ? I 
want to know, to ascertain whether I am a member ; I suppose 
not, for I think it would have made some impression on me ; 
yet I distinctly remember receiving some diploma signed by 
Ehrenberg. I have been so careless ; I have lost several 
diplomas, and now I want to know what Societies I belong to, 
as I observe every [one] tacks their titles to their names in the 
catalogue of the Royal Soc."] 

1865.] LYELL'S 'ELEMENTS.' 35 

C. Darwin to C. Lyell. 

Down, Feb. 21 [1865]. 

My dear Lyell, — I have taken a long time to thank you 
very much for your present of the ' Elements.' 

I am going through it all, reading what is new, and what I 
have forgotten, and this is a good deal. 

I am simply astonished at the amount of labour, knowledge, 
and clear thought condensed in this work. The whole strikes 
me as something quite grand. I have been particularly 
interested by your account of Heer's work and your discussion 
on the Atlantic Continent. I am particularly delighted at 
the view which you take on this subject ; for I have long 
thought Forbes did an ill service in so freely making 

I have also been very glad to read your argument on the 
denudation of the Weald, and your excellent resume on the 
Purbeck Beds ; and this is the point at which I have at present 
arrived in your book. I cannot say that I am quite convinced 
that there is no connection beyond that pointed out by you, 
between glacial action and the formation of lake basins ; but 
you will not much value my opinion on this head, as I have 
already changed my mind some half-dozen times. 

I want to make a suggestion to you. I found the weight 
of your volume intolerable, especially when lying down, so 
with great boldness cut it into two pieces, and took it out of 
its cover ; now could not Murray without any other change 
add to his advertisement a line saying, " if bound in two 
volumes, one shilling or one shilling and sixpence extra." You 
thus might originate a change which would be a blessing to 
all weak-handed readers. 

Believe me, my dear Lyell, 

Yours most sincerely, 

Charles Darwin, 
d 2 




Originate a second real blessing and have the edges of the 
sheets cut like a bound book* 

C. Darwin to John Lubbock. 

Down, June 11 [1865]. 

My dear Lubbock, — The latter half of your book f has 
been read aloud to me, and the style is so clear and easy 
(we both think it perfection) that I am now beginning at the 
beginning. I cannot resist telling you how excellently well, 
in my opinion, you have done the very interesting chapter on 
savage life. Though you have necessarily only compiled the 
materials the general result is most original. But I ought to 
keep the term original for your last chapter, which has struck 
me as an admirable and profound discussion. It has quite 
delighted me, for now the public will see what kind of man 
you are, which I am proud to think I discovered a dozen 
years ago. 

I do sincerely wish you all success in your election and in 
politics ; but after reading this last chapter, you must let me 
say : oh, dear ! oh, dear ! oh dear ! 

Yours affectionately, 

Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. — You pay me a superb compliment^ but I fear you 

* This was a favourite reform of 
my father's. He wrote to the 
AthencEum on the subject, Feb. 5, 
1867, pointing out that a book 
cut, even carefully, with a paper 
knife collects dust on its edges far 
more than a machine-cut book. 
He goes on to quote the case of 
a lady of his acquaintance who 
was in the habit of cutting books 
with her thumb, and finally appeals 
to the AthencEum to earn the grati- 
tude of children " who have to cut 

through dry and pictureless books 
for the benefit of their elders." He 
tried to introduce the reform in the 
case of his own books, but found 
the conservatism of booksellers too 
strong for him. The presentation 
copies, however, of all his later 
books were sent out with the edges 

t ' Prehistoric Times,' 1865. 

X l Prehistoric Times,' p. 487, 
where the words, " the discoveries 
of a Newton or a Darwin," occur. 

1865.] FRITZ MULLER. 37 

will be quizzed for it by some of your friends as too 

[The following letter refers to Fritz Mtiller's book, 'Fur 
Darwin,' which was afterwards translated, at my father's 
suggestion, by Mr. Dallas. It is of interest as being the 
first of the long series of letters which my father wrote to 
this distinguished naturalist. They never met, but the 
correspondence with M tiller, which continued to the close of 
my father's life, was a source of very great pleasure to him. 
My impression is that of all his unseen friends Fritz Miiller 
was the one for whom he had the strongest regard. Fritz 
Miiller is the brother of another distinguished man, the late 
Hermann Miiller, the author of ' Die Befruchtung der Blumen,' 
and of much other valuable work :] 

C. Darwin to F. Miiller. 

Down, August 10 [1865]. 

My dear Sir, — I have been for a long time so ill that I 
have only just finished hearing read aloud your work on 
species. And now you must permit me to thank you 
cordially for the great interest with which I have read it. 
You have done admirable service in the cause in which we 
both believe. Many of your arguments seem to me excellent, 
and many of your facts wonderful. Of the latter, nothing has 
surprised me so much as the two forms of males. I have 
lately investigated the cases of dimorphic plants, and I should 
much like to send you one or two of my papers if I knew 
how. I did send lately by post a paper on climbing plants, 
as an experiment to see whether it would reach you. One of 
the points which has struck me most in your paper is that on 
the differences in the air-breathing apparatus of the several 
forms. This subject appeared to me very important when I 
formerly considered the electric apparatus of fishes. Your 


observations on Classification and Embryology seem to me 
very good and original. They show what a wonderful field 
there is for enquiry on the development of Crustacea, and 
nothing has convinced me so plainly what admirable results 
we shall arrive at in Natural History in the course of a few 
years. What a marvellous range of structure the Crustacea 
present, and how well adapted they are for your enquiry ! 
Until reading your book I knew nothing of the Rhizocephala ; 
pray look at my account and figures of Anelasma, for it seems 
to me that this latter cirripede is a beautiful connecting link 
with the Rhizocephala. 

If ever you have any opportunity, as you are so skilful a 
dissector, I much wish that you would look to the orifice at 
the base of the first pair of cirrhi in cirripedes, and at the 
curious organ in it, and discover what its nature is ; I sup- 
pose I was quite in error, yet I cannot feel fully satisfied at 
Krohn's * observations. Also if you ever find any species of 
Scalpellum, pray look for complemental males ; a German 
author has recently doubted my observations, for no reason 
except that the facts appeared to him so strange. 

Permit me again to thank you cordially for the pleasure 
which I have derived from your work, and to express my 
sincere admiration for your valuable researches. 

Believe me, dear Sir, with sincere respect, 

Yours very faithfully, 
Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. — I do not know whether you care at all about plants, 
but if so, I should much like to send you my little work on 
the ' Fertilization of Orchids,' and I think I have a German 

Could you spare me a photograph of yourself? I should 
much like to possess one. 

* See Vol. II. p. 345, Vol. III. p. 2. 

1 86 5 .] 



C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker, 

Down, Thursday, 27th [Sept. 1865]. 

MY DEAR HOOKER, — I had intended writing this morning 
to thank Mrs. Hooker most sincerely for her last and several 
notes about you, and now your own note in your hand has 
rejoiced me. To walk between five and six miles is splendid, 
with a little patience you must soon be well. I knew you had 
been very ill, but I hardly knew how ill, until yesterday, when 
Bentham (from the Cranworths *) called here, and I was able 
to see him for ten minutes. He told me also a little about 
the last days of your father ; f I wish I had known your father 
better, my impression is confined to his remarkably cordial, 
courteous and frank bearing, I fully concur and understand 
what you say about the difference of feeling in the loss of a 
father and child. I do not think any one could love a father 
much more than I did mine, and I do not believe three or four 
days ever pass without my still thinking of him, but his death 
at eighty-four caused me nothing of that insufferable grief J 
which the loss of poor dear Annie caused. And this seems to 
me perfectly natural, for one knows that for years previously 

* Robert Rolfe, Lord Cranworth, 
and Lord Chancellor of England, 
lived at Holwood, near Down. 

t Sir Wm. Hooker; b. 1785, 
d. 1865. He took charge of the 
Royal Gardens at Kew, in 1840, 
when they ceased to be the private 
gardens of the Royal Family. In 
doing so, he gave up his professor- 
ship at Glasgow — and with it half 
of his income. He founded the 
herbarium and library, and within 
ten years he succeeded in making 
the gardens the first in the world. 
It is, thus, not too much to say that 
the creation of the establishment 
at Kew is due to the abilities and 
self-devotion of Sir William Hooker. 

While, for the subsequent develop- 
ment of the gardens up to their 
present magnificent condition, the 
nation must thank Sir Joseph 
Hooker, in whom the same qualities 
are so conspicuous. 

% I may quote here a passage 
from a letter of November 1863. 
It was written to a friend who had 
lost his child : " How well I re- 
member your feeling, when we lost 
Annie. It was my greatest comfort 
that I had never spoken a harsh 
word to her. Your grief has made 
me shed a few tears over our poor 
darling ; but believe me that these 
tears have lost that unutterable 
bitterness of former days.' 5 


that one's father's death is drawing slowly nearer and nearer, 
while the death of one's child is a sudden and dreadful 
wrench. What a wonderful deal you read ; it is a horrid evil 
for me that I can read hardly anything, for it makes my head 
almost immediately begin to sing violently. My good 
womenkind read to me a great deal, but I dare not ask for 
much science, and am not sure that I could stand it. I 
enjoyed Tylor * extremely ', and the first part of Lecky ; \ but 
I think the latter is often vague, and gives a false appearance 
of throwing light on|his subject by such phrases as " spirit of 
the age," " spread of civilization," &c. I confine my reading 
to a quarter or half hour per day in skimming through the 
back volumes of the Annals and Magazines of Natural Hist- 
ory, and find much that interests me. I miss my climbing 
plants very much, as I could observe them when very 

I did not enjoy the ' Mill on the Floss ' so much as you, 
but from what you say we will read it again. Do you know 
* Silas Marner ' ? it is a charming little story ; if you run short, 
and like to have it, we could send it by post. . . . We have 
almost finished the first volume of Palgrave,J and I like it 
much ; but did you ever see a book so badly arranged ? The 
frequency of the allusions to what will be told in the future 
are quite laughable. . . . By the way, I was very much 
pleased with the foot-note § about Wallace in Lubbock's last 
chapter. I had not heard that Huxley had backed up Lub- 
bock about Parliament. . . . Did you see a sneer some time 
ago in the Times about how incomparably more interesting 

* ' Researches into the Early be referred to occurs in the text 

History of Mankind,' by E. B. (p. 479) of ' Prehistoric Times.' It 

Tylor. 1865. expresses admiration of Mr. Wal- 

t ' The Rise of Rationalism in lace's paper in the ' Anthropological 

Europe,' by W. E. H. Lecky. 1865. Review' (May 1864), and speaks 

% William Gifford Palgrave's of the author's " characteristic un- 

1 Travels in Arabia,' published in selfishness " in ascribing the theory 

1865. of Natural Selection "unreservedly 

§ The passage which seems to to Mr. Darwin." 

1865.] DR. WELLS — CANON FARRAR. 41 

politics were compared with science even to scientific men ? 
Remember what Trollope says, in ' Can you Forgive her ? ' 
about getting into Parliament, as the highest earthly ambition. 
Jeffrey, in one of his letters, I remember, says that making an 
effective speech in Parliament is a far grander thing than 
writing the grandest history. All this seems to me a poor 
short-sighted view. I cannot tell you how it has rejoiced 
me once again seeing your handwriting — my best of old 

Yours affectionately, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[In October he wrote Sir J. D. Hooker : — 

" Talking of the ' Origin,' a Yankee has called my attention 
to a paper attached to Dr. Wells' famous ' Essay on Dew,' 
which was read in 1 8 13 to the Royal Soc, but not [then] 
printed, in which he applies most distinctly the principle of 
Natural Selection to the Races of Man. So poor old Patrick 
Matthew is not the first, and he cannot, or ought not, any 
longer to put on his title-pages, ' Discoverer of the principle of 
Natural Selection ' ! "] 

C. Darwin to F. W. Farrar* 

Down, Nov. 2 [1865 ?] 
Dear Sir, — As I have never studied the science of lan- 
guage, it may perhaps seem presumptuous, but I cannot 
resist the pleasure of telling you what interest and pleasure I 
have derived from hearing read aloud your volume.f 

I formerly read Max Muller, and thought his theory (if it 
deserves to be called so) both obscure and weak ; and now, 
after hearing what you say, I feel sure that this is the case, 
and that your cause will ultimately triumph. My indirect 
interest in your book has been increased from Mr. Hensleigh 
Wedgwood, whom you often quote, being my brother-in-law. 

* Canon of Westminster. t ' Chapters on Language,' 1865. 


No one could dissent from my views on the modification of 
species with more courtesy than you do. But from the tenor 
of your mind I feel an entire and comfortable conviction 
(and which cannot possibly be disturbed) that if your studies 
led you to attend much to general questions in natural 
history you would come to the same conclusion that I have 

Have you ever read Huxley's little book of Lectures? 
I would gladly send you a copy if you think you would 
read it. 

Considering what Geology teaches us, the argument from 
the supposed immutability of specific types seems to me 
much the same as if, in a nation which had no old writings, 
some wise old savage was to say that his language had never 
changed ; but my metaphor is too long to fill up. 

Pray believe me, dear Sir, yours very sincerely obliged, 

C. Darwin. 


[The year 1866 is given in my father's Diary in the fol- 
lowing words : — 

" Continued correcting chapters of ' Domestic Animals.' 

March 1st. — Began on 4th edition of ' Origin ' of 1250 
copies (received for it ^238), making 7500 copies altogether. 

May \Oth. — Finished ' Origin/ except revises, and began 
going over Chapter xill. of ' Domestic Animals.' 

Nov. 21st. — Finished 'Pangenesis.' 

Dec. 21st. — Finished re-going over all chapters, and sent 
them to printers. 

Dec. 22nd. — Began concluding chapter of book." 

He was in London on two occasions for a week at a time, 
staying with his brother, and for a few days (May 29th- 
June 2nd) in Surrey ; for the rest of the year he was at 

1 866.] 



There seems to have been a gradual amendment in his 
health ; thus he wrote to Mr. Wallace (January 1866) : — " My 
health is so far improved that I am able to work one or two 
hours a day." 

With respect to the 4th edition he wrote to Sir J. D. 
Hooker : — 

" The new edition of the ' Origin ' has caused me two 
great vexations. I forgot Bates's paper on variation,* but I 
remembered in time his mimetic work, and now, strange to 
say, I find I have forgotten your Arctic paper ! I know how 
it arose ; I indexed for my bigger work, and never expected 
that a new edition of the ' Origin ' would be wanted. 

"I cannot say how all this has vexed me. Everything 
which I have read during the last four years I find is quite 
washy in my mind." As far as I know, Mr. Bates's paper 
was not mentioned in the later editions of the ' Origin,' 
for what reason I cannot say. 

In connection with his work on 'The Variation of 
Animals and Plants,' I give here extracts from three letters 
addressed to Mr. Huxley, which are of interest as giving 
some idea of the development of the theory of ' Pangenesis,' 
ultimately published in 1868 in the book in question :] 

C. Darwin to T. H> Huxley, 

Down, May 27, [1865 ?] 

... I write now to ask a favour of you, a very great favour 
from one so hard worked as you are. It is to read thirty 
pages of MS., excellently copied out, and give me, not length- 
ened criticism, but your opinion whether I may venture to 
publish it. You may keep the MS. for a month or two. 
I would not ask this favour, but I really know no one else 
whose judgment on the subject would be final with me. 

* This appears to refer to " Notes 
on South American Butterflies," 

Trans. Entomolog. Soc, vol. v. 



The case stands thus : in my next book I shall publish 
long chapters on bud- and seminal-variation, on inheritance, 
reversion, effects of use and disuse, &c. I have also for many- 
years speculated on the different forms of reproduction. 
Hence it has come to be a passion with me to try to connect 
all such facts by some sort of hypothesis. The MS. which I 
wish to send you gives such a hypothesis ; it is a very rash 
and crude hypothesis, yet it has been a considerable relief to 
my mind, and I can hang on it a good many groups of facts. 
I well know that a mere hypothesis, and this is nothing more, 
is of little value ; but it is very useful to me as serving as a 
kind of summary for certain chapters. Now I earnestly wish 
for your verdict given briefly as, " Burn it " — or, which is the 
most favourable verdict I can hope for, " It does rudely 
connect together certain facts, and I do not think it will 
immediately pass out of my mind." If you can say this 
much, and you do not think it absolutely ridiculous, I shall 
publish it in my concluding chapter. Now will you grant 
me this favour ? You must refuse if you are too much over- 

I must say for myself that I am a hero to expose my 
hypothesis to the fiery ordeal of your criticism. 

July 12, [1865?] 

My DEAR Huxley, — I thank you most sincerely for having 
so carefully considered my MS. It has been a real act of 
kindness. It would have annoyed me extremely to have 
re-published Buffon's views, which I did not know of, but I 
will get the book ; and if I have strength I will also read 
Bonnet. I do not doubt your judgment is perfectly just, 
and I will try to persuade myself not to publish. The whole 
affair is much too speculative ; yet I think some such view 
will have to be adopted, when I call to mind such facts as 
the inherited effects of use and disuse, &c. But I will try to 
be cautious. . . . 

1 866.] PANGENESIS. 45 


My DEAR Huxley, — Forgive my writing in pencil, as I 
can do so lying down. I have read Buffbn : whole pages 
are laughably like mine. It is surprising how candid it 
makes one to see one's views in another man's words. I 
am rather ashamed of the whole affair, but not converted 
to a no-belief. What a kindness you have done me with 
your " vulpine sharpness." Nevertheless, there is a funda- 
mental distinction between Buffon's views and mine. He 
does not suppose that each cell or atom of tissue throws 
off a little bud ; but he supposes that the sap or blood 
includes his " organic molecules," which are ready formed, fit 
to nourish each organ, and when this is fully formed, they 
collect to form buds and the sexual elements. It is all 
rubbish to speculate as I have done ; yet, if I ever have 
strength to publish my next book, I fear I shall not resist 
" Pangenesis," but I assure you I will put it humbly enough. 
The ordinary course of development of beings, such as the 
Echinodermata, in which new organs are formed at quite 
remote spots from the analogous previous parts, seems to me 
extremely difficult to reconcile on any view except the free 
diffusion in the parent of the germs or gemmules of each 
separate new organ : and so in cases of alternate generation. 
But I will not scribble any more. Hearty thanks to you, you 
best of critics and most learned man 

[The letters now take up the history of the year 1866.] 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, July 5 [1866]. 

My dear Wallace, — I have been much interested by 
your letter, which is as clear as daylight. I fully agree with 
all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's excellent 


expression of " the survival of the fittest." * This, however, 
had not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however, 
a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a 
substantive governing a verb ; and that this is a real objection 
I infer from H. Spencer continually using the words, natural 
selection. I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated 
degree, that it was a great advantage to bring into connection 
natural and artificial selection ; this indeed led me to use a 
term in common, and I still think it some advantage. I wish 
I had received your letter two months ago, for I would have 
worked in " the survival, &c," often in the new edition of the 
1 Origin,' which is now almost printed off, and of which I will 
of course send you a copy. I will use the term in my next 
book on Domestic Animals, &c., from which, by the way, I 
plainly see that you expect much too much. The term 
Natural Selection has now been so largely used abroad and 
at home, that I doubt whether it could be given up, and with 
all its faults I should be sorry to see the attempt made. 
Whether it will be rejected must now depend "on the survival 
of the fittest." As in time the term must grow intelligible 
the objections to its use will grow weaker and weaker. I 
doubt whether the use of any term would have made the 
subject intelligible to some minds, clear as it is to others ; 
for do we not see even to the present day Malthus on Popu- 
lation absurdly misunderstood ? This reflection about Malthus 
has often comforted me when I have been vexed at the mis- 
statement of my views. As for M. Janet,f he is a meta- 
physician, and such gentlemen are so acute that I think they 
often misunderstand common folk. Your criticism on the 

* Extract from a letter of Mr. . . . Nature . . . does not so much 

Wallace's, July 2, 1866 : "The term select special varieties as exter- 

' survival of the fittest ' is the plain minate the most unfavourable 

expression of the fact ; 'natural ones." 

selection ' is a metaphorical ex- f This no doubt refers to Janet's 

pression of it, and to a certain ' Materialisme Contemporaine.' 
degree indirect and incorrect, since 


double sense * in which I have used Natural Selection is new 
to me and unanswerable ; but my blunder has done no harm, 
for I do not believe that any one, excepting you, has ever 
observed it. Again, I agree that I have said too much about 
" favourable variations ;" but I am inclined to think that you 
put the opposite side too strongly ; if every part of every 
being varied, I do not think we should see the same end, or 
object, gained by such wonderfully diversified means. 

I hope you are enjoying the country, and are in good 
health, and are working hard at your Malay Archipelago book, 
for I will always put this wish in every note I write to you, 
as some good people always put in a text. My health 
keeps much the same, or rather improves, and I am able to 
work some hours daily. With many thanks for your 
interesting letter, 

Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, Aug. 30 [1866]. 

My DEAR Hooker, — I was very glad to get your note 
and the Notts. Newspaper. I have seldom been more pleased 
in my life than at hearing how successfully your lecture f 
went off. Mrs. H. Wedgwood sent us an account, saying 
that you read capitally, and were listened to with profound 
attention and great applause. She says, when your final 

* "I find you use ' Natural Se- tract from Mr. Wallace's letter 

lection' in two senses; ist, for the above quoted. 

simple preservation of favourable f At the Nottingham meeting of 

and rejection of unfavourable varia- the British Association, Aug. 27, 

tions, in which case it is equivalent 1866. The subject of the lecture 

to the ' survival of the fittest,' — and was 'Insular Floras.' See Gar- 

2ndly, for the effect or change pro- (letters' Chronicle, 1866. 
duced by this preservation." — Ex- 


allegory * began, " for a minute or two we were all mystified, 
and then came such bursts of applause from the audience. 
It was thoroughly enjoyed amid roars of laughter and noise, 
making a most brilliant conclusion." 

I am rejoiced that you will publish your lecture, and felt sure 
that sooner or later it would come to this, indeed it would 
have been a sin if you had not done so. I am especially 
rejoiced as you give the arguments for occasional transport 
with such perfect fairness ; these will now receive a fair share 
of attention, as coming from you, a professed botanist. Thanks 
also for Grove's address ; as a whole it strikes me as very 
good and original, but I was disappointed in the part about 
Species ; it dealt in such generalities that it would apply to 
any view or no view in particular 

And now farewell. I do most heartily rejoice at your 

success, and for Grove's sake at the brilliant success of the 

whole meeting. 

Yours affectionately, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The next letter is of interest, as giving the beginning of 
the connection which arose between my father and Profes- 
sor Victor Carus. The translation referred to is the third 
German edition, made from the fourth English one. From 
this time forward Professor Carus continued to translate 
my father's books into German. The conscientious care with 
which this work was done was of material service, and I well 
remember the admiration (mingled with a tinge of vexation 
at his own shortcomings) with which my father used to 
receive the lists of oversights, &c, which Professor Carus dis- 

* Sir Joseph Hooker allegorised each month. The anger of the 

the Oxford meeting of the British priests and medicine men at a 

Association as the gathering of a certain heresy, according to which 

tribe of savages who believed that the new moon is but the offspring 

the new moon was created afresh of the old one, is excellently given. 

1 866.] PROF. VICTOR CARUS. 49 

covered in the course of translation. The connection was not 
a mere business one, but was cemented by warm feelings of 
regard on both sides.] 

C. Darwin to Victor Carus. 

Down, November 10, 1866. 

My DEAR SIR, — I thank you for your extremely kind 
letter. I cannot express too strongly my satisfaction that you 
have undertaken the revision of the new edition, and I feel the 
honour which you have conferred on me. I fear that you will 
find the labour considerable, not only on account of the 
additions, but I suspect that Bronn's translation is very 
defective, at least I have heard complaints on this head from 
quite a large number of persons. It would be a great gratifi- 
cation to me to know that the translation was a really good 
one, such as I have no doubt you will produce. According 
to our English practice, you will be fully justified in entirely 
omitting Bronn's Appendix, and I shall be very glad of its 
omission. A new edition may be looked at as a new work. 
.... You could add anything of your own that you liked, 
and I should be much pleased. Should you make any 
additions or append notes, it appears to me that Nageli, 
" Entstehung und Begriff," &c.,* would be worth noticing, as. 
one of the most able pamphlets on the subject. I am, how- 
ever, far from agreeing with him that the acquisition of certain 
characters which appear to be of no service to plants, offers 
any great difficulty, or affords a proof of some innate tendency 
in plants towards perfection. If you intend to notice this 
pamphlet, I should like to write hereafter a little more in 
detail on the subject. 

.... I wish I had known, when writing my Historical 

* ' Entstehung und Begriff der the Royal Academy of Sciences at 
Naturhistorischen Art.' An Ad- Munich, Mar. 28, 1865. 
dress given at a public meeting of 



Sketch, that you had in 1853 published your views on the 
genealogical connection of past and present forms. 

I suppose you have the sheets of the last English edition 
on which I marked with pencil all the chief additions, but 
many little corrections of style were not marked. 

Pray believe that I feel sincerely grateful for the great 
service and honour which you do me by the present 

I remain, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — I should be very much pleased to possess your 
photograph, and I send mine in case you should like to have 
a copy. 

C. Darwin to C. Ndgeli* 

Down, June 12 [1866]. 

DEAR Sir, — I hope you will excuse the liberty which I 
take in writing to you. I have just read, though imperfectly, 
your ' Entstehung und BegrifT,' and [have been so greatly 
interested by it, that I have sent it to be translated, as I am 
a poor German scholar. I have just finished a new [4th] 
edition of my ' Origin,' which will be translated into German, 
and my object in writing to you is to say that if you should 
see this edition you would think that I had borrowed from 
you, without acknowledgment, two discussions on the beauty 
of flowers and fruit ; but I assure you every word was printed 
off before I had opened your pamphlet. Should you like to 
possess a copy of either the German or English new edition, I 
should be proud to send one. I may add, with respect to the 
beauty of flowers, that I have already hinted the same views 
as you hold in my paper on Lythrum. 

Many of your criticisms on my views are the best which I 
have met with, but I could answer some, at least to my own 
satisfaction ; and I regret extremely that I had not read your 

* Professor of Botany at Munich. 

1 866.] nAgeli on species. 51 

pamphlet before printing my new edition.* On one or two 
points, I think, you have a little misunderstood me, though I 
dare say I have not been cautious in expressing myself. The 
remark which has struck me most, is that on the position of 
the leaves not having been acquired through natural selection, 
from not being of any special importance to the plant. I 
well remember being formerly troubled by an analogous 
difficulty, namely, the position of the ovules, their anatropous 
condition, &c. It was owing to forgetfulness that I did not 
notice this difficulty in the 'Origin.' Although I can offer 
no explanation of such facts, and only hope to see that they 
may be explained, yet I hardly see how they support the 
doctrine of some law of necessary development, for it is not 
clear to me that a plant, with its leaves placed at some 
particular angle, or with its ovules in some particular position, 
thus stands higher than another plant. But I must apologise 
for troubling you with these remarks. 

As I much wish to possess your photograph, I take the 
liberty of enclosing my own, and with sincere respect I remain, 
dear Sir, 

Yours faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[I give a few extracts from letters of various dates showing 
my father's interest, alluded to in the last letter, in the pro- 
blem of the arrangement of the leaves on the stems of plants. 
It may be added that Professor Schwendener of Berlin has 
successfully attacked the question in his ' Mechanische Theorie 
der Blattstellungen,' 1878. 

To Dr. Falconer. 

August 26 [1863], 
"Do you remember telling me that I ought to study 
Phyllotaxy ? well I have often wished you at the bottom of 

* Nageli's Essay is noticed in the 5th edition. 

E 2 


the sea ; for I could not resist, and I muddled my brains 
with diagrams, &c., and specimens, and made out, as might 
have been expected, nothing. Those angles are a most 
wonderful problem and I wish I could see some one give a 
rational explanation of them." 

To Dr. Asa Gray. 

May 11 [1861]. 
" If you wish to save me from a miserable death, do tell me 
why the angles of -J., \ y ■§-, f, &c, series occur, and no other 
angles. It is enough to drive the quietest man mad. Did 
you and some mathematician * publish some paper on the 
subject ? Hooker says you did ; where is it ? 

To Dr. Asa Gray. 

[May 31, 1863?] 

" I have been looking at Nageli's work on this subject, and 
am astonished to see that the angle is not always the same in 
young shoots when the leaf-buds are first distinguishable, as 
in full-grown branches. This shows, I think, that there must be 
some potent cause for those angles which do occur : I dare 
say there is some explanation as simple as that for the 
angles of the Bees-cells." 

My father also corresponded with Dr. Hubert Airy and 
was interested in his views on the subject, published in the 
Royal Soc. Proceedings, 1873, p. 176. 

We now return to the year 1866. In November, when the 
prosecution of Governor Eyre was dividing England into two 
bitterly opposed parties, he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : — 

* Probably my father was think- These papers are mentioned in the 

ing of Chauncey Wright's work on Letters of Chauncey Wright.' 

Phyllotaxy, in Gould's 'Astronomi- Mr. Wright corresponded with my 

cal Journal,' No. 99, 1856, and in father on the subject, 
the ' Mathematical Monthly,' 1859. 

1 866.] GOVERNOR EYRE. 53 

"You will shriek at me when you hear that I have just 
subscribed to the Jamaica Committee." * 

On this subject I quote from a letter of my brother's : — 
"With respect to Governor Eyre's conduct in Jamaica, he 
felt strongly that J. S. Mill was right in prosecuting him. I 
remember one evening, at my Uncle's, we were talking on the 
subject, and as I happened to think it was too strong a 
measure to prosecute Governor Eyre for murder, I made 
some foolish remark about the prosecutors spending the 
surplus of the fund in a dinner. My father turned on me 
almost with fury, and told me, if those were my feelings, I 
had better go back to Southampton ; the inhabitants having 
given a dinner to Governor Eyre on his landing, but with 
which I had had nothing to do." The end of the incident, 
as told by my brother, is so characteristic of my father that I 
cannot resist giving it, though it has no bearing on the point 
at issue. " Next morning at 7 o'clock, or so, he came into 
my bedroom and sat on my bed, and said that he had not 
been able to sleep, from the thought that he had been so 
angry with me, and after a few more kind words he left me." 
The same restless desire to correct a disagreeable or in- 
correct impression is well illustrated in a passage which I 
quote from some notes by Rev. J. Brodie Innes : — 

" Allied to the extreme carefulness of observation was his 
most remarkable truthfulness in all matters. On one occa- 
sion, when a parish meeting had been held on some disputed 
point of no great importance, I was surprised by a visit from 
Mr. Darwin at night. He came to say that, thinking over 
the debate, though what he had said was quite accurate, he 
thought I might have drawn an erroneous conclusion, and he 
would not sleep till he had explained it. I believe that if on 
any day some certain fact had come to his knowledge which 
contradicted his most cherished theories, he would have placed 
the fact on record for publication before he slept." 

* He subscribed ^10. 


This tallies with my father's habits, as described by him- 
self. When a difficulty or an objection occurred to him, 
he thought it of paramount importance to make a note of 
it instantly, because he found hostile facts to be especially 

The same point is illustrated by the following incident, for 
which I am indebted to Mr. Romanes : — 

" I have always remembered the following little incident as 
a good example of Mr. Darwin's extreme solicitude on the 
score of accuracy. One evening at Down there was a 
general conversation upon the difficulty of explaining the 
evolution of some of the distinctively human emotions, espe- 
cially those appertaining to the recognition of beauty in 
natural scenery. I suggested a view of my own upon the 
subject, which, depending upon the principle of association, 
required the supposition that a long line of ancestors should 
have inhabited regions, the scenery of which is now re- 
garded as beautiful. Just as I was about to observe that the 
chief difficulty attaching to my hypothesis arose from 
feelings of the sublime (seeing that these are associated with 
awe, and might therefore be expected not to be agreeable), 
Mr. Darwin anticipated the remark, by asking how the 
hypothesis was to meet the case of these feelings. In the 
conversation which followed, he said the occasion in his own 
life, when he was most affected by the emotions of the sublime 
was when he stood upon one of the summits of the Cordillera, 
and surveyed the magnificent prospect all around. It seemed, 
as he quaintly observed, as if his nerves had become fiddle- 
strings, and had all taken to rapidly vibrating. This remark 
was only made incidentally, and the conversation passed into 
some other branch. About an hour afterwards Mr. Darwin 
retired to rest, while I sat up in the smoking-room with one 
of his sons. We continued smoking and talking for several 
hours, when at about one o'clock in the morning the door 
gently opened and Mr. Darwin appeared, in his slippers and 

1 866.] accuracy. 55 

dressing-gown. As nearly as I can remember, the following 
are the words he used : — 

" ' Since I went to bed I have been thinking over our con- 
versation in the drawing-room, and it has just occurred to me 
that I was wrong in telling you I felt most of the sublime 
when on the top of the Cordillera ; I am quite sure that I 
felt it even more when in the forests of Brazil. I thought it 
best to come and tell you this at once in case I should be 
putting you wrong. I am sure now that I felt most sublime 
in the forests.' 

" This was all he had come' to say, and it was evident 
that he had come to do so, because he thought that the fact 
of his feeling ' most sublime in forests ' was more in accord- 
ance with the hypothesis which we had been discussing, than 
the fact which he had previously stated. Now, as no one knew 
better than Mr. Darwin the difference between a speculation 
and a fact, I thought this little exhibition of scientific con- 
scientiousness very noteworthy, where the only question 
concerned was of so highly speculative a character. I should 
not have been so much impressed if he had thought that by 
his temporary failure of memory he had put me on a wrong 
scent in any matter of fact, although even in such a case he 
is the only man I ever knew who would care to get out of 
bed at such a time of night in order to make the correction 
immediately, instead of waiting till next morning. But as 
the correction only had reference to a flimsy hypothesis, 
I certainly was very much impressed by this display of 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker, 

Down, December 10 [1866]. 

.... I have now read the last No. of H. Spencer.* I do 

not know whether to think it better than the previous number, 

but it is wonderfully clever, and I dare say mostly true. I feel 

rather mean when I read him : I could bear, and rather enjoy 

* ' Principles of Biology.' 


feeling that he was twice as ingenious and clever as myself, 
but when I feel that he is about a dozen times my superior, 
even in the master art of wriggling, I feel aggrieved. If he 
had trained himself to observe more, even if at the expense, 
by the law of balancement, of some loss of thinking power, he 
would have been a wonderful man. 

.... I am heartily glad you are taking up the Distribution 
of Plants in New Zealand, and suppose it will make part of 
your new book. Your view, as I understand it, that New 
Zealand subsided and formed two or more small islands, and 

then rose again, seems to me extremely probable 

When I puzzled my brains about New Zealand, I remember 
I came to the conclusion, as indeed I state in the ' Origin/ 
that its flora, as well as that of other southern lands, had 
been tinctured by an Antarctic flora, which must have existed 
before the Glacial period. I concluded that New Zealand 
never could have been closely connected with Australia, 
though I supposed it had received some few Australian 
forms by occasional means of transport. Is there any 
reason to suppose that New Zealand could have been more 
closely connected with South Australia during the Glacial 
period, when the Eucalypti, &c, might have been driven further 
North ? Apparently there remains only the line, which I 
think you suggested, of sunken islands from New Caledonia. 
Please remember that the Edwardsia was certainly drifted 
there by the sea. 

I remember in old days speculating on the amount of life, 
i.e. of organic chemical change, at different periods. There 
seems to me one very difficult element in the problem, 
namely, the state of development of the organic beings at 
each period, for I presume that a Flora and Fauna of cellular 
cryptogamic plants, of Protozoa and Radiata would lead to 
much less chemical change than is now going on. But I have 
scribbled enough. 

Yours affectionately, 

Ch. Darwin. 


' * 

[The following letter is in acknowledgment of Mr. Rivers 
reply to an earlier letter in which my father had asked for 
information on bud-variation. It may find a place here in 
illustration of the manner of my father's intercourse with 
those " whose avocations in life had to do with the rearing or 
use of living things " f — an intercourse which bore such good 
fruit in the ' Variation of Animals and Plants.' Mr. Dyer has 
some excellent remarks on the unexpected value thus placed 
on the apparently trivial facts disinterred from weekly journals, 
or amassed by correspondence. He adds : " Horticulturists 
who had . . . moulded plants almost at their will, at the 
impulse of taste or profit, were at once amazed and charmed 
to find that they had been doing scientific work, and helping 
to establish a great theory."] 

C. Darwin to T. Rivers. 

Down, December 28, [1866 ?] 

My DEAR Sir, — Permit me to thank you cordially for your 
most kind letter. For years I have read with interest every 
scrap which you have written in periodicals, and abstracted in 
MS. your book on Roses, and several times I thought I would 
write to you, but did not know whether you would think me too 
intrusive. I shall, indeed, be truly obliged for any informa- 
tion you can supply me on bud-variation or sports. When 
any extra difficult points occur to me in my present subject 
(which is a mass of difficulties), I will apply to you, but I will 
not be unreasonable. It is most true what you say that any 
one to study well the physiology of the life of plants, ought to 
have under his eye a multitude of plants. I have endeavoured 
to do what I can by comparing statements by many writers 
and observing what I could myself. Unfortunately few have 

* The late Mr. Rivers was an f Mr. Dyer in' Charles Darwin.' 

eminent horticulturist and writer on — Nature Series^ 1882, p. 39. 


observed like you have done. As you are so kind, I will 
mention one other point on which I am collecting facts ; 
namely, the effect produced on the stock by the graft ; thus, 
it is said, that the purple-leaved filbert affects the leaves of 
the common hazel on which it is grafted (I have just procured 
a plant to try), so variegated jessamine is said to affect 
its stock. I want these facts partly to throw light on the 
marvellous laburnums, Adami-trifacial oranges, &c. That 
laburnum case seems one of the strangest in physiology. 
I have now growing splendid, fertile, yellow laburnums (with 
a long raceme like the so-called Waterer's laburnum) from 
seed of yellow flowers on the C. Adami. To a man like 
myself, who is compelled to live a solitary life, and sees 
few persons, it is no slight satisfaction to hear that I have 
been able at all [to] interest by my books observers like 

As I shall publish on my present subject, I presume, 
within a year, it will be of no use your sending me the shoots 
of peaches and nectarines which you so kindly offer ; I have 
recorded your facts. 

Permit me again to thank you cordially ; I have not often 
in my life received a kinder letter. 

My dear Sir, yours sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

( 59 ) 



JANUARY 1867, TO JUNE 1 868. 

At the beginning of the year 1867 he was at work on the 
final chapter — " Concluding Remarks " of the ' Variation of 
Animals and Plants under Domestication,' which was begun 
after the rest of the MS. had been sent to the printers in the 
preceding December. With regard to the publication of the 
book he wrote to Mr. Murray, on January 3 : — 

" I cannot tell you how sorry I am to hear of the enormous 
size of my book* I fear it can never pay. But I cannot 
shorten it now ; nor, indeed, if I had foreseen its length, do 
I see which parts ought to have been omitted. 

" If you are afraid to publish it, say so at once, I beg you, 
and I will consider your note as cancelled. If you think fit, 
get any one whose judgment you rely on, to look over some 
of the more legible chapters, namely, the Introduction, and 
on dogs and plants, the latter chapters being, in my opinion, 
the dullest in the book. . . . The list of chapters, and the 
inspection of a few here and there, would give a good judge 

* On January 9 he wrote to Sir 
J. D. Hooker : " I have been these 
last few days vexed and annoyed 
to a foolish degree by hearing that 
my MS. on Dom. An. and Cult. 
Plants will make 2 vols., both 
bigger than the ' Origin.' The 
volumes will have to be full-sized 

octavo, so I have written to Murray 
to suggest details to be printed in 
small type. But I feel that the 
size is quite ludicrous in relation to 
the subject. I am ready to swear 
at myself and at every fool who 
writes a book." 


a fair idea of the whole book. Pray do not publish blindly, 
as it would vex me all my life if I led you to heavy loss." 

Mr. Murray referred the MS. to a literary friend, and, in 
spite of a somewhat adverse opinion, willingly agreed to 
publish the book. My father wrote : — 

"Your note has been a great relief to me. I am rather 
alarmed about the verdict of your friend, as he is not a man 
of science. I think if you had sent the ' Origin ' to an un- 
scientific man, he would have utterly condemned it. I am, 
however, very glad that you have consulted any one on whom 
you can rely. 

" I must add, that my ' Journal of Researches ' was seen in 
MS. by an eminent semi-scientific man, and was pronounced 
unfit for publication." 

The proofs were begun in March, and the last revise was 
finished on November 15th, and during this period the only 
intervals of rest were two visits of a week each at his brother 
Erasmus's house in Queen Anne Street. He notes in his 
Diary : — 

"I began this book [in the] beginning of i860 (and then 
had some MS.), but owing to interruptions from my illness, 
and illness of children ; from various editions of the ' Origin,' 
and Papers, especially Orchis book and Tendrils, I have 
spent four years and two months over it." 

The edition of 'Animals and Plants' was of 1500 copies, 
and of these 1260 were sold at Mr. Murray's autumnal sale, 
but it was not published until January 30, 1868. A new 
edition of 1250 copies was printed in February of the same year. 

In 1867 he received the distinction of being made a 
knight of the Prussian Order " Pour le Merite." * He seems 

* The Order " Pour le Mente" and military, and in 1840 the Order 

was founded in 1 740 by Frederick II. was again opened to civilians. The 

by the re-christening of an " Order order consists of thirty members 

of Generosity," founded in 1665. It of German extraction, but dis- 

was at one time strictly military, tinguished foreigners are admitted 

having been previously both civil to a kind of extraordinary member- 




not to have known how great the distinction was, for in June 
1868 he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : — 

" What a man you are for sympathy. I was made " Eques " 
some months ago, but did not think much about it. Now, by 
Jove, we all do ; but you, in fact, have knighted me." 

The letters may now take up the story.] 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, February 8 [1867]. 

My dear Hooker, — I am heartily glad that you have 
been offered the Presidentship of the British Association, for 
it is a great honour, and as you have so much work to do, 
I am equally glad that you have declined it. I feel, however, 
convinced that you would have succeeded very well ; but if 
I fancy myself in such a position, it actually makes my blood 
run cold. I look back with amazement at the skill and taste 
with which the Duke of Argyll made a multitude of little 
speeches at Glasgow. By the way, I have not seen the 
Duke's book,* but I formerly thought that some of the 
articles which appeared in periodicals were very clever, but 
not very profound. One of these was reviewed in the Satur- 
day Review f some years ago, and the fallacy of some main 
argument was admirably exposed, and I sent the article to 
you, and you agreed strongly with it. . . . There was the 
other day a rather good review of the Duke's book in the 

ship. Faraday, Herschel, and 
Thomas Moore have belonged to 
it in this way. From the thirty 
members a chancellor is elected by 
the king (the first officer of this 
kind was Alexander v. Humboldt) ; 
and it is the duty of the chancellor 
to notify a vacancy in the Order to 
the remainder of the thirty, who 

then elect by vote the new member 
— but the king has technically the 
appointment in his own hands. 

* 'The Reign of Law,' 1867. 

t Sat. Review, Nov. 15, 1862, 
'The Edinburgh Review on the 
Supernatural.' Written by my 
cousin, Mr. Henry Parker. 




Spectator, and with a new explanation, either by the Duke or 
the reviewer (I could not make out which), of rudimentary 
organs, namely, that economy of labour and material was 
a great guiding principle with God (ignoring waste of seed 
and of young monsters, &c.), and that making a new plan for 
the structure of animals was thought, and thought was labour, 
and therefore God kept to a uniform plan, and left rudiments. 
This is no exaggeration. In short, God is a man, rather 
cleverer than us. ... I am very much obliged for the Nation 
(returned by this post) ; it is admirably good. You say I 
always guess wrong, but I do not believe any one, except Asa 
Gray, could have done the thing so well. I would bet even, 
or three to two, that it is Asa Gray, though one or two 
passages staggered me. 

I finish my book on ' Domestic Animals,' &c, by a single 
paragraph, answering, or rather throwing doubt, in so far as 
so little space permits, on Asa Gray's doctrine that each 
variation has been specially ordered or led along a beneficial 
line. It is foolish to touch such subjects, but there have been 
so many allusions to what I think about the part which God 
has played in the formation of organic beings,* that I thought 
it shabby to evade the question. ... I have even received 
several letters on the subject. ... I overlooked your sen- 
tence about Providence, and suppose I treated it as Buckland 
did his own theology, when his Bridgewater Treatise was 
read aloud to him for correction. . . . 

* Prof. Judd allows me to quote 
from some notes which he has 
kindly given me : — " Lyell once 
told me that he had frequently been 
asked if Darwin was not one of the 
most unhappy of men, it being 
suggested that his outrage upon 
public opinion should have filled 
him with remorse." Sir Charles 
must have been able, I think, to 


a conclusive answer on this 
point. Professor Judd continues : — 
" I made a note of this and other 
conversations of Lyell's at the time. 
At the present time such statements 
must appear strange to any one who 
does not recollect the revolution in 
opinion which has taken place 
during the last 23 years [1882]." 


[The following letter, from Mrs. Boole, is one of those 
referred to in the last letter to Sir J. D. Hooker :] 

DEAR Sir, — Will you excuse my venturing to ask you a 
question, to which no one's answer but your own would be 
quite satisfactory ? 

Do you consider the holding of your theory of Natural 
Selection, in its fullest and most unreserved sense, to be 
inconsistent — I do not say with any particular scheme of 
theological doctrine — but with the following belief, namely : — 

That knowledge is given to man by the direct inspiration 
of the Spirit of God. 

That God is a personal and Infinitely good Being. 

That the effect of the action of the Spirit of God on the 
brain of man is especially a moral effect. 

And that each individual man has within certain limits 
a power of choice as to how far he will yield to his hereditary 
animal impulses, and how far he will rather follow the 
guidance of the Spirit, who is educating him into a power of 
resisting those impulses in obedience to moral motives ? 

The reason why I ask you is this : my own impression has 
always been, not only that your theory was perfectly com- 
patible with the faith to which I have just tried to give 
expression, but that your books afforded me a clue which 
would guide me in applying that faith to the solution of 
certain complicated psychological problems which it was 
of practical importance to me as a mother to solve. I felt 
that you had supplied one of the missing links — not to say 
the missing link — between the facts of science and the pro- 
mises of religion. Every year's experience tends to deepen 
in me that impression. 

But I have lately read remarks on the probable bearing of 
your theory on religious and moral questions which have 
perplexed and pained me sorely. I know that the persons 
who make such remarks must be cleverer and wiser than 


myself. I cannot feel sure that they are mistaken, unless 
you will tell me so. And I think — I cannot know for certain 
— but I think — that if I were an author, I would rather that 
the humblest student of my works should apply to me 
directly in a difficulty, than that she should puzzle too long 
over adverse and probably mistaken or thoughtless criticisms. 
At the same time I feel that you have a perfect right to 
refuse to answer such questions as I have asked you. Science 
must take her path, and Theology hers, and they will meet 
when and where and how God pleases, and you are in no 
sense responsible for it if the meeting-point should still be 
very far off. If I receive no answer to this letter I shall infer 
nothing from your silence, except that you felt I had no right 
to make such inquiries of a stranger. 

[My father replied as follows :] 

Down, December 14, 1866. 
Dear Madam, — It would have gratified me much if I 
could have sent satisfactory answers to your questions, or, 
indeed, answers of any kind. But I cannot see how the 
belief that all organic beings, including man, have been genet- 
ically derived from some simple being, instead of having been 
separately created, bears on your difficulties. These, as it 
seems to me, can be answered only by widely different evi- 
dence from science, or by the so-called " inner consciousness." 
My opinion is not worth more than that of any other man 
who has thought on such subjects, and it would be folly in 
me to give it. I may, however, remark that it has always ap- 
peared to me more satisfactory to look at the immense amount 
of pain and suffering in this world as the inevitable result of the 
natural sequence of events, i.e. general laws, rather than from 
the direct intervention of God, though I am aware this is not 
logical with reference to an omniscient Deity. Your last 
question seems to resolve itself into the problem of free will 
and necessity, which has been found by most persons insoluble. 

1867.] 'REIGN OF LAW.' 65 

I sincerely wish that this note had not been as utterly- 
valueless as it is. I would have sent full answers, though 
I have little time or strength to spare, had it been in my 

I have the honour to remain, dear Madam, 

Yours very faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — I am grieved that my views should incidentally have 
caused trouble to your mind, but I thank you for your judg- 
ment, and honour you for it, that theology and science 
should each run its own course, and that in the present case 
I am not responsible if their meeting-point should still be 
far off. 

[The next letter discusses the ' Reign of Law,' referred to 
a few pages back :] 

C. Darwin to C. Lyell. 

Down, June 1 [1867]. 

... I am at present reading the Duke, and am very much 
interested by him ; yet I cannot but think, clever as the whole 
is, that parts are weak, as when he doubts whether each curva- 
ture of the beak of humming-birds is of service to each species. 
He admits, perhaps too fully, that I have shown the use of 
each little ridge and shape of each petal in orchids, and 
how strange he does not extend the view to humming-birds. 
Still odder, it seems to me, all that he says on beauty, which 
I should have thought a nonentity, except in the mind of 
some sentient being. He might have as well said that love 
existed during the secondary or Palaeozoic periods. I hope 
you are getting on with your book better than I am with 
mine, which kills me with the labour of correcting, and is 
intolerably dull, though I did not think so when I was writing 
it. A naturalist's life would be a happy one if he had only to 
observe, and never to write. 



We shall be in London for a week in about a fortnight's 
time, and I shall enjoy having a breakfast talk with you. 

Yours affectionately, 

C. Darwin. 

[The following letter refers to the new and improved trans- 
lation of the ' Origin,' undertaken by Professor Carus :] 

C. Darwin to J. Victor Carus. 

Down, February 17 [1867]. 

My DEAR Sir, — I have read your preface with care. It 
seems to me that you have treated Bronn with complete 
respect and great delicacy, and that you have alluded to your 
own labour with much modesty. I do not think that any of 
Bronn's friends can complain of what you say and what you 
have done. For my own sake, I grieve that you have not 
added notes, as I am sure that I should have profited much 
by them ; but as you have omitted Bronn's objections, I 
believe that you have acted with excellent judgment and 
fairness in leaving the text without comment to the inde- 
pendent verdict of the reader. I heartily congratulate you 
that the main part of your labour is over ; it would have been 
to most men a very troublesome task, but you seem to have 
indomitable powers of work, judging from those two wonder- 
ful and most useful volumes on zoological literature* edited 
by you, and which I never open without surprise at their ac- 
curacy, and gratitude for their usefulness. I cannot sufficiently 
tell you how much I rejoice that you were persuaded to super- 
intend the translation of the present edition of my book, for I 
have now the great satisfaction of knowing that the German 
public can judge fairly of its merits and demerits 

With my cordial and sincere thanks, believe me, 
My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

* ' Bibliotheca Zoologica,' 1861. 


[The earliest letter which I have seen from my father to 
Professor Haeckel, was written in 1865, and from that time 
forward they corresponded (though not, I think, with any 
regularity) up to the end of my father's life. His friendship 
with Haeckel was not merely growth of correspondence, as 
was the case with some others, for instance, Fritz Muller. 
Haeckel paid more than one visit to Down, and these were 
thoroughly enjoyed by my father. The following letter will 
serve to show the strong feeling of regard which he enter- 
tained for his correspondent — a feeling which I have often 
heard him emphatically express, and which was warmly 
returned. The book referred to is Haeckel's ' Generelle 
Morphologie,' published in 1866, a copy of which my father 
received from the author in January 1867. 

Dr. E. Krause * has given a good account of Professor 
Haeckel's services to the cause of Evolution. After speak- 
ing of the lukewarm reception which the ' Origin ' met with in 
Germany on its first publication, he goes on to describe the 
first adherents of the new faith as more or less popular 
writers, not especially likely to advance its acceptance with 
the professorial or purely scientific world. And he claims for 
Haeckel that it was his advocacy of Evolution in his ' Radio- 
laria' (1862), and at the " Versammlung " of Naturalists at 
Stettin in 1863, that placed the Darwinian question for the 
first time publicly before the forum of German science, and 
his enthusiastic propagandism that chiefly contributed to its 

Mr. Huxley, writing in 1869, paid a high tribute to 
Professor Haeckel as the Coryphaeus of the Darwinian move- 
ment in Germany. Of his ' Generelle Morphologie,' " an 
attempt to work out the practical applications" of the doctrine 
of Evolution to their final results, he says that it has the 
" force and suggestiveness, and . . . systematising power 
of Oken without his extravagance." Professor Huxley also 

* ' Charies Darwin und sein Verhaltniss zu Deutschland,' 1885. 

F 2 


testifies to the value of Haeckel's ' Schopfungs-Geschichte ' as 
an exposition of the ' Generelle Morphologie ' " for an educated 

Again, in his ' Evolution in Biology/ * Mr. Huxley wrote : 
" Whatever hesitation may, not unfrequently, be felt by less 
daring minds, in following Haeckel in many of his specula- 
tions, his attempt to systematise the doctrine of Evolution, 
and to exhibit its influence as the central thought of modern 
biology, cannot fail to have a far-reaching influence on the 
progress of science." 

In the following letter my father alludes to the somewhat 
fierce manner in which Professor Haeckel fought the battle of 
( Darwinismus,' and on this subject Dr. Krause has some good 
remarks (p. 162). He asks whether much that happened in 
the heat of the conflict might not well have been otherwise, 
and adds that Haeckel himself is the last man to deny this. 
Nevertheless he thinks that even these things may have worked 
well for the cause of Evolution, inasmuch as Haeckel " con- 
centrated on himself by his ' Ursprung des Menschen- 
Geschlechts,' his ' Generelle Morphologie,' and ' Schopfungs- 
Geschichte,' all the hatred and bitterness which Evolution 
excited in certain quarters," so that, " in a surprisingly short 
time it became the fashion in Germany that Haeckel alone 
should be abused, while Darwin was held up as the ideal of 
forethought and moderation."] 

C. Darwin to E. Haeckel. 

Down, May 21, 1867. 

Dear Haeckel. — Your letter of the 18th has given me 
great pleasure, for you have received what I said in the most 
kind and cordial manner. You have in part taken what I 
said much stronger than I had intended. It never occurred 
to me for a moment to doubt that your work, with the whole 

* An article in the l Encyclo- printed in ' Science and Culture,' 
paedia Britannica,' 9th edit., re- 1881, p. 298. 


subject so admirably and clearly arranged, as well as fortified 
by so many new facts and arguments, would not advance our 
common object in the highest degree. All that I think is 
that you will excite anger, and that anger so completely 
blinds every one, that your arguments would have no chance 
of influencing those who are already opposed to our views. 
Moreover, I do not at all like that you, towards whom I feel 
so much friendship, should unnecessarily make enemies, and 
there is pain and vexation enough in the world without more 
being caused. But I repeat that I can feel no doubt that 
your work will greatly advance our subject, and I heartily 
wish it could be translated into English, for my own sake and 
that of others. With respect to what you say about my 
advancing too strongly objections against my own views, some 
of my English friends think that I have erred on this side ; 
but truth compelled me to write what I did, and I am inclined 
to think it was good policy. The belief in the descent theory 
is slowly spreading in England,* even amongst those who can 
give no reason for their belief. No body of men were at first 
so much opposed to my views as the members of the London 
Entomological Society, but now I am assured that, with the 
exception of two or three old men, all the members concur 
with me to a certain extent. It has been a great disappoint- 
ment to me that I have never received your long letter written 
to me from the Canary Islands. I am rejoiced to hear that 
your tour, which seems to have been a most interesting one, 
has done your health much good. I am working away at my 
new book, but make very slow progress, and the work tries my 
health, which is much the same as when you were here. 

* In October 1867 he wrote to Advocate. The discussion which 
Mr. Wallace : — " Mr. Warrington followed during three consecutive 
has lately read an excellent and meetings is very rich from the non- 
spirited abstract of the ' Origin ' sense talked. If you would care 
before the Victoria Institute, and as to see the number I could send it 
this is a most orthodox body, he you." 
has gained the name of the Devil's 


Victor Cams is going to translate it, but whether it is worth 
translation, I am rather doubtful. I am very glad to hear 
that there is some chance of your visiting England this 
autumn, and all in this house will be delighted to see you 

Believe me, my dear Haeckel, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

C. Darwin to F. Milller. 

Down, July 31 [1867]. 

My DEAR Sir, — I received a week ago your letter of 
June 2, full as usual of valuable matter and specimens. It 
arrived at exactly the right time, for I was enabled to give 
a pretty full abstract of your observations on the plant's 
own pollen being poisonous. I have inserted this abstract 
in the proof-sheets in my chapter on sterility, and it forms 
the most striking part of my whole chapter* I thank 
you very sincerely for the most interesting observations, 
which, however, I regret that you did not publish inde- 
pendently. I have been forced to abbreviate one or two 
parts more than I wished . . . Your letters always surprise 
me, from the number of points to which you attend. I wish 
I could make my letters of any interest to you, for I hardly 
ever see a naturalist, and live as retired a life as you in 
Brazil. With respect to mimetic plants, I remember Hooker 
many years ago saying he believed that there were many, but I 
agree with you that it would be most difficult to distinguish 
between mimetic resemblance and the effects of peculiar con- 
ditions. Who can say to which of these causes to attribute 
the several plants with heath-like foliage at the Cape of Good 
Hope ? Is it not also a difficulty that quadrupeds appear to 
recognise plants more by their [scent] than their appearance ? 

* In l The Variation of Animals and Plants.' 

1867.] MIMICRY. 71 

What I have just said reminds me to ask you a question. 
Sir J. Lubbock brought me the other day what appears to be 
a terrestrial Planaria (the first ever found in the northern 
hemisphere) and which was coloured exactly like our dark- 
coloured slugs. Now slugs are not devoured by birds, like 
the shell-bearing species, and this made me remember that I 
found the Brazilian Planariae actually together with striped 
Vaginuli which I believe were similarly coloured. Can you 
throw any light on this ? I wish to know, because I was 
puzzled some months ago how it would be possible to account 
for the bright colours of the Planariae in reference to sexual 
selection. By the way, I suppose they are hermaphrodites. 

Do not forget to aid me, if in your power, with answers to 
any of my questions on expression, for the subject interests 
me greatly. With cordial thanks for your never-failing kind- 
ness, believe me, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

C. Darwin to C. Lyell. 

Down, July 18 [1867]. 

My DEAR LYELL, — Many thanks for your long letter. I 
am sorry to hear that you are in despair about your book ; * 
I well know that feeling, but am now getting out of the lower 
depths. I shall be very much pleased, if you can make the 
least use of my present book, and do not care at all whether 
it is published before yours. Mine will appear towards the 
end of November of this year ; you speak of yours as not 
coming out till November, 1868, which I hope may be an error. 
There is nothing about Man in my book which can interfere 
with you, so I will order all the completed clean sheets to be 
sent (and others as soon as ready) to you, but please observe 
you will not care for the first volume, which is a mere record 

* The 2nd volume of the 10th edit, of the 'Principles.' 


of the amount of variation ; but I hope the second will be 
somewhat more interesting. Though I fear the whole must 
be dull. 

I rejoice from my heart that you are going to speak out 
plainly about species. My book about Man, if published, will 
be short, and a large portion will be devoted to sexual selec- 
tion, to which subject I alluded in the ' Origin ' as bearing on 
Man. . . . 

C. Darwin to C. LyelL 

Down, August 22 [1867]. 

My DEAR LYELL, — I thank you cordially for your last two 
letters. The former one did me real good, for I had got so 
wearied with the subject that I could hardly bear to correct 
the proofs,* and you gave me fresh heart. I remember 
thinking that when you came to the Pigeon chapter you 
would pass it over as quite unreadable. Your last letter has 
interested me in very many ways, and I have been glad to 
hear about those horrid unbelieving Frenchmen. I have been 
particularly pleased that you have noticed Pangenesis. I do 
not know whether you ever had the feeling of having thought 
so much over a subject that you had lost all power of judging 
it. This is my case with Pangenesis (which is 26 or 27 years 
old), but I am inclined to think that if it be admitted as a 
probable hypothesis it will be a somewhat important step in 

I cannot help still regretting that you have ever looked at 
the slips, for I hope to improve the whole a good deal. It is 
surprising to me, and delightful, that you should care in the 
least about the plants. Altogether you have given me one of 
the best cordials I ever had in my life, and I heartily thank 
you. I despatched this morning the French edition. f The 

* The proofs of ' Animals and that my father was sending a copy- 
Plants,' which Lyell was then read- of the French edition to Sir Charles, 
ing. The introduction was by Mdlle. 

f Of the ' Origin.' It appears Royer, who translated the book. 


introduction was a complete surprise to me, and I dare say 
has injured the book in France ; nevertheless ... it shows, 
I think, that the woman is uncommonly clever. Once again 
many thanks for the renewed courage with which I shall 
attack the horrid proof-sheets. 

Yours affectionately, 

Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — A Russian who is translating my new book into 
Russian has been here, and says you are immensely read in 
Russia, and many editions— how many I forget. Six editions 
of Buckle and four editions of the ' Origin.' 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

Down, October 16 [1867]. 

My dear Gray, — I send by this post clean sheets of 
Vol. I. up to p. 336, and there are only 411 pages in this vol. 
I am very glad to hear that you are going to review my book ; 
but if the Nation * is a newspaper I wish it were at the 
bottom of the sea, for I fear that you will thus be stopped 
reviewing me in a scientific journal. The first volume is all 
details, and you will not be able to read it ; and you must 
remember that the chapters on plants are written for natural- 
ists who are not botanists. The last chapter in Vol. I. is, 
however, I think, a curious compilation of facts ; it is on bud- 
variation. In Vol. II. some of the chapters are more interest- 
ing ; and I shall be very curious to hear your verdict on the 
chapter on close inter-breeding. The chapter on what I call 
Pangenesis will be called a mad dream, and I shall be pretty 
well satisfied if you think it a dream worth publishing ; but 
at the bottom of my own mind I think it contains a great 
truth. I finish my book with a semi-theological paragraph, 
in which I quote and differ from you ; what you will think of 
it, I know not. . . . 

* The book was reviewed by Dr. Gray in the Nation, Mar. 19, 1868. 


C. Danvin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, November 17 [1867]. 

My DEAR HOOKER, — Congratulate me, for I have finished 
the last revise of the last sheet of my book. It has been an 
awful job : seven and a half months correcting the press : the 
book, from much small type, does not look big, but is really 
very big. I have had hard work to keep up to the mark, but 
during the last week only few revises came, so that I have 
rested and feel more myself. Hence, after our long mutual 
silence, I enjoy myself by writing a note to you, for the sake 
of exhaling, and hearing from you. On account of the 
index,* I do not suppose that you will receive your copy till 
the middle of next month. I shall be intensely anxious to 
hear what you think about Pangenesis ; though I can see how 
fearfully imperfect, even in mere conjectural conclusions, it is ; 
yet it has been an infinite satisfaction to me somehow to 
connect the various large groups of facts, which I have long 
considered, by an intelligible thread. I shall not be at all 
surprised if you attack it and me with unparalleled ferocity. 
It will be my endeavour to do as little as possible for some time, 
but [I] shall soon prepare a paper or two for the Linnean 
Society. In a short time we shall go to London for ten 
days, but the time is not yet fixed. Now I have told you a 
deal about myself, and do let me hear a good deal about your 
own past and future doings. Can you pay us a visit, early in 
December ? .... I have seen no one for an age, and heard 
no news. 
. . . About my book I will give you a bit of advice. Skip 
the whole of Vol. L, except the last chapter (and that need 
only be skimmed) and skip largely in the 2nd volume ; and 
then you will say it is a very good book. 

* The index was made by Mr. my father express his admiration 
W. S. Dallas ; I have often heard of this excellent piece of work. 

1 868.] publication. 75 


[' The Variation of Animals and Plants ' was, as already 
mentioned, published on January 30, 1868, and on that day 
he sent a copy to Fritz Miiller, and wrote to him : — 

" I send by this post, by French packet, my new book, the 
publication of which has been much delayed. The greater 
part, as you will see, is not meant to be read ; but I should 
very much like to hear what you think of ' Pangenesis/ 
though I fear it will appear to every one far too speculative."] 

C. Danvin to J, D. Hooker. 

February 3 [1868]. 

... I am very much pleased at what you say about my 
Introduction ; after it was in type I was as near as possible 
cancelling the whole. I have been for some time in despair 
about my book, and if I try to read a few pages I feel fairly 
nauseated, but do not let this make you praise it ; for I have 
made up my mind that it is not worth a fifth part of the 
enormous labour it has cost me. I assure you that all that is 
worth your doing (if you have time for so much) is glancing 
at Chapter VI., and reading parts of the later chapters. 
The facts on self-impotent plants seem to me curious, and I 
have worked out to my own satisfaction the good from cross- 
ing and evil from interbreeding. I did read Pangenesis the 
other evening, but even this, my beloved child, as I had 
fancied, quite disgusted me. The devil take the whole book ; 
and yet now I am at work again as hard as I am able. It is 
really a great evil that from habit I have pleasure in hardly 
anything except Natural History, for nothing else makes me 
forget my ever-recurrent uncomfortable sensations. But I 
must not howl any more, and the critics may say what they 
like ; I did my best, and man can do no more. What a 
splendid pursuit Natural History would be if it was all 
observing and no writing ! . . . . 


C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, February 10 [1868]. 

My DEAR HOOKER, — What is the good of having a friend, 
if one may not boast to him ? I heard yesterday that Murray 
has sold in a week the whole edition of 1 500 copies of my 
book, and the sale so pressing that he has agreed with Clowes 
to get another edition in fourteen days ! This has done me a 
world of good, for I had got into a sort of dogged hatred of 
my book. And now there has appeared a review in the Pall 
Mall which has pleased me excessively, more perhaps than is 
reasonable. I am quite content, and do not care how much I 
may be pitched into. If by any chance you should hear who 
wrote the article in the Pall Mall, do please tell me ; it is 
some one who writes capitally, and who knows the subject. 
I went to luncheon on Sunday, to Lubbock's, partly in hopes 
of seeing you, and, be hanged to you, you were not there. 

Your cock-a-hoop friend, 

C. D. 

[Independently of the favourable tone of the able series of 
notices in the Pall Mall Gazette (Feb. 10, 15, 17, 1868), my 
father may well have been gratified by the following passages: — 

" We must call attention to the rare and noble calmness with 
which he expounds his own views, undisturbed by the heats 
of polemical agitation which those views have excited, and 
persistently refusing to retort on his antagonists by ridicule, 
by indignation, or by contempt. Considering the amount of 
vituperation and insinuation which has come from the other 
side, this forbearance is supremely dignified." 

And again in the third notice, Feb. 17 : — 

" Nowhere has the author a word that could wound the most 
sensitive self-love of an antagonist ; nowhere does he, in text 
or note, expose the fallacies and mistakes of brother investi- 
gators . . . but while abstaining from impertinent censure, 

1 868.] 



he is lavish in acknowledging the smallest debts he may owe ; 
and his book will make many men happy." 

I am indebted to Messrs. Smith & Elder for the informa- 
tion that these articles were written by Mr. G. H. Lewes.] 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, February 23 [1868]. 

My DEAR HOOKER, — I have had almost as many letters 
to write of late as you can have, viz. from 8 to 10 per diem, 
chiefly getting up facts on sexual selection, therefore I have 
felt no inclination to write to you, and now I mean to write 
solely about my book for my own satisfaction, and not at all for 
yours. The first edition was 1500 copies, and now the second 
is printed off ; sharp work. Did you look at the review in the 
A thenczum* showing profound contempt of me ? ... It is a 
shame that he should have said that I have taken much from 
Pouchet, without acknowledgment ; for I took literally nothing, 
there being nothing to take. There is a capital review in the 
Gardeners" Chronicle, which will sell the book if anything will. 

* Athenxum, February 15, 1868. 
My father quoted Pouchet's asser- 
tion that "variation under domes- 
tication throws no light on the 
natural modification of species." 
The reviewer quotes the end of 
a passage in which my father de- 
clares that he can see no force 
in Pouchet's arguments, or rather 
assertions, and then goes on : "We 
are sadly mistaken if there are not 
clear proofs in the pages of the 
book before us that, on the contrary, 
Mr. Darwin has perceived, felt, and 
yielded to the force of the argu- 
ments or assertions of his French 
antagonist." The following may 
serve as samples of the rest of the 
review : — 

" Henceforth the rhetoricians will 
have a better illustration of anti- 
climax than the mountain which 
brought forth a mouse, ... in the 
discoverer of the origin of species, 
who tried to explain the variation 
of pigeons ! 

" A few summary words. On 
the ' Origin of Species ' Mr. Dar- 
win has nothing, and is never likely 
to have anything, to say ; but on the 
vastly important subject of inheri- 
tance, the transmission of pecu- 
liarities once acquired through 
successive generations, this work 
is a valuable store-house of facts 
for curious students and practical 


I don't quite see whether I or the writer is in a muddle about 
man causing variability. If a man drops a bit of iron into 
sulphuric acid he does not cause the affinities to come into 
play, yet he may be said to make sulphate of iron. I do not 
know how to avoid ambiguity. 

After what the Pall Mall Gazette and the Chronicle have 
said, I do not care a d — . 

I fear Pangenesis is stillborn ; Bates says he has read it 
twice, and is not sure that he understands it. H. Spencer 
says the view is quite different from his (and this is a great 
relief to me, as I feared to be accused of plagiarism, but 
utterly failed to be sure what he meant, so thought it safest 
to give my view as almost the same as his), and he says he is 
not sure he understands it. . . . Am I not a poor devil ? yet I 
took such pains, I must think that I expressed myself clearly. 
Old Sir H. Holland says he has read it twice, and thinks it 
very tough ; but believes that sooner or later " some view 
akin to it " will be accepted. 

You will think me very self-sufficient, when I declare that I 
feel sure if Pangenesis is now stillborn it will, thank God, 
at some future time reappear, begotten by some other father, 
and christened by some other name. 

Have you ever met with any tangible and clear view of 
what takes place in generation, whether by seeds or buds, or 
how a long-lost character can possibly reappear ; or how the 
male element can possibly affect the mother plant, or the 
mother animal, so that her future progeny are affected ? Now 
all these points and many others are connected together, 
whether truly or falsely is another question, by Pangenesis. 
You see I die hard, and stick up for my poor child. 

This letter is written for my own satisfaction, and not for 
yours. So bear it. 

Yours affectionately, 

Ch. Darwin. 

1 868.] reviews. 79 

C. Darwin to A. Newton* 

Down, February 9 [1870]. 

Dear Newton, — I suppose it would be universally held 
extremely wrong for a defendant to write to a Judge to 
express his satisfaction at a judgment in his favour ; and yet 
I am going thus to act. I have just read what you have said 
in the ' Record ' f about my pigeon chapters, and it has gratified 
me beyond measure. I have sometimes felt a little dis- 
appointed that the labour of so many years seemed to be 
almost thrown away, for you are the first man capable of 
forming a judgment (excepting partly Ouatrefages), who 
seems to have thought anything of this part of my work. 
The amount of labour, correspondence, and care, which the 
subject cost me, is more than you could well suppose. I 
thought the article in the Athenaeum was very unjust; but 
now I feel amply repaid, and I cordially thank you for your 
sympathy and too warm praise. What labour you have 
bestowed on your part of the ' Record ' ! I ought to be ashamed 
to speak of my amount of work. I thoroughly enjoyed the 
Sunday which you and the others spent here, and 

I remain, dear Newton, yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, February 27 [1868]. 

My dear Wallace, — You cannot well imagine how much 
I have been pleased by what you say about ' Pangenesis.' 
None of my friends will speak out. . . . Hooker,' as far as I 
understand him, which I hardly do at present, seems to 
think that the hypothesis is little more than saying that 
organisms have such and such potentialities. What you 

* Prof, of Zoology at Cambridge. 

f ' Zoological Record.' The volume for 1868, published Dec. 1869. 


say exactly and fully expresses my feeling, viz. that it 
is a relief to have some feasible explanation of the various 
facts, which can be given up as soon as any better hypo- 
thesis is found. It has certainly been an immense relief 
to my mind ; for I have been stumbling over the subject for 
years, dimly seeing that some relation existed between the 
various classes of facts. I now hear from H. Spencer that his 
views quoted in my foot-note refer to something quite distinct, 
as you seem to have perceived. 

I shall be very glad to hear at some future day your criti- 
cisms on the "causes of variability." Indeed I feel sure that 
I am right about sterility and natural selection. ... I do not 
quite understand your case, and we think that a word or two 
is misplaced. I wish some time you would consider the case 
under the following point of view : — If sterility is caused or 
accumulated through natural selection, then as every degree 
exists up to absolute barrenness, natural selection must have 
the power of increasing it. Now take two species, A and B, 
and assume that they are (by any means) half-sterile, i.e. 
produce half the full number of offspring. Now try and make 
(by natural selection) A and B absolutely sterile when 
crossed, and you will find how difficult it is. I grant, indeed 
it is certain, that the degree of sterility of the individuals A 
and B will vary, but any such extra-sterile individuals of, we 
will say A, if they should hereafter breed with other indi- 
viduals of A, will bequeath no advantage to their progeny, by 
which these families will tend to increase in number over 
other families of A, which are not more sterile when crossed 
with B. But I do not know that I have made this any 
clearer than in the chapter in my book. It is a most difficult 
bit of reasoning, which I have gone over and over again on 
paper with diagrams. 

. . . Hearty thanks for your letter. You have indeed 
pleased me, for I had given up the great god Pan as a still- 
born deity. I wish you could be induced to make it clear, 

1 868.] PANGENESIS. 8 1 

with your admirable powers of elucidation, in one of the 
scientific journals. . . . 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, February 28 [1868]. 

My DEAR HOOKER, — I have been deeply interested by 
your letter, and we had a good laugh over Huxley's remark, 
which was so deuced clever that you could not recollect it. I 
cannot quite follow your train of thought, for in the last page 
you admit all that I wish, having apparently denied all, or 
thought all mere words in the previous pages of your note ; 
but it may be my muddle. I see clearly that any satisfaction 
which Pan may give will depend on the constitution of each 
man's mind. If you have arrived already at any similar 
conclusion, the whole will of course appear stale to you. I 
heard yesterday from Wallace, who says (excuse horrid 
vanity), " I can hardly tell you how much I admire the 
chapter on ' Pangenesis.' It is a positive comfort to me to 
have any feasible explanation of a difficulty that has always 
been haunting me, and I shall never be able to give it up till 
a better one supplies its place, and that I think hardly 
possible, &c." Now his foregoing [italicised] words express 
my sentiments exactly and fully : though perhaps I feel 
the relief extra strongly from having during many years 
vainly attempted to form some hypothesis. When you or 
Huxley say that a single cell of a plant, or the stump of an 
amputated limb, has the " potentiality " of reproducing the 
whole — or "diffuses an influence," these words give me no 
positive idea ; — but, when it is said that the cells of a plant, 
or stump, include atoms derived from every other cell of the 
whole organism and capable of development, I gain a distinct 
idea. But this idea would not be worth a rush, if it applied 
to one case alone ; but it seems to me to apply to all the 
forms of reproduction — inheritance — metamorphosis — to the 

VOL. ill. G 


abnormal transposition of organs — -to the direct action of the 
male element on the mother plant, &c. Therefore I fully 
believe that each cell does actually throw off an atom or 
gemmule of its contents ; — but whether or not, this hypothesis 
serves as a useful connecting link for various grand classes 
of physiological facts, which at present stand absolutely 

I have touched on the doubtful point (alluded to by 
Huxley) how far atoms derived from the same cell may 
become developed into different structure accordingly as they 
are differently nourished ; I advanced as illustrations galls 
and polypoid excrescences. . . . 

It is a real pleasure to me to write to you on this subject, 
and I should be delighted if we can understand each other ; 
but you must not let your good nature lead you on. Remem- 
ber we always fight tooth and nail. We go to London on 
Tuesday, first for a week to Queen Anne Street, and after- 
wards to Miss Wedgwood's, in Regent's Park, and stay the 
whole month, which, as my gardener truly says, is a " terrible 
thing " for my experiments. 

C. Darwin to W. Ogle.* 

Down, March 6 [1868]. 
DEAR Sir, — I thank you most sincerely for your letter, 
which is very interesting to me. I wish I had known of these 
views of Hippocrates before I had published, for they seem 
almost identical with mine — merely a change of terms — and 
an application of them to classes of facts necessarily unknown 
to the old philosopher. The whole case is a good illustration 
of how rarely anything is new. 

. . . Hippocrates has taken the wind out of my sails, but I 
care very little about being forestalled. I advance the views 

* Dr. William Ogle, now the Superintendent of Statistics to the 
Registrar- General. 

1 868.] PANGENESIS. 83 

merely as a provisional hypothesis, but with the secret expect- 
ation that sooner or later some such view will have to be 

. . . I do not expect the reviewers will be so learned as 
you : otherwise, no doubt, I shall be accused of wilfully 
stealing Pangenesis from Hippocrates, — for this is the spirit 
some reviewers delight to show. 

C. Darwin to Victor Cams. 

Down, March 21 [1868]. 

... I am very much obliged to you for sending me so 
frankly your opinion on Pangenesis, and I am sorry it is 
unfavourable, but I cannot quite understand your remark on 
pangenesis, selection, and the struggle for life not being more 
methodical. I am not at all surprised at your unfavourable 
verdict ; I know many, probably most, will come to the same 
conclusion. One English Review says it is much too com- 
plicated. . . . Some of my friends are enthusiastic on the 
hypothesis. . . . Sir C. Lyell says to every one, " You may 
not believe in ' Pangenesis/ but if you once understand it, you 
will never get it out of your mind." And with this criticism 
I am perfectly content. All cases of inheritance and reversion 
and development now appear to me under a new light. . . . 

[An extract from a letter to Fritz Muller, though of later 
date (June), may be given here : — 

"Your letter of April 22 has much interested me. I am 
delighted that you approve of my book, for I value your 
opinion more than that of almost any one. I have yet hopes 
that you will think well of Pangenesis. I feel sure that our 
minds are somewhat alike, and I find it a great relief to have 
some definite, though hypothetical view, when I reflect on the 
wonderful transformations of animals, — the re-growth of 
parts, — and especially the direct action of pollen on the 

G 2 

8 4 



mother-form, &c. It often appears to me almost certain that 
the characters of the parents are ' photographed ' on the 
child, only by means of material atoms derived from each 
cell in both parents, and developed in the child."] 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

Down, May 8 [1868]. 

My dear Gray, — I have been a most ungrateful and 
ungracious man not to have written to you an immense time 
ago to thank you heartily for the Nation, and for all your 
most kind aid in regard to the American edition [of ' Animals 
and Plants ']. But I have been of late overwhelmed with 
letters, which I was forced to answer, and so put off writing 
to you. This morning I received the American edition 
(which looks capital), with your nice preface, for which hearty 
thanks. I hope to heaven that the book will succeed well 
enough to prevent you repenting of your aid. This arrival 
has put the finishing stroke to my conscience, which will 
endure its wrongs no longer. 

. . . Your article in the Nation [Mar. 19] seems to me very 
good, and you give an excellent idea of Pangenesis — an infant 
cherished by few as yet, except his tender parent, but which 
will live a long life. There is parental presumption for you ! 
You give a good slap at my concluding metaphor : * undoubt- 
edly I ought to have brought in and contrasted natural and 
artificial selection ; but it seemed so obvious to me that 
natural selection depended on contingencies even more 

* A short abstract of the precipice 
metaphor is given at p. 307, vol. i. 
Dr. Gray's criticism on this point 
is as follows : " But in Mr. Dar- 
win's parallel, to meet the case of 
nature according to his own view 
of it, not only the fragments of rock 
(answering to variation) should fall, 

but the edifice (answering to natural 
selection) should rise, irrespective 
of will or choice ! " But my father's 
parallel demands that natural selec- 
tion shall be the architect, not the 
edifice — the question of design only 
comes in with regard to the form 
of the building materials. 

1 868.] MR. BENTHAM. 85 

complex than those which must have determined the shape of 
each fragment at the base of my precipice. What I wanted 
to show was that, in reference to pre-ordain ment, whatever 
holds good in the formation of a pouter pigeon holds good in 
the formation of a natural species of pigeon. I cannot see 
that this is false. If the right variations occurred, and no 
others, natural selection w r ould be superfluous. A reviewer in 
an Edinburgh paper, who treats me with profound contempt, 
says on this subject that Professor Asa Gray could with the 
greatest ease smash me into little pieces.* 
Believe me, my dear Gray, 

Your ungrateful but sincere friend, 

Charles Darwin. 

C. Darwin to G. Bentham. 

Down, June 23, 1868. 

My dear Mr. Bentham, — As your address \ is somewhat 
of the nature of a verdict from a judge, I do not know whether 
it is proper for me to do so, but I must and will thank you 
for the pleasure which you have given me. I am delighted at 
what you say about my book. I got so tired of it, that for 
months together I thought myself a perfect fool for having 
given up so much time in collecting and observing little facts, 
but now I do not care if a score of common critics speak as 
contemptuously of the book as did the Athenceum. I feel 
justified in this, for I have so complete a reliance on your 
judgment that I feel certain that I should have bowed to your 

* The Daily Review, April 27, scient creator." The reviewer goes 

1868. My father has given rather on to say that the passage in ques- 

a highly coloured version of the tion is a "very melancholy one," 

reviewer's remarks : " We doubt and that the theory is the " apotheo- 

not that Professor Asa Gray ... sis of materialism." 

could show that natural selection f Presidential Address to the 

... is simply an instrument in the Linnean Society, 
hands of an omnipotent and omni- 


judgment had it been as unfavourable as it is the contrary. 
What you say about Pangenesis quite satisfies me, and is as 
much perhaps as any one is justified in saying. I have read 
your whole Address with the greatest interest. It must have 
cost you a vast amount of trouble. With cordial thanks, 
pray believe me, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. — I fear that it is not likely that you have a superfluous 
copy of your Address ; if you have, I should much like to send 
one to Fritz Miiller in the interior of Brazil. By the way, let 
me add that I discussed bud-variation chiefly from a belief 
which is common to several persons, that all variability is 
related to sexual generation ; I wished to show clearly that 
this was an error. 

[The above series of letters may serve to show, to some 
extent, the reception which the new book received. Before 
passing on (in the next chapter) to the ' Descent of Man,' I 
give a letter referring to the translation of Fritz Muller's book, 
' Fur Darwin.' It was originally published in 1864, but the 
English translation, by Mr. Dallas, which bore the title sug- 
gested by Sir C. Lyell, of ' Facts and Arguments for Darwin/ 
did not appear until 1869 :] 

C. Darwin to F. Miiller. 

Down, March 16 [1868]. 

My DEAR Sir, — Your brother, as you will have heard 
from him, felt so convinced that you would not object to a 
translation of ' Fur Darwin,' * that I have ventured to arrange 
for a translation. Engelmann has very liberally offered me 

* In a letter to Fritz Miiller, my conspicuous than yours, which I es- 
father wrote : — " I am vexed to see pecially objected to, and I cautioned 
that on the title my name is more the printers after seeing one proof. 5 ' 

1 868.] M. GAUDRY. 87 

cliches of the woodcuts for 22 thalers ; Mr. Murray has 
agreed to bring out a translation (and he is our best publisher) 
on commission, for he would not undertake the work on his 
own risk ; and I have agreed with Mr. W. S. Dallas (who 
has translated Von Siebold on Parthenogenesis, and many 
German works, and who writes very good English) to 
translate the book. He thinks (and he is a good judge) that 
it is important to have some few corrections or additions, 
in order to account for a translation appearing so lately [i.e. 
at such a long interval of time] after the original ; so that I 
hope you will be able to send some 

[Two letters may be placed here, as bearing on the spread 
of Evolutionary ideas in France and Germany :] 

C. Darwin to A. Gandry. 

Down, January 21 [1868]. 

Dear Sir, — I thank you for your interesting essay on the 

influence of the Geological features of the country on the 

mind and habits of the Ancient Athenians,* and for your 

very obliging letter. I am delighted to hear that you intend 

to consider the relations of fossil animals in connection with 

their genealogy ; it will afford you a fine field for the exercise 

of your extensive knowledge and powers of reasoning. Your 

belief will I suppose, at present, lower you in the estimation 

of your countrymen ; but judging from the rapid spread in 

all parts of Europe, excepting France, of the belief in the 

common descent of allied species, I must think that this 

belief will before long become universal. How strange it is 

that the country which gave birth to Buffon, the elder 

Geoffrey, and especially to Lamarck, should now cling 

so pertinaciously to the belief that species are immutable 


* This appears to refer to M. Gaudry's paper translated in the ' Geol. 
Mag.,' 1868, p. 372. 


My work on Variation, &c, under domestication, will appear 
in a French translation in a few months' time, and I will do 
myself the pleasure and honour of directing the publisher to 
send a copy to you to the same address as this letter. 
With sincere respect, I remain, dear sir, 
Yours very faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The next letter is of especial interest, as showing how 
high a value my father placed on the support of the younger 
German naturalists :] 

C. Darwin to W. Preyer* 

March 31, 1868. 

.... I am delighted to hear that you uphold the doctrine 
of the Modification of Species, and defend my views. The 
support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground 
for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail. To the 
present day I am continually abused or treated with contempt 
by writers of my own country ; but the younger naturalists 
are almost all on my side, and sooner or later the public 
must follow those who make the subject their special study. 
The abuse and contempt of ignorant writers hurts me very 

• • • 

Now Professor of Physiology at Jena. 

: 3 9 ) 



1 864-1 870. 

[In the autobiographical chapter (Vol. I. p. 93), my father gives 
the circumstances which led to his writing the ' Descent of 
Man.' He states that his collection of facts, begun in 1837 or 
1838, was continued for many years without any definite idea of 
publishing on the subject. The following letter to Mr. Wallace 
shows that in the period of ill-health and depression about 
1864 he despaired of ever being able to do so :] 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, [May?] 28 [1864]. 

Dear Wallace, — I am so much better that I have just 
finished a paper for Linnean Society ; * but I am not yet at all 
strong, I felt much disinclination to write, and therefore you 
must forgive me for not having sooner thanked you for your 
paper on 'Man,'| received on the nth. But first let me say 
that I have hardly ever in my life been more struck by any 
paper than that on ' Variation,' &c. &c, in the Reader. % I feel 
sure that such papers will do more for the spreading of 

* On the three forms, &c, of % Reader, Ap. 16,1864. "On the 

Lythrum. Phenomena of Variation," &c. 

t ' Anthropological Review,' Abstract of a paper read before the 

March 1864. Linnean Society, Mar. 17, 1864. 

90 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1864. 

our views on the modification of species than any separate 
Treatises on the simple subject itself. It is really admirable ; 
but you ought not in the Man paper to speak of the theory 
as mine ; it is just as much yours as mine. One correspondent 
has already noticed to me your " high-minded " conduct on 
this head. But now for your Man paper, about which I 
should like to write more than I can. The great leading 
idea is quite new to me, viz. that during late ages, the mind 
will have been modified more than the body ; yet I had got 
as far as to see with you, that the struggle between the races 
of man depended entirely on intellectual and moral qualities. 
The latter part of the paper I can designate only as grand 
and most eloquently done. I have shown your paper to two 
or three persons who have been here, and they have been 
equally struck with it. I am not sure that I go with you on 
all minor points : when reading Sir G. Grey's account of the 
constant battles of Australian savages, I remember thinking 
that natural selection would come in, and likewise with the 
Esquimaux, with whom the art of fishing and managing canoes 
is said to be hereditary. I rather differ on the rank, under 
a classificatory point of view, which you assign to man ; I do 
not think any character simply in excess ought ever to be 
used for the higher divisions. Ants would not be separated 
from other hymenopterous insects, however high the instinct 
of the one, and however low the instincts of the other. With 
respect to the differences of race, a conjecture has occurred 
to me that much may be due to the correlation of complexion 
(and consequently hair) with constitution. Assume that a 
dusky individual best escaped miasma, and you will readily 
see what I mean. I persuaded the Director-General of the 
Medical Department of the Army to send printed forms to 
the surgeons of all regiments in tropical countries to ascertain 
this point, but I dare say I shall never get any returns. 
Secondly, I suspect that a sort of sexual selection has been 

1867.] MR. WALLACE. 9 1 

the most powerful means of changing the races of man. I 
can show that the different races have a widely different 
standard of beauty. Among savages the most powerful men 
will have the pick of the women, and they will generally leave 
the most descendants. I have collected a few notes on man, 
but I do not suppose that I shall ever use them. Do you 
intend to follow out your views, and if so, would you like at 
some future time to have my few references and notes ? I 
am sure I hardly know whether they are of any value, and 
they are at present in a state of chaos. 

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

Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

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

[In February 1867, when the manuscript of 'Animals and 
Plants ' had been sent to Messrs. Clowes to be printed, and 
before the proofs began to come in, he had an interval of spare 
time, and began a " chapter on Man," but he soon found it 
growing under his hands, and determined to publish it 
separately as a " very small volume." 

The work was interrupted by the necessity of correcting 
the proofs of ' Animals and Plants,' and by some botanical 
work, but was resumed with unremitting industry on the first 
available day in the following year. He could not rest, and 
he recognized with regret the gradual change in his mind 
that rendered continuous work more and more necessary to 
him as he grew older. This is expressed in a letter to Sir 
J. D. Hooker, June 17, 1868, which repeats to some extent 
what is given in the Autobiography : — 

92 WORK ON 'MAN.' [l86/. 

" I am glad you were at the ' Messiah,' it is the one thing 
that I should like to hear again, but I dare say I should find 
my soul too dried up to appreciate it as in old days ; and 
then I should feel very flat, for it is a horrid bore to feel as I 
constantly do, that I am a withered leaf for every subject 
except Science. It sometimes makes me hate Science, though 
God knows I ought to be thankful for such a perennial 
interest, which makes me forget for some hours every day my 
accursed stomach." 

The work on Man was interrupted by illness in the early 
summer of 1868, and he left home on July 16th for Fresh- 
water, in the Isle of Wight, where he remained with his 
family until August 21st. Here he made the acquaintance 
of Mrs. Cameron. She received the whole family with 
open-hearted kindness and hospitality, and my father always 
retained a warm feeling of friendship for her. She made 
an excellent photograph of him, which was published with 
the inscription written by him : " I like this photograph 
very much better than any other which has been taken 
of me." Further interruption occurred in the autumn, so 
that continuous work on the ' Descent of Man ' did not 
begin until 1869. The following letters give some idea of 
the earlier work in 1867 : ] 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, February 22, [1867 ?] 

My DEAR WALLACE, — I am hard at work on sexual selec- 
tion, and am driven half mad by the number of collateral 
points which require investigation, such as the relative 
number of the two sexes, and especially on polygamy. 
Can you aid me with respect to birds which have strongly 
marked secondary sexual characters, such as birds of 


paradise, humming-birds, the Rupicola, or any other such 
cases? Many gallinaceous birds certainly are polygamous. 
I suppose that birds may be known not to be polygamous 
if they are seen during the whole breeding season to asso- 
ciate in pairs, or if the male incubates or aids in feeding 
the young. Will you have the kindness to turn this in your 
mind ? But it is a shame to trouble you now that, as I am 
heartily glad to hear, you are at work on your Malayan 
travels. I am fearfully puzzled how far to extend your 
protective views with respect to the females in various 
classes. The more I work, the more important sexual 
selection apparently comes out. 

Can butterflies be polygamous ? i.e. will one male impreg- 
nate more than one female ? Forgive me troubling you, and 
I dare say I shall have to ask forgiveness again. . . . 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, February 23 [1867]. 

Dear WALLACE, — I much regretted that I was unable to 
call on you, but after Monday I was unable even to leave the 
house. On Monday evening I called on Bates, and put a 
difficulty before him, which he could not answer, and, as on 
some former similar occasion, his first suggestion was, "You 
had better ask Wallace." My difficulty is, why are cater- 
pillars sometimes so beautifully and artistically coloured? 
Seeing that many are coloured to escape danger, I can hardly 
attribute their bright colour in other cases to mere physical 
conditions. Bates says the most gaudy caterpillar he ever 
saw in Amazonia (of a sphinx) was conspicuous at the 
distance of yards, from its black and red colours, whilst 
feeding on large green leaves. If any one objected to male 
butterflies having been made beautiful by sexual selection, 
and asked why should they not have been made beautiful as 

94 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1867. 

well as their caterpillars, what would you answer ? I could 
not answer, but should maintain my ground. Will you think 
over this, and some time, either by letter or when we meet, 
tell me what you think ? Also I want to know whether your 
female mimetic butterfly is more beautiful and brighter than 
the male. When next in London I must get you to show me 
your kingfishers. My health is a dreadful evil ; I failed in 
half my engagements during this last visit to London. 

Believe me, yours very sincerely, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, February 26 [1867]. 

My dear Wallace, — Bates was quite right ; you are the 
man to apply to in a difficulty. I never heard anything 
more ingenious than your suggestion,* and I hope you may 
be able to prove it true. That is a splendid fact about the 
white moths ; it warms one's very blood to see a theory thus 
almost proved to be true.f With respect to the beauty of 
male butterflies, I must as yet think that it is due to sexual 
selection. There is some evidence that dragon-flies are 
attracted by bright colours ; but what leads me to the above 
belief, is so many male Orthoptera and Cicadas having 
musical instruments. This being the case, the analogy of 
birds makes me believe in sexual selection with respect to 
colour in insects. I wish I had strength and time to make 
some of the experiments suggested by you, but I thought 
butterflies would not pair in confinement. I am sure I have 
heard of some such difficulty. Many years ago I had a 

* The suggestion that con- 'Natural Selection,' 2nd edit., p. 117. 

spicuous caterpillars or perfect in- f Mr. Jenner Weir's observa- 

sects (e.g. white butterflies), which tions published in the Transactions 

are distasteful to birds, are pro- of the Entomolog. Soc. (1869 and 

tected by being easily recognised 1870) give strong support to the' 

and avoided. See Mr. Wallace's theory in question. 


dragon-fly painted with gorgeous colours, but I never had an 
opportunity of fairly trying it. 

The reason of my being so much interested just at present 
about sexual selection is, that I have almost resolved to 
publish a little essay on the origin of Mankind, and I still 
strongly think (though I failed to convince you, and this, to 
me, is the heaviest blow possible) that sexual selection has 
been the main agent in forming the races of man. 

By the way, there is another subject which I shall intro- 
duce in my essay, namely, expression of countenance. Now, 
do you happen to know by any odd chance a very good- 
natured and acute observer in the Malay Archipelago, who 
you think would make a few easy observations for me on the 
expression of the Malays when excited by various emotions ? 
For in this case I would send to such person a list of queries. 
I thank you for your most interesting letter, and remain, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, March [1867]. 

My dear Wallace, — I thank you much for your two 
notes. The case of Julia Pastrana * is a splendid addition to 
my other cases of correlated teeth and hair, and I will add it 
in correcting the press of my present volume. Pray let me 
hear in the course of the summer if you get any evidence 
about the gaudy caterpillars. I should much like to give 
(or quote if published) this idea of yours, if in any way sup- 
ported, as suggested by you. It will, however, be a long 
time hence, for I can see that sexual selection is erowing' 
into quite a large subject, which I shall introduce into my 
essay on Man, supposing that I ever publish it. I had 

* A bearded woman having an irregular double set of teeth. See 
'Animals and Plants,' vol. ii. p. 328. 

96 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1867. 

intended giving a chapter on man, inasmuch as many call 
him (not quite truly) an eminently domesticated animal, but 
I found the subject too large for a chapter. Nor shall I be 
capable of treating the subject well, and my sole reason for 
taking it up is, that I am pretty well convinced that sexual 
selection has played an important part in the formation of 
races, and sexual selection has always been a subject which 
has interested me much. I have been very glad to see your 
impression from memory on the expression of Malays. I 
fully agree with you that the subject is in no way an im- 
portant one ; it is simply a " hobby-horse " with me, about 
twenty-seven years old ; and after thinking that I would write 
an essay on Man, it flashed on me that I could work in some 
" supplemental remarks on expression." After the horrid, 
tedious, dull work of my present huge, and I fear unreadable, 
book [' The Variation of Animals and Plants '], I thought 
I would amuse myself with my hobby-horse. The subject is, 
I think, more curious and more amenable to scientific treat- 
ment than you seem willing to allow. I want, anyhow, to 
upset Sir C. Bell's view, given in his most interesting work, 
1 The Anatomy of Expression,' that certain muscles have 
been given to man solely that he may reveal to other men 
his feelings. I want to try and show how expressions have 
arisen. That is a good suggestion about newspapers, but my 
experience tells me that private applications are generally 
most fruitful. I will, however, see if I can get the queries 
inserted in some Indian paper. I do not know the names or 
addresses of any other papers. 

. . . My two female amanuenses are busy with friends, and 
I fear this scrawl will give you much trouble to read. With 
many thanks, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[The following letter is worth giving, as an example 


of his sources of information, and as showing what were the 
thoughts at this time occupying him :] 

C. Darwin to F. Miiller. 

Down, June 3 [1868]. 

. . . Many thanks for all the curious facts about the unequal 
number of the sexes in Crustacea, but the more I investigate 
this subject the deeper I sink in doubt and difficulty. Thanks 
also for the confirmation of the rivalry of Cicadae. I have 
often reflected with surprise on the diversity of the means for 
producing music with insects, and still more with birds. We 
thus get a high idea of the importance of song in the animal 
kingdom. Please to tell me where I can find any account 
of the auditory organs in the Orthoptera. Your facts are 
quite new to me. Scudder has described an insect in the 
Devonian strata, furnished with a stridulating apparatus. 
I believe he is to be trusted, and, if so, the apparatus is of 
astonishing antiquity. After reading Landois's paper I have 
been working at the stridulating organ in the Lamellicorn 
beetles, in expectation of finding it sexual ; but I have only 
found it as yet in two cases, and in these it was equally de- 
veloped in both sexes. I wish you would look at any of 
your common Lamellicorns, and take hold of both males 
and females, and observe whether they make the squeaking 
or grating noise equally. If they do not, you could, perhaps, 
send me a male and female in a light little box. How 
curious it is that there should be a special organ for an object 
apparently so unimportant as squeaking. Here is another 
point ; have you any toucans ? if so, ask any trustworthy 
hunter whether the beaks of the males, or of both sexes, 
are more brightly coloured during the breeding season than 
at other times of the year. . . . Heaven knows whether I 
shall ever live to make use of half the valuable facts which 
you have communicated to me ! Your paper on Balanus 


93 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1868. 

armatus, translated by Mr. Dallas, has just appeared in our 
' Annals and Magazine of Natural History/ and I have read it 
with the greatest interest. I never thought that I should 
live to hear of a hybrid Balanus ! I am very glad that you 
have seen the cement tubes ; they appear to me extremely 
curious, and, as far as I know, you are the first man who has 
verified my observations on this point. 

With most cordial thanks for all your kindness, my 
dear Sir, 

Yours very sincerely, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to A. De Candolle. 

Down, July 6, 1868. 
My DEAR SIR, — I return you my sincere thanks for your 
long letter, which I consider a great compliment, and which 
is quite full of most interesting facts and views. Your 
references and remarks will be of great use should a new 
edition of my book * be demanded, but this is hardly prob- 
able, for the whole edition was sold within the first week, 
and another large edition immediately reprinted, which I 
should think would supply the demand for ever. You ask 
me when I shall publish on the 'Variation of Species in 
a State of Nature.' I have had the MS. for another volume 
almost ready during several years, but I was so much 
fatigued by my last book that I determined to amuse myself 
by publishing a short essay on the ' Descent of Man. 5 I was 
partly led to do this by having been taunted that I concealed 
my views, but chiefly from the interest which I had long 
taken in the subject. Now this essay has branched out into 
some collateral subjects, and I suppose will take me more 
than a year to complete. I shall then begin on 'Species,' 
but my health makes me a very slow workman. I hope that 
you will excuse these details, which I have given to show 

* ' Variation of Animals and Plants.' 

1 868.] agassiz. 99 

that you will have plenty of time to publish your views first, 
which will be a great advantage to me. Of all the curious 
facts which you mention in your letter, I think that of the 
strong inheritance of the scalp-muscles has interested me 
most. I presume that you would not object to my giving 
this very curious case on your authority. As I believe all 
anatomists look at the scalp-muscles as a remnant of the 
Panniculus camosus which is common to all the lower 
quadrupeds, I should look at the unusual development and 
inheritance of these muscles as probably a case of reversion. 
Your observation on so many remarkable men in noble 
families having been illegitimate is extremely curious ; and 
should I ever meet any one capable of writing an essay on 
this subject I will mention your remarks as a good sugges- 
tion. Dr. Hooker has several times remarked to me that 
morals and politics would be very interesting if discussed like 
any branch of natural history, and this is nearly to the same 
effect with your remarks. . . . 

C. Darwin to L. Agassiz. 

Down, August 19, 1868. 

DEAR SIR, — I thank you cordially for your very kind 
letter. I certainly thought that you had formed so low an 
opinion of my scientific work that it might have appeared 
indelicate in me to have asked for information from you, but 
it never occurred to me that my letter would have been 
shown to you. I have never for a moment doubted your 
kindness and generosity, and I hope you will not think it 
presumption in me to say, that when we met, many years 
ago, at the British Association at Southampton, I felt for you 
the warmest admiration. 

Your information on the Amazonian fishes has interested 
me extremely, and tells me exactly what I wanted to know. 
I was aware, through notes given me by Dr. Giinther, that 

H 2 

100 WORK ON 'MAN.' [l868. 

many fishes differed sexually in colour and other characters, 
but I was particularly anxious to learn how far this was the 
case with those fishes in which the male, differently from 
what occurs with most birds, takes the largest share in the 
care of the ova and young. Your letter has not only 
interested me much, but has greatly gratified me in other 
respects, and I return you my sincere thanks for your kind- 
ness. Pray believe me, my dear Sir, 

Yours very faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

C. Darwin to jf. D. Hooker. 

Down, Sunday, August 23 [1868]. 

My dear old Friend, — I have received your note. I 
can hardly say how pleased I have been at the success of 
your address,* and of the whole meeting. I have seen the 
Times, Telegraph, Spectator, and Athenceum, and have heard 
of other favourable newspapers, and have ordered a bundle. 
There is a " chorus of praise." The Times reported miserably, 
i.e. as far as errata were concerned ; but I was very glad at 
the leader, for I thought the way you brought in the mega- 
lithic monuments most happy.f I particularly admired 
Tyndall's little speech.^ . . . The Spectator pitches a little into 
you about Theology, in accordance with its usual spirit. . . . 

Your great success has rejoiced my heart. I have just 
carefully read the whole address in the Athenceum ; and 
though, as you know, I liked it very much when you read it 
to me, yet, as I was trying all the time to find fault, I missed 
to a certain extent the effect as a whole ; and this now 

* Sir Joseph Hooker was Presi- builders, the Khasia race of East 

dent of the British Association at Bengal, in order that their mega- 

the Norwich Meeting in 1868. lithic monuments might be efficient- 

t The British Association was ly described, 

desirous of interesting the Govern- J Professor Tyndall was Presi- 

ment in certain modern cromlech dent of Section A. 

1 868.] 



appears to me most striking and excellent. How you must 
rejoice at all your bothering labour and anxiety having had 
so grand an end. I must say a word about myself ; never 
has such a eulogium been passed on me, and it makes me 
very proud. I cannot get over my amazement at what you 
say about my botanical work. By Jove, as far as my 
memory goes, you have strengthened instead of weakened 
some of the expressions. What is far more important than 
anything personal, is the conviction which I feel, that you 
will have immensely advanced the belief in the evolution of 
species. This will follow from the publicity of the occasion, 
your position, so responsible, as President, and your own high 
reputation. It will make a great step in public opinion, I feel 
sure, and I had not thought of this before. The Athenceum 
takes your snubbing * with the utmost mildness. I certainly 
do rejoice over the snubbing, and hope [the reviewer] will 
feel it a little. Whenever you have spare time to write again, 
tell me whether any astronomers f took your remarks in ill 
part ; as they now stand they do not seem at all too harsh 
and presumptuous. Many of your sentences strike me as 
extremely felicitous and eloquent. That of LyelFs " under- 
pinning," % is capital. Tell me, was Lyell pleased ? I am so 
glad that you remembered my old dedication. § Was Wallace 
pleased ? 

* Sir Joseph Hooker made some 
reference to the review of ' Animals 
and Plants ' in the AthencEum of 
Feb. 15, 1868. 

f In discussing the astronomer's 
objection to Evolution, namely that 
our globe has not existed for a long 
enough period to give time for the 
assumed transmutation of living be- 
ings, Hooker challenged Whewell's 
dictum, that astronomy is the queen 
of sciences — the only perfect science. 

X After a eulogium on Sir Charles 

Lyell's heroic renunciation of his 
old views in accepting Evolution, 
Sir J. D. Hooker continued, " Well 
may he be proud of a superstructure, 
raised on the foundations of an in- 
secure doctrine, when he finds that 
he can underpin it and substitute 
a new foundation ; and after all is 
finished, survey his edifice, not only 
more secure but more harmonious 
in its proportion than it was before." 
§ The ' Naturalist's Voyage ' was 
dedicated to Lyell. 

102 WORK ON 'MAN.' [l868. 

How about photographs ? Can you spare time for a line 
to our dear Mrs. Cameron ?* She came to see us off, and 
loaded us with presents of photographs, and Erasmus called 
after her, " Mrs. Cameron, there are six people in this house 
all in love with you." When I paid her, she cried out, " Oh, 
what a lot of money ! " and ran to boast to her husband. 

I must not write any more, though I am in tremendous 
spirits at your brilliant success. 

Yours ever affectionately, 

C. Darwin. 

[In the AthencEum of November 29, 1868, appeared an 
article which was in fact a reply to Sir Joseph Hooker's 
remarks at Norwich. He seems to have consulted my father 
as to the wisdom of answering the article. My father wrote 
to him on December 1 : — 

" In my opinion Dr. Joseph Dalton Hooker need take no 
notice of the attack in the Athenaum in reference to Mr. 
Charles Darwin. What an ass the man is, to think he cuts 
one to the quick by giving one's Christian name in full. How 
transparently false is the statement that my sole groundwork 
is from pigeons, because I state I have worked them out more 
fully than other beings ! He muddles together two books of 

The following letter refers to a paperf by Judge Caton, of 
which my father often spoke with admiration :] 

C. Darwin to John D. Caton. 

Down, September 18, 1868. 

Dear Sir, — I beg leave to thank you very sincerely for 
your kindness in sending me, through Mr. Walsh, your 
admirable paper on American Deer. 

* See Vol. III. p. 92. 1868. By John D. Caton, late 

t 'Transactions of the Ottawa Chief Justice of Illinois. 
Academy of Natural Sciences,' 

1 868.] MARQUIS DE SAPORTA. 103 

It is quite full of most interesting observations, stated with 
the greatest clearness. I have seldom read a paper with 
more interest, for it abounds with facts of direct use for my 
work. Many of them consist of little points which hardly 
any one besides yourself has observed, or perceived the im- 
portance of recording. I would instance the age at which the 
horns are developed (a point on which I have lately been in 
vain searching for information), the rudiment of horns in the 
female elk, and especially the different nature of the plants 
devoured by the deer and elk, and several other points. 
With cordial thanks for the pleasure and instruction which 
you have afforded me, and with high respect for your power 
of observation, I beg leave to remain, dear Sir, 

Yours faithfully and obliged, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The following extract from a letter (Sept. 24, 1868) to 
the Marquis de Saporta, the eminent palaeo- botanist, refers 
to the growth of Evolutionary views in France : — * 

" As I have formerly read with great interest many of your 
papers on fossil plants, you may believe with what high 
satisfaction I hear that you are a believer in the gradual 
evolution of species. I had supposed that my book on the 
* Origin of Species ' had made very little impression in France, 
and therefore it delights me to hear a different statement 
from you. All the great authorities of the Institute seem 
firmly resolved to believe in the immutability of species, and 
this has always astonished me. . . . Almost the one exception, 
as far as I know, is M. Gaudry, and I think he will be soon 
one of the chief leaders in Zoological Palaeontology in 
Europe ; and now I am delighted to hear that in the sister 
department of Botany you take nearly the same view."] 

* In 1868 he was pleased at translation of his 'Naturalist's 
being asked to authorise a French Voyage.' 

104 WORK ON 'MAN.' [l868. 

C. Darwin to E. HaeckeL 

Down, Nov. 19 [1868]. 

My DEAR HAECKEL, — I must write to you again, for two 
reasons. Firstly, to thank you for your letter about your 
baby, which has quite charmed both me and my wife ; I 
heartily congratulate you on its birth. I remember being 
surprised in my own case how soon the paternal instincts 
became developed, and in you they seem to be unusually 
strong, ... I hope the large blue eyes and the principles of 
inheritance will make your child as good a naturalist as you 
are ; but, judging from my own experience, you will be 
astonished to find how the whole mental disposition of your 
children changes with advancing years. A young child, and 
the same when nearly grown, sometimes differ almost as much 
as do a caterpillar and butterfly. 

The second point is to congratulate you on the projected 
translation of your great work,* about which I heard from 
Huxley last Sunday, I am heartily glad of it, but how it has 
been brought about, I know not, for a friend who supported 
the proposed translation at Norwich, told me he thought 
there would be no chance of it. Huxley tells me that you 
consent to omit and shorten some parts, and I am confident 
that this is very wise. As I know your object is to instruct 
the public, you will assuredly thus get many more readers 
in England. Indeed, I believe that almost every book 
would be improved by condensation. I have been reading a 
good deal of your last book,f and the style is beautifully 
clear and easy to me; but why it should differ so much 
in this respect from your great work I cannot imagine. I 
have not yet read the first part, but began with the 
chapter on Lyell and myself, which you will easily believe 

* ' Generelle Morphologie,' 1866. Geschichte,' 1*68. It was trans- 
No English translation of this lated and published in 1876, under 
book has appeared. the title, ' The History of Creation.* 

f l Die Naturliche Schopfungs- 

1 868.] haeckel's books. 105 

pleased me very much. I think Lyell, who was apparently 
much pleased by your sending him a copy, is also much 
gratified by this chapter.* Your chapters on the affinities and 
genealogy of the animal kingdom strike me as admirable 
and full of original thought. Your boldness, however, 
sometimes makes me tremble, but as Huxley remarked, 
some one must be bold enough to make a beginning in 
drawing up tables of descent. Although you fully admit the 
imperfection of the geological record, yet Huxley agreed with 
me in thinking that you are sometimes rather rash in venturing 
to say at what periods the several groups first appeared. I have 
this advantage over you, that I remember how wonderfully 
different any statement on this subject made 20 years ago, 
would have been to what would now be the case, and I 
expect the next 20 years will make quite as great a difference. 
Reflect on the monocotyledonous plant just discovered in the 
primordial formation in Sweden. 

I repeat how glad I am at the prospect of the translation, 
for I fully believe that this work and all your works will 
have a great influence in the advancement of Science. 

Believe me, my dear Hackel, your sincere friend, 

Charles Darwin. 

[It was in November of this year that he sat for the bust 
by Mr. Woolner : he wrote : — 

" I should have written long ago, but I have been pestered 
with stupid letters, and am undergoing the purgatory of 
sitting for hours to Woolner, who, however, is wonderfully 
pleasant, and lightens as much as man can, the penance ; as 
far as I can judge, it will make a fine bust." 

If I may criticise the work of so eminent a sculptor as 

* See Lyell's interesting letter to Haeckel. ' Life of Sir C. Lyell,' ii. 
P- 435- 

106 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1869. 

Mr. Woolner, I should say that the point in which the bust 

fails somewhat as a portrait, is that it has a certain air, almost 

of pomposity, which seems to me foreign to my father's 



[At the beginning of the year he was at work in preparing 
the fifth edition of the ' Origin.' This work was begun on 
the day after Christmas, 1868, and was continued for "forty- 
six days," as he notes in his diary, i.e. until February 10th, 
1869. He then, February nth, returned to Sexual Selection, 
and continued at this subject (excepting for ten days given 
up to Orchids, and a week in ^London), until June 10th, 
when he went with his family to North Wales, where he 
remained about seven weeks, returning to Down on July 31st. 

Caerdeon, the house where he stayed, is built on the north 
shore of the beautiful Barmouth estuary, and is pleasantly 
placed in being close to wild hill country behind, as well as 
to the picturesque wooded " hummocks," between the steeper 
hills and the river. My father was ill and somewhat depressed 
throughout this visit, and I think felt saddened at being 
imprisoned by his want of strength, and unable even to reach 
the hills over which he had once wandered for days together. 

He wrote from Caerdeon to Sir J. D. Hooker (June 22nd) : — 

" We have been here for ten days, how I wish it was 
possible for you to pay us a visit here ; we have a beautiful 
house with a terraced garden, and a really magnificent view 
of Cader, right opposite. Old Cader is a grand fellow, and 
shows himself off superbly with every changing light. We 
remain here till the end of July, when the H. Wedgwoods 
have the house. I have been as yet in a very poor way ; it 
seems as soon as the stimulus of mental work stops, my 
whole strength gives way. As yet I have hardly crawled half 
a mile from the house, and then have been fearfully fatigued. 
It is enough to make one wish oneself quiet in a comfortable 

1869.] FLEEMING JENKIN. 107 

With regard to the fifth edition of the ' Origin,' he wrote to 
Mr. Wallace, January 22, 1869): — 

" I have been interrupted in my regular work in preparing 
a new edition of the ' Origin,' which has cost me much labour, 
and which I hope I have considerably improved in two or 
three important points. I always thought individual differ- 
ences more important than single variations, but now I have 
come to the conclusion that they are of paramount import- 
ance, and in this I believe I agree with you. Fleeming 
Jenkin's arguments have convinced me." 

This somewhat obscure sentence was explained, February 2, 
in another letter to Mr. Wallace : — 

" I must have expressed myself atrociously ; I meant to 
say exactly the reverse of what you have understood. 
F. Jenkin argued in the ' North British Review ' against single 
variations ever being perpetuated, and has convinced me, 
though not in quite so broad a manner as here put. I always 
thought individual differences more important ; but I was 
blind and thought that single variations might be preserved 
much oftener than I now see is possible or probable. I men- 
tioned this in my former note merely because I believed that 
you had come to a similar conclusion, and I like much to be 
in accord with you. I believe I was mainly deceived by 
single variations offering such simple illustrations, as when 
man selects." 

The late Mr. Fleeming Jenkin's review, on the ' Origin of 
Species,' was published in the ' North British Review ' for June 
1867. It is not a little remarkable that the criticisms, which 
my father, as I believe, felt to be the most valuable ever 
made on his views should have come, not from a professed 
naturalist but from a Professor of Engineering. 

It is impossible to give in a short compass an account of 
Fleeming Jenkin's argument. My father's copy of the paper 
(ripped out of the volume as usual, and tied with a bit of 
string) is annotated in pencil in many places. I may quote 

108 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1869. 

one passage opposite which my father has written "good 
sneers " — but it should be remembered that he used the word 
" sneer " in rather a special sense, not as necessarily implying 
a feeling of bitterness in the critic, but rather in the sense 
of " banter." Speaking of the ' true believer,' Fleeming Jenkin 
says, p. 293 : — 

" He can invent trains of ancestors of whose existence 
there is no evidence ; he can marshal hosts of equally imagi- 
nary foes ; he can call up continents, floods, and peculiar 
atmospheres ; he can dry up oceans, split islands, and parcel 
out eternity at will ; surely with these advantages he must be 
a dull fellow if he cannot scheme some series of animals and 
circumstances explaining our assumed difficulty quite natur- 
ally. Feeling the difficulty of dealing with adversaries who 
command so huge a domain of fancy, we will abandon these 
arguments, and trust to those which at least cannot be assailed 
by mere efforts of imagination." 

In the fifth edition of the ' Origin/ my father altered a 
passage in the Historical Sketch (fourth edition, p. xviii). He 
thus practically gave up the difficult task of understanding 
whether or not Sir R. Owen claims to have discovered the 
principle of Natural Selection. Adding, " As far as the mere 
enunciation of the principle of Natural Selection is concerned, 
it is quite immaterial whether or not Professor Owen preceded 
me, for both of us . . . were long ago preceded by Dr. Wells 
and Mr. Matthew." 

A somewhat severe critique on the fifth edition, by Mr. John 
Robertson, appeared in the Athencenm, August 14, 1869. 
The writer comments with some little bitterness on the 
success of the ' Origin :' " Attention is not acceptance. Many 
editions do not mean real success. The book has sold ; the 
guess has been talked over ; and the circulation and discus- 
sion sum up the significance of the editions." Mr. Robertson 
makes the true, but misleading statement : " Mr. Darwin 
prefaces his fifth English edition with an Essay, which he 


calls 'An Historical Sketch,' &c." As a matter of fact a 
Sketch appeared in the third edition in 1 861. 

Mr. Robertson goes on to say that the Sketch ought to be 
called a collection of extracts anticipatory or corroborative of 
the hypothesis of Natural Selection. " For no account is 
given of any hostile opinions. The fact is very significant. 
This historical sketch thus resembles the histories of the reign 
of Louis XVIII., published after the Restoration, from which 
the Republic and the Empire, Robespierre and Buonaparte 
were omitted." 

The following letter to Prof. Victor Cams gives an idea of 
the character of the new edition of the ' Origin : '] 

C. Darwin to Victor Cams. 

Down, May 4, 1869. 

... I have gone very carefully through the whole, trying to 
make some parts clearer, and adding a few discussions and 
facts of some importance. The new edition is only two pages 
at the end longer than the old ; though in one part nine pages 
in advance, for I have condensed several parts and omitted 
some passages. The translation I fear will cause you a great 
deal of trouble ; the alterations took me six weeks, besides 
correcting the press ; you ought to make a special agreement 
with M. Koch [the publisher]. Many of the corrections are 
only a few words, but they have been made from the evidence 
on various points appearing to have become a little stronger 
or weaker. 

Thus I have been led to place somewhat more value on 
the definite and direct action of external conditions ; to think 
the lapse of time, as measured by years, not quite so great as 
most geologists have thought ; and to infer that single varia- 
tions are of even less importance, in comparison with indi- 
vidual differences, than I formerly thought I mention these 
points because I have been thus led to alter in many places 
a few words ; and unless you go through the whole new 

HO WORK ON 'MAN.' [1869. 

edition, one part will not agree with another, which would be 
a great blemish. . . . 

[The desire that his views might spread in France was 
always strong with my father, and he was therefore justly 
annoyed to find that in 1869 the publisher of the first French 
edition had brought out a third edition without consulting 
the author. He was accordingly glad to enter into an 
arrangement for a French translation of the fifth edition ; this 
was undertaken by M. Reinwald, with whom he continued 
to have pleasant relations as the publisher of many of his 
books into French. 

He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : — 

" I must enjoy myself and tell you about Mdlle. C. Royer, 
who translated the ' Origin ' into French, and for whose 
second edition I took infinite trouble. She has now just 
brought out a third edition without informing me, so that all 
the corrections, &c, in the fourth and fifth English editions 
are lost. Besides her enormously long preface to the first 
edition, she has added a second preface abusing me like a 
pickpocket for Pangenesis, which of course has no relation to 
the ' Origin.' So I wrote to Paris ; and Reinwald agrees to 
bring out at once a new translation from the fifth English 
edition, in competition with her third edition. . . . This fact 
shows that " evolution of species " must at last be spreading 
in France." 

With reference to the spread of Evolution among the 
orthodox, the following letter is of some interest. In March 
he received, from the author, a copy of a lecture by Rev. T. 
R. R. Stebbing, given before the Torquay Natural History 
Society, February 1, 1869, bearing the title "Darwinism." 
My father wrote to Mr. Stebbing :] 

Down, March 3, 1869. 
Dear Sir, — I am very much obliged to you for your 
kindness in sending me your spirited and interesting lecture ; 


if a layman had delivered the same address, he would have 
done good service in spreading what, as I hope and believe, is 
to a large extent the truth ; but a clergyman in delivering such 
an address does, as it appears to me, much more good by his 
power to shake ignorant prejudices, and by setting, if I may 
be permitted to say so, an admirable example of liberality. 
With sincere respect, I beg leave to remain, 

Dear Sir, yours faithfully and obliged, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The references to the subject of expression in the following 
letter are explained by the fact, that my father's original 
intention was to give his essay on this subject as a chapter 
in the ' Descent of Man,' which in its turn grew, as we have 
seen, out of a proposed chapter in ' Animals and Plants : '] 

C. Darwin to F. Miiller. 

Down, February 22, [1869?] 

. . . Although you have aided me to so great an extent in 
many ways, I am going to beg for any information on two other 
subjects. I am preparing a discussion on " Sexual Selection," 
and I want much to know how low down in the animal scale 
sexual selection of a particular kind extends. Do you know 
of any lowly organised animals, in which the sexes are 
separated, and in which the male differs from the female in 
arms of offence, like the horns and tusks of male mammals, or 
in gaudy plumage and ornaments, as with birds and butter- 
flies ? I do not refer to secondary sexual characters, by which 
the male is able to discover the female, like the plumed 
antennae of moths, or by which the male is enabled to seize 
the female, like the curious pincers described by you in some 
of the lower Crustaceans. But what I want to know is, how 
low in the scale sexual differences occur which require some 
degree of self-consciousness in the males, as weapons by 

112 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1869. 

which they fight for the female, or ornaments which attract 
the opposite sex. Any differences between males and females 
which follow different habits of life would have to be ex- 
cluded. I think you will easily see what I wish to learn. A 
priori, it would never have been anticipated that insects 
would have been attracted by the beautiful colouring of the 
opposite sex, or by the sounds emitted by the various musical 
instruments of the male Orthoptera. I know no one so likely 
to answer this question as yourself, and should be grateful for 
any information, however small. 

My second subject refers to expression of countenance, to 
which I have long attended, and on which I feel a keen 
interest ; but to which, unfortunately, I did not attend, when 
I had the opportunity of observing various races of man. It 
has occurred to me that you might, without much trouble, 
make a few observations for me, in the course of some 
months, on Negroes, or possibly on native South Americans, 
though I care most about Negroes ; accordingly I enclose 
some questions as a guide, and if you could answer me even 
one or two I should feel truly obliged. I am thinking of 
writing a little essay on the Origin of Mankind, as I have been 
taunted with concealing my opinions, and I should do this 
immediately after the completion of my present book. In 
this case I should add a chapter on the cause or meaning of 
expression. . . . 

[The remaining letters of this year deal chiefly with the 
books, reviews, &c, which interested him.] 

C. Darwin to H. Thiel. 

Down, February 25, 1869. 
Dear Sir, — On my return home after a short absence, I 
found your very courteous note, and the pamphlet,* and I 

* 'Ueber einige Formen der of the Agricultural Station at 
Landwirthschaftlichen Genossen - Poppelsdorf. 
schaften.' By Dr. H. Thiel, then 

1869.] GEOLOGICAL TIME. 113 

hasten to thank you for both, and for the very honourable 
mention which you make of my name. You will readily 
believe how much interested I am in observing that you 
apply to moral and social questions analogous views to those 
which I have used in regard to the modification of species. 
It did not occur to me formerly that my views could be 
extended to such widely different, and most important, sub- 
jects. With much respect, I beg leave to remain, dear Sir, 

Yours faithfully and obliged, 

Charles Darwin. 

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley. 

Down, March 19 [1869]. 
MY DEAR HUXLEY, — Thanks for your 'Address.'* People 
complain of the unequal distribution of wealth, but it is a 
much greater shame and injustice that any one man should 
have the power to write so many brilliant essays as you have 
lately done. There is no one who writes like you. ... If 
I were in your shoes, I should tremble for my life. I agree 
with all you say, except that I must think that you draw 
too great a distinction between the evolutionists and the 

I find that the few sentences which I have sent to press in 
the ' Origin ' about the age of the world will do fairly well . . . 

Ever yours, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, March 22 [1869]. 
My DEAR Wallace, — I have finished your book ; f it 
seems to me excellent, and at the same time most pleasant to 

* In his 'Anniversary Address' Soc. Glasgow,' vol. iii.) "On Geo- 

to the Geological Society, 1869, logical Time." 

Mr. Huxley criticised Sir William f ' The Malay Archipelago,' &c. 

Thomson's paper ('Trans. Geol. 1869. 


114 WORK ON 'MAN. 5 [1869. 

read. That you ever returned alive is wonderful after all 
your risks from illness and sea voyages, especially that most 
interesting one to Waigiou and back. Of all the impressions 
which I have received from your book, the strongest is that 
your perseverance in the cause of science was heroic. Your 
descriptions of catching the splendid butterflies have made 
me quite envious, and at the same time have made me feel 
almost young again, so vividly have they brought before my 
mind old days when I collected, though I never made such 
captures as yours. Certainly collecting is the best sport in 
the world. I shall be astonished if your book has not a great 
success ; and your splendid generalizations on Geographical 
Distribution, with which I am familiar from your papers, will 
be new to most of your readers. I think I enjoyed most the 
Timor case, as it is best demonstrated ; but perhaps Celebes 
is really the most valuable. I should prefer looking at the 
whole Asiatic continent as having formerly been more African 
in its fauna, than admitting the former existence of a con- 
tinent across the Indian Ocean. . . . 

[The following letter refers to Mr. Wallace's article in the 
April number of the 'Quarterly Review,'* 1869, which to a 
large extent deals with the tenth edition of Sir Charles Lyell's 
1 Principles,' published in 1867 and 1868. The review contains 
a striking passage on Sir Charles Lyell's confession of evolu- 
tionary faith in the tenth edition of his ' Principles,' which is 
worth quoting : " The history of science hardly presents so 
striking an instance of youthfulness of mind in advanced life 
as is shown by this abandonment of opinions so long held 
and so powerfully advocated ; and if we bear in mind the 
extreme caution, combined with the ardent love of truth 

* My father wrote to Mr. appear in the ' Quarterly,' and will 

Murray: "The article by Wallace make the Bishop of Oxford and 

is inimitably good, and it is a great gnash their teeth." 
triumph that such an article should 

1869.] MR. WALLACE ON LYELL. 115 

which characterize every work which our author has produced, 
we shall be convinced that so great a change was not decided 
on without long and anxious deliberation, and that the views 
now adopted must indeed be supported by arguments of over- 
whelming force. If for no other reason than that Sir Charles 
Lyell in his tenth edition has adopted it, the theory of Mr. 
Darwin deserves an attentive and respectful consideration 
from every earnest seeker after truth."] 

C. 'Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, April^i4, 1869. 

My dear Wallace, — I have been wonderfully interested 
by your article, and I should think Lyell will be much 
gratified by it. I declare if I had been editor, and had the 
power of directing you, I should have selected for discussion 
the very points which you have chosen. I have often said to 
younger geologists (for I began in the year 1830) that they 
did not know what a revolution Lyell had effected ; neverthe- 
less, your extracts from Cuvier have quite astonished me. 
Though not able really to judge, I am inclined to put more 
confidence in Croll than you seem to do ; but I have been 
much struck by many of your remarks on degradation. 
Thomson's views of the recent age of the world have been for 
some time one of my sorest troubles, and so I have been glad 
to read what you say. Your exposition of Natural Selection 
seems to me inimitably good ; there never lived a better 
expounder than you. I was also much pleased at your 
discussing the difference between our views and Lamarck's. 
One sometimes sees the odious expression, " Justice to myself 
compels me to say," &c, but you are the only man I ever 
heard of who persistently does himself an injustice, and never 
demands justice. Indeed, you ought in the review to have 
alluded to your paper in the 'Linnean Journal,' and I feel 
sure all our friends will agree in this. But you cannot 

I 2 




" Burke " yourself, however much you may try, as may be 
seen in half the articles which appear. I was asked but the 
other day by a German professor for your paper, which I 
sent him. Altogether I look at your article as appearing in 
the ' Quarterly ' as an immense triumph for our cause. I pre- 
sume that your remarks on Man are those to which you 
alluded in your note. If you had not told me I should have 
thought that they had been added by some one else. As you 
expected, I differ grievously from you, and I am very sorry 
for it. I can see no necessity for calling in an additional and 
proximate cause in regard to man.* But the subject is too 
long for a letter. I have been particularly glad to read your 
discussion because I am now writing and thinking much 
about man. 

I hope that your Malay book sells well ; I was extremely 
pleased with the article in the ' Quarterly Journal of Science,' 
inasmuch as it is thoroughly appreciative of your work : alas t 
you will probably agree with what the writer says about the 
uses of the bamboo. 

I hear that there is also a good article in the Saturday 
Review, but have heard nothing more about it. Believe me, 
my dear Wallace, 

Yours ever sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to C. Lyell. 

Down, May 4 [1869]. 

My dear Lyell, — I have been applied to for some photo- 

* Mr. Wallace points out that 
any one acquainted merely with the 
" unaided productions of nature," 
might reasonably doubt whether 
a dray-horse, for example, could 
have been developed by the 
power of man directing the 

multiplication, and survival, for his 
own purpose. We know, however, 
that this has been done, and we 
must therefore admit the possibility 
that in the development of the 
human race, a higher intelligence 
has guided the same laws for nobler 

" action of the laws of variation, ends." 

1869.] MAN — M. DE QUATREFAGES. 117 

graphs (carte de visite) to be copied to ornament the diplomas 
of honorary members of a new Society in Servia ! Will 
you give me one for this purpose? I possess only a full- 
length one of you in my own album, and the face is too small, 
I think, to be copied. 

I hope that you get on well with your work, and have 
satisfied yourself on the difficult point of glacier lakes. Thank 
heaven, I have finished correcting the new edition of the 
* Origin,' and am at my old work of Sexual Selection. 

Wallace's article struck me as admirable ; how well he 
brought out the revolution which you effected some 30 years 
ago. I thought I had fully appreciated the revolution, but I 
was astounded at the extracts from Cuvier. What a good 
sketch of natural selection ! but I was dreadfully disappointed 
about Man, it seems to me incredibly strange . . . ; and had 
I not known to the contrary, would have sworn it had been 
inserted by some other hand. But I believe that you will not 
agree quite in all this. 

My dear Lyell, ever yours sincerely, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to J. L. A. de Quatrefages. 

Down, May 28 [1869 or 1870]. 

Dear Sir, — I have received and read your volume,* and 
am much obliged for your present. The whole strikes me as 
a wonderfully clear and able discussion, and I was much 
interested by it to the last page. It is impossible that any 
account of my views could be fairer, or, as far as space per- 
mitted, fuller, than that which you have given. The way in 
which you repeatedly mention my name is most gratifying to 
me. When I had finished the second part, I thought that 
you had stated the case so favourably that you would make 

* Essays reprinted from the the title ' Histoire Naturelle Ge'ne'- 
4 Revue des Deux Mondes,' under rale,' &c, 1869. 

Il8 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1869? 

more converts on my side than on your own side, On read- 
ing the subsequent parts I had to change my sanguine view. 
In these latter parts many of your strictures are severe 
enough, but all are given with perfect courtesy and fairness. 
I can truly say I would rather be criticised by you in this 
manner than praised by many others. I agree with some of 
your criticisms, but differ entirely from the remainder ; but I 
will not trouble you with any remarks. I may, however, say, 
that you must have been deceived by the French translation, as 
you infer that I believe that the Parus and the Nuthatch (or Sitta) 
are related by direct filiation. I wished only to show, by an 
imaginary illustration, how either instincts or structures might 
first change. If you had seen Cants Magellanicus alive you 
would have perceived how foxlike its appearance is, or if you 
had heard its voice, I think that you would never have 
hazarded the idea that it was a domestic dog run wild ; but 
this does not much concern me. It is curious how nationality 
influences opinion ; a week hardly passes without my hearing 
of some naturalist in Germany who supports my views, and 
often puts an exaggerated value on my works ; whilst in 
France I have not heard of a single zoologist, except M. 
Gaudry (and he only partially), who supports my views. But 
I must have a good many readers as my books are translated, 
and I must hope, notwithstanding your strictures, that I may 
influence some embryo naturalists in France. 

You frequently speak of my good faith, and no compliment 
can be more delightful to me, but I may return you the 
compliment with interest, for every word which you write 
bears the stamp of your cordial love for the truth. Believe 
me, dear Sir, with sincere respect, 

Yours very faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

1869.] MR - HUXLEY ON HAECKEL. 119 

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley. 

Down, October 14, 1869. 

My dear Huxley, — I have been delighted to see your 
review of Hackel,* and as usual you pile honours high on my 
head. But I write now (requiring no answer) to groan a little 
over what you have said about rudimentary organs.f Many 
heretics will take advantage of what you have said. I cannot 
but think that the explanation given at p. 541 of the last 
edition of the ' Origin,' of the long retention of rudimentary 
organs and of their greater relative size during early life, is 
satisfactory. Their final and complete abortion seems to me 
a much greater difficulty. Do look in my ' Variations under 
Domestication,' vol. ii. p. 397, at what Pangenesis suggests on 
this head, though I did not dare to put it in the ' Origin/ 
The passage bears also a little on the struggle between the 
molecules or gemmules.J There is likewise a word or two 
indirectly bearing on this subject at pp. 394-395. It won't 
take you five minutes, so do look at these passages. I am 
very glad that you have been bold enough to give your idea 
about Natural Selection amongst the molecules, though I 
cannot quite follow you. 

* A review of Haeckel's ' Schop- ology." — 'Critiques and Addresses,' 

fungs-Geschichte.' The Academy ', p. 308. 

1869. Reprinted in ' Critiques and t "It is a probable hypothesis, 

Addresses,' p. 303. that what the world is to organisms 

f In discussing Teleology and in general, each organism is to the 

Haeckel's " Dysteleology," Prof. molecules of which it is composed. 

Huxley says : — " Such cases as Multitudes of these having diverse 

the existence of lateral rudiments tendencies, are competing with one 

of toes, in the foot of a horse, place another for opportunity to exist 

us in a dilemma. For either these and multiply ; and the organism, 

rudiments are of no use to the as a whole, is as much the product 

animals, in which case . . . they of the molecules which are victori- 

surely ought to have disappeared ; ous as the Fauna, or Flora, of a 

or they are of some use to the country is the product of the vict- 

animal, in which case they are of orious organic beings in it." — 

no use as arguments against Tele- ' Critiques and Addresses,' p. 309. 

120 . WORK ON 'MAN.' [1870. 


[My father wrote in his Diary : — " The whole of this year 
[1870] at work on the 'Descent of Man.' . . . Went to Press 
August 30, 1870." 

The letters are again of miscellaneous interest, dealing, not 
only with his work, but also serving to indicate the course of 
his reading.] 

C. Darwin to E. Ray Lankester. 

Down, March 15 [1870]. 

My DEAR Sir, — I do not know whether you will consider 
me a very troublesome man, but I have just finished your 
book,* and cannot resist telling you how the whole has much 
interested me. No doubt, as you say, there must be much 
speculation on such a subject, and certain results cannot be 
reached ; but all your views are highly suggestive, and to my 
mind that is high praise. I have been all the more interested, 
as I am now writing on closely allied though not quite identi- 
cal points. I was pleased to see you refer to my much 
despised child, ' Pangenesis,' who I think will some day, under 
some better nurse, turn out a fine stripling. It has also 
pleased me to see how thoroughly you appreciate (and I do 
not think that this is general with the men of science) 
H. Spencer ; I suspect that hereafter he will be looked at as 
by far the greatest living philosopher in England ; perhaps 
equal to any that have lived. But I have no business to 
trouble you with my notions. With sincere thanks for the 
interest which your work has given me, 

I remain, yours very faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[The next letter refers to Mr. Wallace's 'Natural Selec- 

* ' Comparative Longevity.' 


tion ' (1870), a collection of essays reprinted with certain 
alterations of which a list is given in the volume :] 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, April 20 [1870]. 

My DEAR WALLACE, — I have just received your book, 
and read the preface. There never has been passed on me, or 
indeed on any one, a higher eulogium than yours. I wish 
that I fully deserved it. Your modesty and candour are very 
far from new to me. I hope it is a satisfaction to you to 
reflect — and very few things in my life have been more satis- 
factory to me — that we have never felt any jealousy towards 
each other, though in one sense rivals. I believe that I can 
say this of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that 
it is true of you. 

You have been a good Christian to give a list of your 
additions, for I want much to read them, and I should hardly 
have had time just at present to have gone through all your 
articles. Of course I shall immediately read those that are 
new or greatly altered, and I will endeavour to be as honest 
as can reasonably be expected. Your book looks remarkably 
well got up. 

Believe me, my dear Wallace, to remain, 

Yours very cordially, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[Here follow one or two letters indicating the progress of 
the ' Descent of Man ; ' the woodcuts referred to were being 
prepared for that work :] 

C. Darwin to A. Giinther* 

March 23, [1870?] 
Dear Gunther, — As I do not know Mr. Ford's address, 
will you hand him this note, which is written solely to express 

* Dr. Gunther, Keeper of Zoology in the British Museum. 

122 WORK ON 'MAN.' [187O. 

my unbounded admiration of the woodcuts. I fairly gloat 
over them. The only evil is that they will make all the other 
woodcuts look very poor! They are all excellent, and for 
the feathers I declare I think it the most wonderful woodcut 
I ever saw ; I cannot help touching it to make sure that it is 
smooth. How I wish to see the two other, and even more 
important, ones of the feathers, and the four [of] reptiles, &c. 
Once again accept my very sincere thanks for all your kind- 
ness. I am greatly indebted to Mr. Ford. Engravings have 
always hitherto been my greatest misery, and now they are a 
real pleasure to me. 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. — I thought I should have been in press by this time, 
but my subject has branched off into sub-branches, which 
have cost me infinite time, and heaven knows when I shall 
have all my MS. ready ; but I am never idle. 

C. Darwin to A . Giinther. 

May 15 [1870]. 

My dear Dr. GtJNTHER, — Sincere thanks. Your answers 
are wonderfully clear and complete. I have some analogous 
questions on reptiles, &c, which I will send in a few days, and 
then I think I shall cause no more trouble. I will get the 
books you refer me to. The case of the Solenostoma * is 
magnificent, so exactly analogous to that of those birds in 
which the female is the more gay, but ten times better for me, 
as she is the incubator. As I crawl on with the successive 

* In most of the Lophobranchii But in Solenostoma the female is 

the male has a marsupial sack in the hatcher, and is also the more 

which the eggs are hatched, and in brightly coloured. — ' Descent of 

these species the male is slightly Man,' ii. 21. 
brighter coloured than the female. 

1870.] DR. GUNTHER'S HELP. 1 23 

classes I am astonished to find how similar the rules are about 
the nuptial or " wedding dress " of all animals. The subject 
has begun to interest me in an extraordinary degree ; but I 
must try not to fall into my common error of being too 
speculative. But a drunkard might as well say he would 
drink a little and not too much ! My essay, as far as fishes, 
batrachians and reptiles are concerned, will be in fact yours, 
only written by me. With hearty thanks, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[The following letter is of interest, as showing the excessive 
care and pains which my father took in forming his opinion 
on a difficult point :] 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, September 23 [undated]. 

My dear Wallace, — I am very much obliged for all your 
trouble in writing me your long letter, which I will keep by 
me and ponder over. To answer it would require at least 
200 folio pages ! If you could see how often I have re-written 
some pages you would know how anxious I am to arrive as 
near as I can to the truth. I lay great stress on what I know 
takes place under domestication ; I think we start with 
different fundamental notions on inheritance. I find it is 
most difficult, but not I think impossible, to see how, for 
instance, a few red feathers appearing on the head of a 
male bird, and which are at first transmitted to both sexes y 
could come to be transmitted to males alone. It is not 
enough that females should be produced from the males 
with red feathers, which should be destitute of red feathers ; 
but these females must have a latent tendency to produce 
such feathers, otherwise they would cause deterioration 
in the red head-feathers of their male offspring. Such 

124 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1870. 

latent tendency would be shown by their producing the 
red feathers when old, or diseased in their ovaria. But 
I have no difficulty in making the whole head red if the 
few red feathers in the male from the first tended to be 
sexually transmitted. I am quite willing to admit that the 
female may have been modified, either at the same time 
or subsequently, for protection by the accumulation of varia- 
tions limited in their transmission to the female sex. I owe to 
your writings the consideration of this latter point. But I 
cannot yet persuade myself that females alone have often 
been modified for protection. Should you grudge the trouble 
briefly to tell me, whether you believe that the plainer head 
and less bright colours of 9 chaffinch,* the less red on the head 
and less clean colours of $ goldfinch, the much less red on 
the breast of °. bullfinch, the paler crest of golden-crested 
wren, &c, have been acquired by them for protection. I 
cannot think so, any more than I can that the considerable 
differences between 9 and $ house sparrow, or much greater 
brightness of $ Parus coeruleus (both of which build under 
cover) than of 9 Parus, are related to protection. I even 
misdoubt much whether the less blackness of 9 blackbird is 
for protection. 

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

I grieve to differ from you, and it actually terrifies me and 

* The symbols $ , ? , stand for male and female. 

1870.] SEDGWICK. 125 

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

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

Believe me, my dear Wallace, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, May 25 [1870]. 
.... Last Friday we all went to the Bull Hotel at 
Cambridge to see the boys, and for a little rest and enjoyment. 
The backs of the Colleges are simply paradisaical. On 
Monday I saw Sedgwick, who was most cordial and kind ; in 
the morning I thought his brain was enfeebled ; in the evening 
he was brilliant and quite himself. His affection and kind- 
ness charmed us all. My visit to him was in one way un- 
fortunate ; for after a long sit he proposed to take me to the 
museum, and I could not refuse, and in consequence he utterly 
prostrated me ; so that we left Cambridge next morning, and 
I have not recovered the exhaustion yet. Is it not humiliating 
to be thus killed by a man of eighty-six, who evidently never 
dreamed that he was killing me ? As he said to me, " Oh, I 
consider you as a mere baby to me ! ' : I saw Newton several 
times, and several nice friends of F.'s. But Cambridge with- 
out dear Henslow was not itself ; I tried to get to the two 
old houses, but it was too far for me. . . . 

126 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1870. 

C. Darwin to B. J. Sulivan* 

Down, June 30 [1870]. 

My dear Sulivan, — It was very good of you to write to 
me so long a letter, telling me much about yourself and your 
children, which I was extremely glad to hear. Think what a 
benighted wretch I am, seeing no one and reading but little 
in the newspapers, for I did not know (until seeing the paper 
of your Natural History Society) that you were a K.C.B. 
Most heartily glad I am that the Government have at last 
appreciated your most just claim for this high distinction. On 
the other hand, I am sorry to hear so poor an account of your 
health ; but you were surely very rash to do all that you did 
and then pass through so exciting a scene as a ball at the 
Palace. It was enough to have tired a man in robust health. 
Complete rest will, however, I hope, quite set you up again. 
As for myself, I have been rather better of late, and if nothing 
disturbs me I can do some hours' work every day. I shall 
this autumn publish another book partly on man, which I 
dare say many will decry as very wicked. I could have 
travelled to Oxford, but could no more have withstood the 
excitement of a commemoration f than I could a ball at 
Buckingham Palace. Many thanks for your kind remarks 
about my boys. Thank God, all give me complete satisfac- 
tion ; my fourth stands second at Woolwich, and will be an 
Engineer Officer at Christmas. My wife desires to be very 
kindly remembered to Lady Sulivan, in which I very sincerely 
join, and in congratulation about your daughter's marriage. 
We are at present solitary, for all our younger children are 

* Admiral Sir James Sulivan was bury on assuming the office of 

a lieutenant on board the Beagle. Chancellor of the University of 

t This refers to an invitation to Oxford. The fact that the honour 

receive the honorary degree of was declined on the score of ill— 

D.C.L. He was one of those nomi- health was published in the Oxford 

nated for the degree by Lord Salis- University Gazette, June 17, 1870. 



gone a tour in Switzerland. I had never heard a word about 
the success of the T. del Fuego mission. It is most wonderful, 
and shames me, as I always prophesied utter failure. It is a 
grand success. I shall feel proud if your Committee think fit 
to elect me an honorary member of your society. With 
all good wishes and affectionate remembrances of ancient 

Believe me, my dear Sulivan, 

Your sincere friend, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[My father's connection with the South American Mission, 
which is referred to in the above letter, has given rise to some 
public comment, and has been to some extent misunder- 
stood. The Archbishop of Canterbury, speaking at the 
annual meeting of the South American Missionary Society, 
April 2 1st, 1885,* said that the Society " drew the attention 
of Charles Darwin, and made him, in his pursuit of the 
wonders of the kingdom of nature, realise that there was 
another kingdom just as wonderful and more lasting." 
Some discussion on the subject appeared in the Daily News 
of April 23rd, 24th, 29th, 1885, and finally Admiral Sir 
James Sulivan, on April 24th, wrote to the same journal, 
giving a clear account of my father's connection with the 
Society : — 

" Your article in the Daily News of yesterday induces me 
to give you a correct statement of the connection between the 
South American Missionary Society and Mr. Charles Darwin, 
my old friend and shipmate for five years. I have been 
closely connected with the Society from the time of Captain 
Allen Gardiner's death, and Mr. Darwin had often expressed 
to me his conviction that it was utterly useless to send 
Missionaries to such a set of savages as the Fuegians, prob- 

* I quote a ' Leaflet,' published by the Society. 

128 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1S70. 

ably the very lowest of the human race. I had always 
replied that I did not believe any human beings existed too 
low to comprehend the simple message of the Gospel of Christ. 
After many years, I think about 1869,* but I cannot find the 
letter, he wrote to me that the recent accounts of the Mission 
proved to him that he had been wrong and I right in our 
estimates of the native character, and the possibility of doing 
them good through Missionaries ; and he requested me to 
forward to the Society an enclosed cheque for ^5, as a 
testimony of the interest he took in their good work. On 
June 6th, 1874, he wrote : ' I am very glad to hear so good 
an account of the Fuegians, and it is wonderful.' On June 
10th, 1879 : 'The progress of the Fuegians is wonderful, and 
had it not occurred would have been to me quite incredible.' 
On January 3rd, 1 880 : ' Your extracts [from a journal] ' about 
the Fuegians are extremely curious, and have interested me 
much. I have often said that the progress of Japan was the 
greatest wonder in the world, but I declare that the progress 
of Fuegia is almost equally wonderful.' On March 20th, 
1 88 1 : 'The account of the Fuegians interested not only me, 
but all my family. It is truly wonderful what you have heard 
from Mr. Bridges about their honesty and their language. I 
certainly should have predicted that not all the Missionaries 
in the world could have done what has been done.' On 
December 1st, 1881, sending me his annual subscription to 
the Orphanage at the Mission Station, he wrote: 'Judging 
from the Missionary Journal, the Mission in Tierra del 
Fuego seems going on quite wonderfully well.' "] 

* It seems to have been in 1867. 

1870.] COUSIN MARRIAGES. 1 29 

C. Darwin to John Lubbock. 

Down, July 17, 1870. 

My dear Lubbock, — As I hear that the Census will be 
brought before the House to-morrow, I write to say how 
much I hope that you will express your opinion on the 
desirability of queries in relation to consanguineous marriages 
being inserted. As you are aware, I have made experiments 
on the subject during several years ; and it is my clear con- 
viction that there is now ample evidence of tJie existence of a 
great physiological law, rendering an enquiry with reference to 
mankind of much importance. In England and many parts of 
Eicrope the marriages of cousins are objected to from their 
supposed injurious consequences ; but this belief rests on no 
direct evidence. It is therefore manifestly desirable that the 
belief should either be proved false, or sho?ild be confirmed, so 
that in this latter case the marriages of cousins might be 
discouraged. If the proper queries are inserted, the returns 
would show whether married cousins have in their households 
on the night of the census as many children as have parents 
who are not related ; and should the number prove fewer, we 
might safely infer either lessened fertility in the parents, or 
which is more probable, lessened vitality in the offspring. 

It is, moreover, much to be wished that the truth of the 
often repeated assertion that consanguineous marriages lead 
to deafness, and dumbness, blindness, &c, should be ascer- 
tained ; and all such assertions could be easily tested by the 
returns from a single census. 

Believe me, 

Yours very sincerely, 
Charles Darwin. 

[When the Census Act was passing through the House of 
Commons, Sir John Lubbock and Dr. Playfair attempted to 
carry out this suggestion. The question came to a division, 
which was lost, but not by many votes. 


130 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1870. 

The subject of cousin marriages was afterwards investigated 
by my brother.* The results of this laborious piece of work 
were negative ; the author sums up in the sentence : — 

" My paper is far from giving anything like a satisfactory 
solution of the question as to the effects of consanguine- 
ous marriages, but it does, I think, show that the assertion 
that this question has already been set at rest, cannot be 

* " Marriages between First nal of the Statistical Society/ June 
Cousins in England, and their 1875. 
Effects." By George Darwin. 'Jour- 






[The last revise of the ' Descent of Man ' was corrected on 
January 15th, 1871, so that the book occupied him for about 
three years. He wrote to Sir J. Hooker : " I finished the 
last proofs of my book a few days ago ; the work half-killed 
me, and I have not the most remote idea whether the book 
is worth publishing." 

He also wrote to Dr. Gray : — 

" I have finished my book on the ' Descent of Man/ &c., 
and its publication is delayed only by the Index : when pub- 
lished, I will send you a copy, but I do not know that you 
will care about it. Parts, as on the moral sense, will, I dare 
say, aggravate you, and if I hear from you, I shall probably 
receive a few stabs from your polished stiletto of a pen." 

The book was published on February 24, 1871. 2500 
copies were printed at first, and 5000 more before the end of 
the year. My father notes that he received for this edition 
.£1470. The letters given in the present chapter deal with 
its reception, and also with the progress of the work on 
Expression. The letters are given, approximately, in chrono- 
logical order, an arrangement which necessarily separates 

K 2 


letters of kindred subject-matter, but gives perhaps a truer 
picture of the mingled interests and labours of my father's life. 
Nothing can give a better idea (in a small compass) of the 
growth of Evolutionism, and its position at this time, than a 
quotation from Mr. Huxley*: — 

" The gradual lapse of time has now separated us by more 
than a decade from the date of the publication of the ' Origin 
of Species ; ' and whatever may be thought or said about 
Mr. Darwin's doctrines, or the manner in which he has pro- 
pounded them, this much is certain, that in a dozen years the 
' Origin of Species ' has worked as complete a revolution in 
Biological Science as the ' Principia ' did in Astronomy ; " and 
it has done so, " because, in the words of Helmholtz, it 
contains ' an essentially new creative thought.' And, as time 
has slipped by, a happy change has come over Mr. Darwin's 
critics. The mixture of ignorance and insolence which at 
first characterised a large proportion of the attacks with which 
he was assailed, is no longer the sad distinction of anti- 
Darwinian criticism." 

A passage in the Introduction to the ' Descent of Man ' 
shows that the author recognised clearly this improvement in 
the position of Evolutionism. "When a naturalist like Carl 
Vogt ventures to say in his address, as President of the 
National Institution of Geneva (1869), ' personne, en Europe 
au moins, n'ose plus soutenir la creation independante et 
de toutes pieces, des especes,' it is manifest that at least 
a large number of naturalists must admit that species are 
the modified descendants of other species ; and this especi- 
ally holds good with the younger and rising naturalists. 
... Of the older and honoured chiefs in natural science, 
many, unfortunately, are still opposed to Evolution in every 

In Mr. James Hague's pleasantly written article, "A Remin- 
iscence of Mr. Darwin" ('Harper's Magazine,' October 1884), 

* J Contemporary Review,' 1871. 


he describes a visit to my father "early in 1871," * shortly 
after the publication of the ' Descent of Man.' Mr. Hague 
represents my father as " much impressed by the general 
assent with which his views had been received," and as 
remarking that " everybody is talking about it without being 

Later in the year the reception of the book is described in 
different language in the ' Edinburgh Review ' : f " On every 
side it is raising a storm of mingled wrath, wonder and 

With regard to the subsequent reception of the ' Descent of 
Man,' my father wrote to Dr. Dohrn, February 3, 1872 : — 

" I did not know until reading your article,! that my 
1 Descent of Man ' had excited so much furore in Germany. 
It has had an immense circulation in this country and in 
America, but has met the approval of hardly any naturalists 
as far as I know. Therefore I suppose it was a mistake on 
my part to publish it ; but, anyhow, it will pave the way for 
some better work." 

The book on the ' Expression of the Emotions ' was begun 
on January 17th, 1871, the last proof of the ' Descent of Man ' 
having been finished on January 15th. The rough copy was 
finished by April 27th, and shortly after this (in June) the 
work was interrupted by the preparation of a sixth edition of 
the ' Origin.' In November and December the proofs of the 
' Expression ' book were taken in hand, and occupied him 
until the following year, when the book was published. 

Some references to the work on Expression have occurred 
in letters already given, showing that the foundation of the 
book was, to some extent, laid down for some years before he 

* It must have been at the end the history of philosophy have 

of February, within a week after the such wide generalisations been 

publication of the book. derived from such a small basis of 

\ July 1 87 1. An adverse criti- fact." 

cism. The reviewer sums up by % In ' Das Ausland.' 
saying that : " Never perhaps in 




began to write it. Thus he wrote to Dr. Asa Gray, April 15, 

" I have been lately getting up and looking over my old 
notes on Expression, and fear that I shall not make so much 
of my hobby-horse as I thought I could ; nevertheless, it 
seems to me a curious subject which has been strangely 

It should, however, be remembered that the subject had 
been before his mind, more or less, from 1837 or : ^3^j as 
I judge from entries in his early note-books. It was in 
December 1839, that he began to make observations on 

The work required much correspondence, not only with 
missionaries and others living among savages, to whom he 
sent his printed queries, but among physiologists and phy- 
sicians. He obtained much information from Professor 
Donders, Sir W. Bowman, Sir James Paget, Dr. W. Ogle, 
Dr. Crichton Browne, as well as from other observers. 

The first letter refers to the ' Descent of Man.'] 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, January 30 [187 1]. 
My DEAR Wallace, — Your note * has given me very great 
pleasure, chiefly because I was so anxious not to treat you 

* In the note referred to, dated 
January 27, Mr. Wallace wrote : — 
" Many thanks for your first volume 
which I have just finished reading 
through with the greatest pleasure 
and interest ; and I have also to 
thank you for the great tenderness 
with which you have treated me 
and my heresies." 

The heresy is the limitation of 
natural selection as applied to man. 
My father wrote (' Descent of 
Man,' i. p. 137):—" I cannot there- 
fore understand how it is that Mr. 

Wallace maintains that ' natural 
selection could only have endowed 
the savage with a brain a little 
superior to that of an ape.' " In 
the above quoted letter Mr. Wallace 
wrote : — " Your chapters on ' Man ' 
are of intense interest, but as touch- 
ing my special heresy not as yet 
altogether convincing, though of 
course I fully agree with every word 
and every argument which goes to 
prove the evolution or development 
of man out of a lower form." 

1871.] 'DESCENT OF MAN.' 135 

with the least disrespect, and it is so difficult to speak fairly 
when differing from any one. If I had offended you, it 
would have grieved me more than you will readily believe. 
Secondly, I am greatly pleased to hear that Vol. I. interests 
you ; I have got so sick of the whole subject that I felt in 
utter doubt about the value of any part. I intended, when 
speaking of females not having been specially modified for 
protection, to include the prevention of characters acquired 
by the <£ being transmitted to $ ', but I now see it would have 
been better to have said " specially acted on," or some such term. 
Possibly my intention may be clearer in Vol. II. Let me say 
that my conclusions are chiefly founded on the consideration 
of all animals taken in a body, bearing in mind how common 
the rules of sexual differences appear to be in all classes. 
The first copy of the chapter on Lepidoptera agreed pretty 
closely with you. I then worked on, came back to Lepi- 
doptera, and thought myself compelled to alter it — finished 
Sexual Selection and for the last time went over Lepidoptera, 
and again I felt forced to alter it. I hope to God there will 
be nothing disagreeable to you in Vol. II., and that I have 
spoken fairly of your views ; I am fearful on this head, because 
I have just read (but not with sufficient care) Mivart's book,* 
and I feel absolutely certain that he meant to be fair (but he 
was stimulated by theological fervour) ; yet I do not think he 
has been quite fair. . . . The part which, I think, will have 
most influence is where he gives the whole series of cases like 
that of the whalebone, in which we cannot explain the grada- 
tional steps ; but such cases have no weight on my mind — if a 
few fish were extinct, who on earth would have ventured even 
to conjecture that lungs had originated in a swim-bladder? 
In such a case as the Thylacine, I think he was bound to say 
that the resemblance of the jaw to that of the dog is super- 
ficial ; the number and correspondence and development of 
teeth being widely different. I think again when speaking 

* 'The Genesis of Species,' by St. G. Mivart, 1871. 


of the necessity of altering a number of characters together, 
he ought to have thought of man having power by selection 
to modify simultaneously or almost simultaneously many 
points, as in making a greyhound or racehorse — as enlarged 
upon in my ' Domestic Animals.' Mivart is savage or con- 
temptuous about my " moral sense," and so probably will you 
be. I am extremely pleased that he agrees with my position, 
as far as animal nature is concerned, of man in the series ; or 
if anything, thinks I have erred in making him too distinct. 

Forgive me for scribbling at such length. You have put me 
quite in good spirits ; I did so dread having been uninten- 
tionally unfair towards your views. I hope earnestly the 
second volume will escape as well. I care now very little what 
others say. As for our not quite agreeing, really in such 
complex subjects, it is almost impossible for two men who 
arrive independently at their conclusions to agree fully, it 
would be unnatural for them to do so. 

Yours ever, very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[Professor Haeckel seems to have been one of the first to 
write to my father about the ' Descent of Man.' I quote from 
his reply : — 

" I must send you a few words to thank you for your inter- 
esting, and I may truly say, charming letter. I am delighted 
that you approve of my book, as far as you have read it. I 
felt very great difficulty and doubt how often I ought to 
allude to what you have published ; strictly speaking every 
idea, although occurring independently to me, if published by 
you previously ought to have appeared as if taken from 
your works, but this would have made my book very dull 
reading ; and I hoped that a full acknowledgment at the 
beginning would suffice.* I cannot tell you how glad I am to 

* In the introduction to the ' De- " This last naturalist [Haeckel] . . . 
scent of Man ' the author wrote : — has recently . . . published his 'Na- 




find that I have expressed my high admiration of your labours 
with sufficient clearness ; I am sure that I have not expressed 
it too strongly."] 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, March 16, 187 1. 

My DEAR WALLACE, — I have just read your grand review.* 
It is in every way as kindly expressed towards myself as it is 
excellent in matter. The Lyells have been here, and Sir C. 
remarked that no one wrote such good scientific reviews as 
you, and as Miss Buckley added, you delight in picking out 
all that is good, though very far from blind to the bad. In 
all this I most entirely agree. I shall always consider your 
review as a great honour ; and however much my book may 
hereafter be abused, as no doubt it will be, your review will 
console me, notwithstanding that we differ so greatly. I will 
keep your objections to my views in my mind, but I fear that 
the latter are almost stereotyped in my mind. I thought for 
long weeks about the inheritance and selection difficulty, and 
covered quires of paper with notes in trying to get out of it, 
but could not, though clearly seeing that it would be a great 
relief if I could. I will confine myself to two or three 
remarks. I have been much impressed with what you urge 
against colour,! in the case of insects, having been acquired 

tiirliche Schopfungs - geschichte,' 
in which he fully discusses the 
genealogy of man. If this work 
had appeared before my essay 
had been written, I should pro- 
bably never have completed it. 
Almost all the conclusions at 
which I have arrived, I find con- 
firmed by this naturalist, whose 
knowledge on many points is much 
fuller than mine." 

* Academy, March 15, 1871. 

f Mr. Wallace says that the pair- 
ing of butterflies is probably deter- 
mined by the fact that one male is 
stronger-winged, or more pertina- 
cious than the rest, rather than by 
the choice of the females. He 
quotes the case of caterpillars which 
are brightly coloured and yet sex- 
less. Mr. Wallace also makes the 
good criticism, that the 'Descent of 
Man' consists of two books mixed 


through sexual selection. I always saw that the evidence 
was very w r eak ; but I still think, if it be admitted that the 
musical instruments of insects have been gained through 
sexual selection, that there is not the least improbability in 
colour having been thus gained. Your argument with respect 
to the denudation of mankind and also to insects, that taste 
on the part of one sex would have to remain nearly the same 
during many generations, in order that sexual selection should 
produce any effect, I agree to ; and I think this argument 
would be sound if used by one who denied that, for instance, 
the plumes of birds of Paradise had been so gained. I believe 
you admit this, and if so I do not see how your argument 
applies in other cases. I have recognised for some short time 
that I have made a great omission in not having discussed, as 
far as I could, the acquisition of taste, its inherited nature, 
and its permanence within pretty close limits for long periods. 

[With regard to the success of the ' Descent of Man/ I 
quote from a letter to Professor Ray Lankester (March 22, 


" I think you will be glad to hear, as a proof of the in- 
creasing liberality of England, that my book has sold wonder- 
fully .... and as yet no abuse (though some, no doubt, will 
come, strong enough), and only contempt even in the poor 
old Athenaeum? 

As to reviews that struck him he wrote to Mr. Wallace 
(March 24, 1871) : — 

" There is a very striking second article on my book in the 
Pall Mall, The articles in the Spectator * have also interested 
me much." 

* Spectator, March 11 and 18, tains a good discussion of the 

1 87 1 . With regard to the evolution bearing of the book on the question 

of conscience the reviewer thinks of design, and concludes by finding 

that my father comes much nearer in it a vindication of Theism more 

to the " kernel of the psychological wonderful than that in Paley's 

problem " than many of his prede- ' Natural Theology.' 
cessors. The second article con- 




On March 20 he wrote to Mr. Murray : — 

" Many thanks for the Nonconformist [March 8, 1871]. I 
like to see all that is written, and it is of some real use. If 
you hear of reviewers in out-of-the-way papers, especially the 
religious, as Record, Guardian, Tablet, kindly inform me. It 
is wonderful that there has been no abuse * as yet, but I 
suppose I shall not escape. On the whole, the reviews have 
been highly favourable." 

The following extract from a letter to Mr. Murray (April 
13, 1 871) refers to a review in the Times.] 

" I have no idea who wrote the Times review. He has 
no knowledge of science, and seems to me a wind-bag full 
of metaphysics and classics, so that I do not much regard 
his adverse judgment, though I suppose it will injure the 

A review of the ' Descent of Man,' which my father spoke 
of as " capital," appeared in the Saturday Review (Mar. 4 
and 11, 1871). A passage from the first notice (Mar. 4) may 
be quoted in illustration of the broad basis, as regards general 
acceptance, on which the doctrine of Evolution now stood : 
" He claims to have brought man himself, his origin and 
constitution, within that unity which he had previously 
sought to trace through all lower animal forms. The growth 
of opinion in the interval, due in chief measure to his own 
intermediate works, has placed the discussion of this problem 

* " I feel a full conviction that 
my chapter on man will excite 
attention and plenty of abuse, and 
I suppose abuse is as good as 
praise for selling a book." — (From 
a letter to Mr. Murray, Jan. 31, 

f Times, April 7 and 8, 1871. 
The review is not only unfavourable 
as regards the book under dis- 
cussion, but also as regards Evolu- 
tion in general, as the following 

citation will show : " Even had it 
been rendered highly probable, 
which we doubt, that the animal 
creation has been developed into 
its numerous and widely different 
varieties by mere evolution, it would 
still require an independent investi- 
gation of overwhelming force and 
completeness to justify the pre- 
sumption that man is but a term in 
this self-evolving series." 


in a position very much in advance of that held by it fifteen 
years ago. The problem of Evolution is hardly any longer to 
be treated as one of first principles ; nor has Mr. Darwin to 
do battle for a first hearing of his central hypothesis, upborne 
as it is by a phalanx of names full of distinction and promise, 
in either hemisphere." 

The infolded point of the human ear, discovered by 
Mr. Woolner, and described in the ' Descent of Man,' seems 
especially to have struck the popular imagination ; my father 
wrote to Mr. Woolner : — 

"The tips to the ears have become quite celebrated. One 
reviewer (' Nature ') says they ought to be called, as I sug- 
gested in joke, Angulus Woolnerianus* A German is very 
proud to find that he has the tips well developed, and I 
believe will send me a photograph of his ears."] 

C. Darwin to Jolin Brodie Innes.X 

Down, May 29 [1871]. 

My DEAR Innes, — I have been very glad to receive your 
pleasant letter, for, to tell you the truth, I have sometimes 
wondered whether you would not think me an outcast and 
a reprobate after the publication of my last book [' Descent '].J 
I do not wonder at all at your not agreeing with me, for a 
good many professed naturalists do not. Yet when I see in 
how extraordinary a manner the judgment of naturalists has 
changed since I published the ' Origin,' I feel convinced that 
there will be in ten years quite as much unanimity about man, 
as far as his corporeal frame is concerned. . . . 

* 'Nature,' April 6, 1871. The differed, but you are one of those rare 

term suggested is Angulus Wool- mortals from whom one can differ 

nerii. and yet feel no shade of animosity, 

f Rev. J. Brodie Innes, of Milton and that is a thing which I should 

Brodie, formerly Vicar of Down. feel very proud of, if any one could 

\ In a letter of my father's to say it of me." 
Mr. Innes, he says :— " We often 

iSyi.] EXPRESSION. 141 

[The following letters, addressed to Dr. Ogle, deal with 
the progress of the work on Expression.] 

Down, March 12 [187 1]. 

My DEAR Dr. Ogle, — I have received both your letters, 
and they tell me all that I wanted to know in the clearest 
possible way, as, indeed, all your letters have ever done. 
I thank you cordially. I will give the case of the murderer * 
in my hobby-horse essay on Expression. I fear that the 
Eustachian tube question must have cost you a deal of 
labour ; it is quite a complete little essay. It is pretty 
clear that the mouth is not opened under surprise merely to 
improve the hearing. Yet why do deaf men generally keep 
their mouths open ? The other day a man here was mimick- 
ing a deaf friend, leaning his head forward and sideways to 
the speaker, with his mouth well open ; it was a lifelike 
representation of a deaf man. Shakespeare somewhere says : 
1 Hold your breath, listen " or " hark," I forget which. Sur- 
prise hurries the breath, and it seems to me one can breathe, 
at least hurriedly, much quieter through the open mouth 
than through the nose. I saw the other day you doubted 
this. As objection is your province at present, I think 
breathing through the nose ought to come within it likewise, 
so do pray consider this point, and let me hear your judg- 
ment. Consider the nose to be a flower to be fertilised, and 
then you will make out all about it.f I have had to allude 
to your paper on ' Sense of Smell;' | is the paging right, 
namely, I, 2, 3 ? If not, I protest by all the gods against the 
plan followed by some, of having presentation copies falsely 
paged ; and so does Rolleston, as he wrote to me the other 

day. In haste. 

Yours very sincerely, 

C. Darwin. 

* ' Expression of the Emotions,' f Dr. Ogle had corresponded 

p. 294. The arrest of a murderer with my father on the subject of 

in a hospital, as witnessed by Dr. the fertilisation of flowers. 

Ogle. t Medico-chirurg. Trans, liii. 


C. Darwin to W. Ogle. 

Down, March 25 [1871]. 

My DEAR Dr. Ogle, — You will think me a horrid bore, 
but I beg you, in relation to a new point for observation, to 
imagine as well as you can that you suddenly come across 
some dreadful object, and act with a sudden little start, a 
shudder of horror ; please do this once or twice, and observe 
yourself as well as you can, and afterwards read the rest of 
this note, which I have consequently pinned down. I find, to 
my surprise, whenever I act thus my platysma contracts. Does 
yours ? (N.B. — See what a man will do for science ; I began 
this note with a horrid fib, namely, that I want you to attend 
to a new point.*) I will try and get some persons thus to act 
who are so lucky as not to know that they even possess this 
muscle, so troublesome for any one making out about expres- 
sion. Is a shudder akin to the rigor or shivering before 
fever? If so, perhaps the platysma could be observed in 
such cases. Paget told me that he had attended much to 
shivering, and had written in MS. on the subject, and been 
much perplexed about it. He mentioned that passing a 
catheter often causes shivering. Perhaps I will write to him 
about the platysma. He is always most kind in aiding me in 
all ways, but he is so overworked that it hurts my conscience 
to trouble him, for I have a conscience, little as you have 
reason to think so. Help me if you can, and forgive me. 
Your murderer case has come in splendidly as the acme 
of prostration from fear. 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

* The point was doubtless de- being directed to the platysma, a 
scribed as a new one, to avoid the muscle which had been the subject 
possibility of Dr. Ogle's attention of discussion in other letters. 




C. Darwin to Dr. Ogle. 

Down, April 29 [187 1]. 

My dear Dr. Ogle, — I am truly obliged for all the 
great trouble which you have so kindly taken. I am sure 
you have no cause to say that you are sorry you can give me 
no definite information, for you have given me far more than 
I ever expected to get. The action of the platysma is not 
very important for me, but I believe that you will fully 
understand (for I have always fancied that our minds were 
very similar) the intolerable desire I had not to be utterly 
baffled. Now I know that it sometimes contracts from fear 
and from shuddering, but not apparently from a prolonged 
state of fear such as the insane suffer. . . . 

[Mr. Mivart's 'Genesis of Species,' — a contribution to the 
literature of Evolution, which excited much attention, — was 
published in 1871, before the appearance of the 'Descent of 
Man.' To this book the following letter (June 21, 1871) 
from the late Chauncey Wright * to my father, refers : — 

" I send . . . revised proofs of an article which will be 
published in the July number of the ' North American 
Review,' sending it in the hope that it will interest or even be 
of greater value to you. Mr. Mivart's book [' Genesis of 
Species ' ] of which this article is substantially a review, seems 
to me a very good background from which to present the 
considerations which I have endeavoured to set forth in the 
article, in defence and illustration of the theory of Natural 

* Chauncey Wright was born at 
Northampton, Massachusetts, Sept. 
20, 1830, and came of a family- 
settled in that town since 1654. 
He became in 1852 a computer in 
the Nautical Almanac office at Cam- 
bridge, Mass., and lived a quiet un- 
eventful life, supported by the small 
stipend of his office, and by what 
he earned from his occasional 

articles, as well by a little teaching. 
He thought and read much on 
metaphysical subjects, but on the 
whole with an outcome (as far as 
the world was concerned) not com- 
mensurate to the power of his mind. 
He seems to have been a man of 
strong individuality, and to have 
made a lasting impression on his 
friends. He died in Sept. 1875. 


Selection. My special purpose has been to contribute to the 
theory by placing it in its proper relations to philosophical 
inquiries in general." * 

With regard to the proofs received from Mr. Wright, my 
father wrote to Mr. Wallace :] 

Down, July 9 [1871]. 

My DEAR WALLACE,' — I send by this post a review by 
Chauncey Wright, as I much want your opinion of it as soon 
as you can send it. I consider you an incomparably better 
critic than I am. The article, though not very clearly 
written, and poor in parts from want of knowledge, seems 
to me admirable. Mivart's book is producing a great effect 
against Natural Selection, and more especially against me. 
Therefore if you think the article even somewhat good I will 
write and get permission to publish it as a shilling pamphlet, 
together with the MS. additions (enclosed), for which there 
was not room at the end of the review. . . . 

I am now at work at a new and cheap edition of the 
' Origin,' and shall answer several points in Mivart's book, 
and introduce a new chapter for this purpose ; but I treat the 
subject so much more concretely, and I dare say less philo- 
sophically, than Wright, that we shall not interfere with each 
other. You will think me a bigot when I say, after studying 
Mivart, I was never before in my life so convinced of the 
general {i.e. not in detail) truth of the views in the 'Origin.' 
I grieve to see the omission of the words by Mivart, detected 
by Wright. \ I complained to Mivart that in two cases he 
quotes only the commencement of sentences by me, and thus 

* i 

Letters of Chauncey Wright,' on which he [Mr. Mivart] cites 

by J. B. Thayer. Privately printed, Mr. Darwin's authority." It should 

1878, p. 230. be mentioned that the passage 

f 'North American Review' from which words are omitted is 

vol. 113, pp. 83, 84. Chauncey not given within inverted commas 

Wright points out that the words by Mr. Mivart. 
omitted are " essential to the point 

1871.] 'GENESIS OF SPECIES.' 145 

modifies my meaning ; but I never supposed he would have 
omitted words. There are other cases of what I consider 
unfair treatment. I conclude with sorrow that though he 
means to be honourable, he is so bigoted that he cannot 
act fairly. . . . 

C. Darwin to CJianncey Wright. 

Down, July 14, 1871. 

My DEAR Sir, — I have hardly ever in my life read an 
article which has given me so much satisfaction as the 
review which you have been so kind as to send me. I agree 
to almost everything which you say. Your memory must be 
wonderfully accurate, for you know my works as well as I do 
myself, and your power of grasping other men's thoughts is 
something quite surprising ; and this, as far as my experience 
goes, is a very rare quality. As I read on I perceived how 
you have acquired this power, viz. by thoroughly analyzing 
each word. 

. . . Now I am going to beg a favour. Will you pro- 
visionally give me permission to reprint your article as a 
shilling pamphlet ? I ask only provisionally, as I have not 
yet had time to reflect on the subject. It would cost me, 
I fancy, with advertisements, some ,£20 or ,£30; but the 
worst is that, as I hear, pamphlets never will sell. And this 
makes me doubtful. Should you think it too much trouble 
to send me a title for the chance ? The title ought, I think, 
to have Mr. Mivart's name on it. 

... If you grant permission and send a title, you will 
kindly understand that I will first make further enquiries 
whether there is any chance of a pamphlet being read. 
Pray believe me yours very sincerely obliged, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[The pamphlet was published in the autumn, and on 
October 23 my father wrote to Mr. Wright : — 


146 ' DESCENT OF MAN ' — EXPRESSION. [1871. 

" It pleases me much that you are satisfied with the appear- 
ance of your pamphlet. I am sure it will do our cause good 
service ; and this same opinion Huxley has expressed to me. 
('Letters of Chauncey Wright,' p. 235.)"] 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, July 12 [187 1]. 

.... I feel very doubtful how far I shall succeed in 
answering Mivart, it is so difficult to answer objections to 
doubtful points, and make the discussion readable. I shall 
make only a selection. The worst of it is, that I cannot 
possibly hunt through all my references for isolated points, it 
would take me three weeks of intolerably hard work. I wish 
I had your power of arguing clearly. At present I feel sick 
of everything, and if I could occupy my time and forget my 
daily discomforts, or rather miseries, I would never publish 
another word. But I shall cheer up, I dare say, soon, having 
only just got over a bad attack. Farewell ; God knows why 
I bother you about myself. I can say nothing more about 
missing-links than what I have said. I should rely much on 
pre-silurian times ; but then comes Sir W. Thomson like an 
odious spectre. Farewell. 
. . . There is a most cutting review of me in the 'Quarterly';* 
I have only read a few pages. The skill and style make me 
think of Mivart. I shall soon be viewed as the most despic- 
able of men. This ' Quarterly Review ' tempts me to republish 
Ch. Wright, even if not read by any one, just to show 
some one will say a word against Mivart, and that his (i.e. 
Mivart's) remarks ought not to be swallowed without some 
reflection. . . . God knows whether my strength and spirit 
will last out to write a chapter versus Mivart and others ; I 
do so hate controversy and feel I shall do it so badly. 

* July 187 1, 

l8yi.] 'QUARTERLY REVIEW.' 1 47 

[The above-mentioned ' Quarterly ' review was the subject of 
an article by Mr. Huxley in the November number of the 
* Contemporary Review.' Here, also, are discussed Mr. Wallace's 
■ Contribution to the Theory of Natural Selection,' and the 
second edition of Mr. Mivart's ' Genesis of Species.' What 
follows is taken from Mr. Huxley's article. The ' Quarterly ' 
reviewer, though being to some extent an evolutionist, believes 
that Man " differs more from an elephant or a gorilla, than do 
these from the dust of the earth on which they tread." The 
reviewer also declares that my father has " with needless op- 
position, set at naught the first principles of both philosophy 
and religion." Mr. Huxley passes from the 'Quarterly' re- 
viewer's further statement, that there is no necessary opposi- 
tion between evolution and religion, to the more definite 
position taken by Mr. Mivart, that the orthodox authorities 
of the Roman Catholic Church agree in distinctly asserting 
derivative creation, so that " their teachings harmonize with 
all that modern science can possibly require." Here Mr. 
Huxley felt the want of that " study of Christian philo- 
sophy " (at any rate, in its Jesuitic garb), which Mr. Mivart 
speaks of, and it was a want he at once set to work to fill up. 
He was then staying at St. Andrews, whence he wrote to 
my father : — ■ 

" By great good luck there is an excellent library here, with 
a good copy of Suarez,* in a dozen big folios. Among these I 
dived, to the great astonishment of the librarian, and looking 
into them ' as the careful robin eyes the delver's toil ' (vide 
1 Idylls '), I carried off the two venerable clasped volumes 
which were most promising." Even those who know Mr. 
Huxley's unrivalled power of tearing the heart out of a book 
must marvel at the skill with which he has made Suarez 
speak on his side. " So I have come out," he wrote, " in the 
new character of a defender of Catholic orthodoxy, and upset 
Mivart out of the mouth of his own prophet." 

* The learned Jesuit on whom Mr. Mivart mainly relies. 

L 2 


The remainder of Mr. Huxley's critique is largely occupied 
with a dissection of the ' Quarterly ' reviewer's psychology, and 
his ethical views. He deals, too, with Mr. Wallace's objections 
to the doctrine of Evolution by natural causes when applied 
to the mental faculties of Man. Finally, he devotes a couple 
of pages to justifying his description of the ' Quarterly ' 
reviewer's "treatment of Mr. Darwin as alike unjust and un- 

It will be seen that the two following letters were written 
before the publication of Mr. Huxley's article.] 

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley. 

Down, September 21 [1871]. 
My DEAR HUXLEY, — Your letter has pleased me in many 
ways, to a wonderful degree. . . . What a wonderful man 
you are to grapple with those old metaphysico-divinity books. 
It quite delights me that you are going to some extent to 
answer and attack Mivart. His book, as you say, has pro- 
duced a great effect ; yesterday I perceived the reverberations 
from it, even from Italy. It was this that made me ask 
Chauncey Wright to publish at my expense his article, which 
seems to me very clever, though ill-written. He has not 
knowledge enough to grapple with Mivart in detail. I think 
there can be no shadow of doubt that he is the author of the 
article in the ' Quarterly Review ' . . . I am preparing a new 
edition of the ' Origin,' and shall introduce a new chapter in 
answer to miscellaneous objections, and shall give up the 
greater part to answer Mivart's cases of difficulty of incipient 
structures being of no use : and I find it can be done easily. 
He never states his case fairly, and makes wonderful blunders. 
. . . The pendulum is now swinging against our side, but I 
feel positive it will soon swing the other way ; and no mortal 
man will do half as much as you in giving it a start in the 
right direction, as you did at the first commencement. God 
forgive me for writing so long and egotistical a letter ; but it 




is your fault, for you have so delighted me ; I never dreamed 
that you would have time to say a word in defence of the 
cause which you have so often defended. It will be a long 
battle, after we are dead and gone. . . . Great is the power 
of misrepresentation. . . . 

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley, 

Down, September 30 [187 1]. 

My dear Huxley, — It was very good of you to send the 
proof-sheets, for I was very anxious to read your article. I 
have been delighted with it. How you do smash Mivart's 
theology : it is almost equal to your article versus Comte, — * 
that never can be transcended. . . . But I have been pre- 
eminently glad to read your discussion on [the ' Quarterly ' 
reviewer's] metaphysics, especially about reason and his de- 
finition of it. I felt sure he was wrong, but having only 
common observation and sense to trust to, I did not know 
what to say in my second edition of my ' Descent' Now a 
footnote and reference to you will do the work. . . . For me, 
this is one of the most important parts of the review. But for 
pleasure, I have been particularly glad that my few words f on 
the distinction, if it can be so called, between Mivart's two 
forms of morality, caught your attention. I am so pleased 
that you take the same view, and give authorities for it ; but I 
searched Mill in vain on this head. How well you argue the 
whole case. I am mounting climax on climax ; for after all 
there is nothing, I think, better in your whole review than your 

* ' Fortnightly Review,' 1869. 
With regard to the relations of 
Positivism to Science, my father 
wrote to Mr. Spencer in 1875 : 
" How curious and amusing it is to 
see to what an extent the Positivists 
hate all men of science ; I fancy 
they are dimly conscious what 

laughable and gigantic blunders 
their prophet made in predicting 
the course of science." 

t 'Descent of Man/ vol. i. p. 
87. A discussion on the question 
whether an act done impulsively 
or instinctively can be called moral. 


arguments v. Wallace on the intellect of savages. I must tell 
you what Hooker said to me a few years ago. " When I read 
Huxley, I feel quite infantile in intellect." By Jove I have 
felt the truth of this throughout your review. What a man 
you are. There are scores of splendid passages, and vivid 
flashes of wit. I have been a good deal more than merely 
pleased by the concluding part of your review ; and all the 
more, as I own I felt mortified by the accusation of bigotry, 
arrogance, &c, in the ' Quarterly Review.' But I assure you, 
he may write his worst, and he will never mortify me again. 

My dear Huxley, yours gratefully, 

Charles Darwin. 

C. Darwin to F. Midler. 

Haredene, Albury, August 2 [1871]. 

My DEAR Sir, — Your last letter has interested me greatly ; 
it is wonderfully rich in facts and original thoughts. First, let 
me say that I have been much pleased by what you say 
about my book. It has had a very large sale ; but I have 
been much abused for it, especially for the chapter on the 
moral sense ; and most of my reviewers consider the book as 
a poor affair. God knows what its merits may really be ; all 
that I know is that I did my best. With familiarity I think 
naturalists will accept sexual selection to a greater extent 
than they now seem inclined to do. I should very much like 
to publish your letter, but I do not see how it could be made 
intelligible, without numerous coloured illustrations, but I will 
consult Mr. Wallace on this head. I earnestly hope that you 
keep notes of all your letters and that some day you will 
publish a book : ' Notes of a Naturalist in S. Brazil,' or some 
such title. Wallace will hardly admit the possibility of 
sexual selection with Lepidoptera, and no doubt it is very 
improbable. Therefore, I am very glad to hear of your cases 
(which I will quote in the next edition) of the two sets of 

1871.] 'PRIMITIVE CULTURE.' 151 

Hesperiadae, which display their wings differently, according to 
which surface is coloured. I cannot believe that such display 
is accidental and purposeless. . . . 

No fact of your letter has interested me more than that 
about mimicry. It is a capital fact about the males pursuing 
the wrong females. You put the difficulty of the first steps in 
imitation in a most striking and convincing manner. Your 
idea of sexual selection having aided protective imitation 
interests me greatly, for the same idea had occurred to me in 
quite different cases, viz. the dulness of all animals in the 
Galapagos Islands, Patagonia, &c, and in some other cases ; 
but I was afraid even to hint at such an idea. Would you 
object to my giving some such sentence as follows : " F 
Miiller suspects that sexual selection may have come into 
play, in aid of protective imitation, in a very peculiar manner, 
which will appear extremely improbable to those who do not 
fully believe in sexual selection. It is that the appreciation 
of certain colour is developed in those species which frequently 
behold other species thus ornamented." Again let me thank 
you cordially for your most interesting letter. . . . 

C. Darwin to E. B. Tylor* 

Down [Sept. 24, 1871]. 

My DEAR Sir, — I hope that you will allow me to have the 
pleasure of telling you how greatly I have been interested by 
your ' Primitive Culture,' now that I have finished it. It seems 
to me a most profound work, which will be certain to have 
permanent value, and to be referred to for years to come. It 
is wonderful how you trace animism from the lower races up 
to the religious belief of the highest races. It will make me 
for the future look at religion — a belief in the soul, &c. — from 
a new point of view. How curious, also, are the survivals or 

, * Keeper of the Museum, and Reader in Anthropology at Oxford. 


rudiments of old customs. . . . You will perhaps be surprised 
at my writing at so late a period, but I have had the book 
read aloud to me, and from much ill-health of late, could only- 
stand occasional short reads. The undertaking must have 
cost you gigantic labour. Nevertheless, I earnestly hope that 
you may be induced to treat morals in the same enlarged yet 
careful manner, as you have animism. I fancy from the last 
chapter that you have thought of this. No man could do the 
work so well as you, and the subject assuredly is a most 
important and interesting one. You must now possess refer- 
ences which would guide you to a sound estimation of the 
morals of savages ; and how writers like Wallace, Lubbock, 
&c. &c, do differ on this head. Forgive me for troubling 
you, and believe me, with much respect, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 


[At the beginning of the year the sixth edition of the 
'Origin,' which had been begun in June 1871, was nearly 
completed. The last sheet was revised on January 10, 1872, 
and the book was published in the course of the month. 
This volume differs from the previous ones in appearance 
and size — it consists of 458 pp. instead of 596 pp., and is a 
few ounces lighter ; it is printed on bad paper, in small type, 
and with the lines unpleasantly close together. It had, how- 
ever, one advantage over the previous editions, namely that 
it was issued at a lower price. It is to be regretted that this 
the final edition of the ' Origin ' should have appeared in 
so unattractive a form ; a form which has doubtless kept many 
readers from the book. 

The discussion suggested by the ' Genesis of Species ' was 
perhaps the most important addition to the book. The ob- 
jection that incipient structures cannot be of use, was dealt 
with in some detail, because it seemed to the author that this 

1872.] 'ORIGIN,' SIXTH EDITION. 1 53 

was the point in Mr. Mivart's book which had struck most 
readers in England. 

It is a striking proof of how wide and general had become 
the acceptance of his views, that my father found it necessary 
to insert (sixth edition, p. 424), the sentence : " As a record 
of a former state of things, I have retained in the foregoing 
paragraphs and also elsewhere, several sentences which imply 
that naturalists believe in the separate creation of each 
species ; and I have been much censured for having thus 
expressed myself. But undoubtedly this was the general 
belief when the first edition of the present work appeared. . . 
Now things are wholly changed, and almost every naturalist 
admits the great principle of evolution." 

A small correction introduced into this sixth edition is 
connected with one of his minor papers : " Note on the habits 
of the Pampas Woodpecker." * The paper in question was a 
reply to Mr. Hudson's remarks on the woodpecker in a 
previous number of the same journal. The last sentence of 
my father's paper is worth quoting for its temperate tone : 
" Finally, I trust that Mr. Hudson is mistaken when he says 
that any one acquainted with the habits of this bird might 
be induced to believe that I 'had purposely wrested the 
truth ' in order to prove my theory. He exonerates me 
from this charge ; but I should be loath to think that there 
are many naturalists who, without any evidence, would 
accuse a fellow-worker of telling a deliberate falsehood to 
prove his theory." In the fifth edition of the ' Origin,' p. 220, 
he wrote : — 

" Yet as I can assert not only from my own observation, but 
from that of the accurate Azara, it [the ground woodpecker] 
never climbs a tree." In the sixth edition, p. 142, the passage 
runs " in certain large districts it does not climb trees." And 
he goes on to give Mr. Hudson's statement, that in other 
regions it does frequent trees. 

* Zoolog. Soc. Proc. 1870. 


One of the additions in the sixth edition (p. 149), was a 
reference to Mr. A. Hyatt's and Professor Cope's theory of 
" acceleration." With regard to this he wrote (October 10, 
1872) in characteristic words to Mr. Hyatt : — 

" Permit me to take this opportunity to express my sincere 
regret at having committed two grave errors in the last 
edition of my ' Origin of Species/ in my allusion to yours and 
Professor Cope's views on acceleration and retardation of de- 
velopment. I had thought that Professor Cope had preceded 
you ; but I now well remember having formerly read with 
lively interest, and marked, a paper by you somewhere in my 
library, on fossil Cephalopods with remarks on the subject. 
It seems also that I have quite misrepresented your joint 
view. This has vexed me much. I confess that I have 
never been able to grasp fully what you wish to show, and I 
presume that this must be owing to some dulness on my 

The sixth edition of the ' Origin ' being intended as a 
popular one, was made to include a glossary of technical 
terms, " given because several readers have complained . . . 
that some of the terms used were unintelligible to them." 
The glossary was compiled by Mr. Dallas, and being an 
excellent collection of clear and sufficient definitions, must 
have proved useful to many readers.] 

C. Darwin to J. L. A. de Quatrefages. 

Down, January 15, 1872. 

My DEAR Sir, — I am much obliged for your very kind 
letter and exertions in my favour. I had thought that the 
publication of my last book [' Descent of Man '] would have 
destroyed all your sympathy with me, but though I estimated 
very highly your great liberality of mind, it seems, that I 
underrated it. 

1872.] FRENCH ACADEMY. 155 

I am gratified to hear that M. Lacaze-Duthiers will vote 
for me,* for I have long honoured his name. I cannot help 
regretting that you should expend your valuable time in 
trying to obtain for me the honour of election, for I fear, 
judging from the last time, that all your labour will be in vain. 
Whatever the result may be, I shall always retain the most 
lively recollection of your sympathy and kindness, and this 
will quite console me for my rejection. 

With much respect and esteem, I remain, dear Sir, 

Yours truly obliged, 
Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — With respect to the great stress which you lay on 
man walking on two legs, whilst the quadrumana go on all 
fours, permit me to remind you that no one much values the 
great difference in the mode of locomotion, and consequently 
in structure, between seals and the terrestrial carnivora, or 
between the almost biped kangaroos and other marsupials. 

C. Darwin to August Weismann.\ 

Down, April 5, 1872. 

My DEAR Sir, — I have now read your essay % with- very 
great interest. Your view of the origin of local races 
through "Amixie," is altogether new to me, and seems to 
throw an important light on an obscure problem. There is, 
however, something strange about the periods or endurance 
of variability. I formerly endeavoured to investigate the 
subject, not by looking to past time, but to species of the 
same genus widely distributed ; and I found in many cases 
that all the species, with perhaps one or two exceptions, were 
variable. It would be a very interesting subject for a con- 

* He was not elected as a cor- % ' Ueber den Einfluss der I so- 
responding member of the French lirung auf die Artbildung.' Leipzig, 
Academy until 1878. 1872. 

f Professor of Zoology in Freiburg. 


chologist to investigate, viz. : whether the species of the same 
genus were variable during many successive geological forma- 
tions. I began to make enquiries on this head, but failed in 
this, as in so many other things, from the want of time and 
strength. In your remarks on crossing, you do not, as it 
seems to me, lay nearly stress enough on the increased vigour 
of the offspring derived from parents which have been exposed 
to different conditions. I have during the last five years 
been making experiments on this subject with plants, and 
have been astonished at the results, which have not yet been 

In the first part of your essay, I thought that you wasted 
(to use an English expression) too much powder and shot on 
M. Wagner ; * but I changed my opinion when I saw how 
admirably you treated the whole case, and how well you 
used the facts about the Planorbis. I wish I had studied 
this latter case more carefully. The manner in which, as 
you show, the different varieties blend together and make 
a constant whole, agrees perfectly with my hypothetical 

Many years ago the late E. Forbes described three closely 
consecutive beds in a secondary formation, each with repre- 
sentative forms of the same fresh-water shells : the case is 
evidently analogous with that of Hilgendorf,| but the interest- 
ing connecting varieties or links were here absent. I rejoice 
to think that I formerly said as emphatically as I could, that 
neither isolation nor time by themselves do anything for the 
modification of species. Hardly anything in your essay has 
pleased me so much personally, as to find that you believe to 
a certain extent in sexual selection. As far as I can judge, 

* Prof. Wagner has written two tothe Bavarian Academy of Sciences 

essays on the same subject. ' Die at Munich, 1870. 

Darwin'sche Theorie und das f " Ueber Pla?iorbis multiformis 

Migrationsgesetz,' in 1868, and im Steinheimer Siisswasser-kalk." 

1 Ueber den Einfluss der Geogra- ' Monatsbericht ' of the Berlin Aca- 

phischen Isolirung, &c.', an address demy, 1866. 

1872.] ISOLATION. 157 

very few naturalists believe in this. I may have erred on 
many points, and extended the doctrine too far, but I feel a 
strong; conviction that sexual selection will hereafter be 
admitted to be a powerful agency. I cannot agree with what 
you say about the taste for beauty in animals not easily vary- 
ing. It may be suspected that even the habit of viewing 
differently coloured surrounding objects would influence their 
taste, and Fritz Miiller even goes so far as to believe that the 
sight of gaudy butterflies might influence the taste of distinct 
species. There are many remarks and statements in your 
essay which have interested me greatly, and I thank you for 
the pleasure which I have received from reading it. 
With sincere respect, I remain, 

My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — If you should ever be induced to consider the whole 
doctrine of sexual selection, I think that you will be led to 
the conclusion, that characters thus gained by one sex are 
very commonly transferred in a greater or less degree to the 
other sex. 

[With regard to Moritz Wagner's first Essay, my father 
wrote to that naturalist, apparently in 1868 :] 

Dear and respected Sir, — I thank you sincerely for 
sending me your ' Migrationsgesetz, &c.,' and for the very 
kind and most honourable notice which you have taken of my 
works. That a naturalist who has travelled into so many and 
such distant regions, and who has studied animals of so many 
classes, should, to a considerable extent, agree with me, is, I 
can assure you, the highest gratification of which I am 
capable. . . . Although I saw the effects of isolation in the 
case of islands and mountain-ranges, and knew of a few 
instances of rivers, yet the greater number of your facts were 
quite unknown to me. I now see that from the want of 


knowledge I did not make nearly sufficient use of the views 
which you advocate ; and I almost wish I could believe in its 
importance to the same extent with you ; for you well show, 
in a manner which never occurred to me, that it removes 
many difficulties and objections. But I must still believe that 
in many large areas all the individuals of the same species 
have been slowly modified, in the same manner, for instance, 
as the English race-horse has been improved, that is by the 
continued selection of the fleetest individuals, without any 
separation. But I admit that by this process two or more 
new species could hardly be found within the same limited 
area ; some degree of separation, if not indispensable, would 
be highly advantageous ; and here your facts and views will 
be of great value. . . . 

[The following letter bears on the same subject. It refers 
to Professor M. Wagner's Essay, published in Das Aus- 
land, May 31, 1875 :] 

C. Danuin to Moritz Wagner. 

Down, October 13, 1876. 

DEAR SIR, — I have now finished reading your essays, 
which have interested me in a very high degree, notwith- 
standing that I differ much from you on various points. For 
instance, several considerations make me doubt whether 
species are much more variable at one period than at another, 
except through the agency of changed conditions. I wish, 
however, that I could believe in this doctrine, as it removes 
many difficulties. But my strongest objection to your theory 
is that it does not explain the manifold adaptations in struc- 
ture in every organic being — for instance in a Picus for 
climbing trees and catching insects — or in a Strix for catching 
animals at night, and so on ad infinitum. No theory is in 
the least satisfactory to me unless it clearly explains such 

1872.] ISOLATION. 159 

adaptations. I think that you misunderstand my views on 
isolation. I believe that all the individuals of a species can 
be slowly modified within the same district, in nearly the 
same manner as man effects by what I have called the 
process of unconscious selection. ... I do not believe that 
one species will give birth to two or more new species, as 
long as they are mingled together within the same district. 
Nevertheless I cannot doubt that many new species have 
been simultaneously developed within the same large conti- 
nental area ; and in my ' Origin of Species ' I endeavoured 
to explain how two new species might be developed, 
although they met and intermingled on the borders of their 
range. It would have been a strange fact if I had over- 
looked the importance of isolation, seeing that it was such 
cases as that of the Galapagos Archipelago, which chiefly 
led me to study the origin of species. In my opinion the 
greatest error which I have committed, has been not allowing 
sufficient weight to the direct action of the environment, 
i.e. food, climate, &c, independently of natural selection. 
Modifications thus caused, which are neither of advantage nor 
disadvantage to the modified organism, would be especially 
favoured, as I can now see chiefly through your observations, 
by isolation in a small area, where only a few individuals 
lived under nearly uniform conditions. 

When I wrote the ' Origin,' and for some years afterwards, 
I could find little good evidence of the direct action of the 
environment ; now there is a large body of evidence, and your 
case of the Saturnia is one of the most remarkable of which I 
have heard. Although we differ so greatly, I hope that you 
will permit me to express my respect for your long-continued 
and successful labours in the good cause of natural science. 
I remain, dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The two following letters are also of interest as bearing 


on my father's views on the action of isolation as regards the 
origin of new species :] 

C. Darwin to K. Semper. 

Down, November 26, 1878. 

My dear Professor Semper,— When I published the 
sixth edition of the ' Origin,' I thought a good deal on the 
subject to which you refer, and the opinion therein expressed 
was my deliberate conviction. I went as far as I could, 
perhaps too far, in agreement with Wagner ; since that time I 
have seen no reason to change my mind, but then I must add 
that my attention has been absorbed on other subjects. 
There are two different classes of cases, as it appears to me, 
viz. those in which a species becomes slowly modified in the 
same country (of which I cannot doubt there are innumerable 
instances) and those cases in which a species splits into two 
or three or more new species ; and in the latter case, I should 
think nearly perfect separation would greatly aid in their 
" specification," to coin a new word. 

I am very glad that you are taking up this subject, for you 
will be sure to throw much light on it. I remember well, 
long ago, oscillating much ; when I thought of the Fauna and 
Flora of the Galapagos Islands I was all for isolation, when I 
thought of S. America I doubted much. Pray believe me, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. — I hope that this letter will not be quite illegible, 
but I have no amanuensis at present. 

C. Darwin to K. Semper. 

Down, November 30, 1878. 

Dear Professor Semper, — Since writing I have recalled 
some of the thoughts and conclusions which have passed 

1872.] ISOLATION. l6l 

through my mind of late years. In North America, in going 
from north to south or from east to west, it is clear that the 
changed conditions of life have modified the organisms in the 
different regions, so that they now form distinct races or even 
species. It is further clear that in isolated districts, however 
small, the inhabitants almost always get slightly modified, and 
how far this is due to the nature of the slightly different 
conditions to which they are exposed, and how far to mere 
interbreeding, in the manner explained by Weismann, I can 
form no opinion. The same difficulty occurred to me (as 
shown in my 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domesti- 
cation ') with respect to the aboriginal breeds of cattle, sheep, 
&c, in the separated districts of Great Britain, and indeed 
throughout Europe. As our knowledge advances, very slight 
differences, considered by systematists as of no importance 
in structure, are continually found to be functionally im- 
portant ; and I have been especially struck with this fact in 
the case of plants to which my observations have of late years 
been confined. Therefore it seems to me rather rash to 
consider the slight differences between representative species, 
for instance those inhabiting the different islands of the same 
archipelago, as of no functional importance, and as not in any 
way due to natural selection. With respect to all adopted 
structures, and these are innumerable, I cannot see how M. 
Wagner's view throws any light, nor indeed do I see at all 
more clearly than I did before, from the numerous cases 
which he has brought forward, how and why it is that a long 
isolated form should almost always become slightly modified. 
I do not know whether you will care about hearing my 
further opinion on the point in question, for as before 
remarked I have not attended much of late years to such 
questions, thinking it prudent, now that I am growing old, to 
work at easier subjects. 

Believe me, yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin, 
vol. III. M 

162 < DESCENT OF MAN ' — EXPRESSION. [1872. 

I hope and trust that you will throw light on these points. 

P.S. — I will add another remark which I remember 
occurred to me when I first read M. Wagner. When a 
species first arrives on a small island, it will probably increase 
rapidly, and unless all the individuals change instantaneously 
(which is improbable in the highest degree), the slowly, more 
or less, modifying offspring must intercross one with another, 
and with their unmodified parents, and any offspring not as 
yet modified. The case will then be like that of domesticated 
animals which have slowly become modified, either by the 
action of the external conditions or by the process which I 
have called the unconscious selection by man — i.e., in contrast 
with methodical selection. 

[The letters continue the history of the year 1872, which 
has been interrupted by a digression on Isolation.] 

C. Darwin to the Marquis de Saporta. 

Down, April 8, 1872. 

DEAR SIR, — I thank you very sincerely and feel much 
honoured by the trouble which you have taken in giving 
me your reflections on the origin of Man. It gratifies me 
extremely that some parts of my work have interested you, 
and that we agree on the main conclusion of the derivation of 
man from some lower form. 

I will reflect on what you have said, but I cannot at present 
give up my belief in the close relationship of Man to the 
higher Simise. I do not put much trust in any single cha- 
racter, even that of dentition ; but I put the greatest faith in 
resemblances in many parts of the whole organisation, for I 
cannot believe that such resemblances can be due to any 
cause except close blood relationship. That man is closely 
allied to the higher Simise is shown by the classification of 

1872.] 'DESCENT OF MAN.' 1 63 

Linnaeus, who was so good a judge of affinity. The man 
who in England knows most about the structure of the 
Simiae, namely, Mr. Mivart, and who is bitterly opposed 
to my doctrines about the derivation of the mental powers, 
yet has publicly admitted that I have not put man too 
close to the higher Simiae, as far as bodily structure is 
concerned. I do not think the absence of reversions of 
structure in man is of much weight ; C. Vogt, indeed, argues 
that [the existence of] Micro-cephalous idiots is a case of 
reversion. No one who believes in Evolution will doubt that 
the Phocae are descended from some terrestrial Carnivore. 
Yet no one would expect to meet with any such reversion 
in them. The lesser divergence of character in the races of 
man in comparison with the species of Simiadae may perhaps 
be accounted for by man having spread over the world at a 
much later period than did the Simiadae. I am fully 
prepared to admit the high antiquity of man ; but then we 
have evidence, in the Dryopithecus, of the high antiquity of 
the Anthropomorphous Simiae. 

I am glad to hear that you are at work on your fossil 
plants, which of late years have afforded so rich a field for 
discovery. With my best thanks for your great kindness, 
and with much respect, I remain, 

Dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

[In April, 1872, he was elected to the Royal Society of 
Holland, and wrote to Professor Donders : — 

" Very many thanks for your letter. The honour of being 
elected a foreign member of your Royal Society has pleased 
me much. The sympathy of his fellow workers has always 
appeared to me by far the highest reward to which any 
scientific man can look. My gratification has been not a 
little increased by first hearing of the honour from you."] 

M 2 


C. Darwin to Chauncey Wright. 

Down, June 3, 1872. 

My DEAR SIR, — Many thanks for your article * in the 
( North American Review,' which I have read with great 
interest. Nothing can be clearer than the way in which you 
discuss the permanence or fixity of species. It never occurred 
to me to suppose that any one looked at the case as it seems 
Mr. Mivart does. Had I read his answer to you, perhaps I 
should have perceived this ; but I have resolved to waste no 
more time in reading reviews of my works or on Evolution, 
excepting when I hear that they are good and contain new 
matter. ... It is pretty clear that Mr. Mivart has come to 
the end of his tether on this subject. 

As your mind is so clear, and as you consider so carefully 
the meaning of words, I wish you would take some incidental 
occasion to consider when a thing may properly be said to be 
effected by the will of man. I have been led to the wish by 
reading an article by your Professor Whitney versus Schleicher. 
He argues, because each step of change in language is made 
by the will of man, the whole language so changes ; but I do 
not think that this is so, as man has no intention or wish to 
change the language. It is a parallel case with what I have 
called " unconscious selection," which depends on men con- 
sciously preserving the best individuals, and thus uncon- 
sciously altering the breed. 

My dear Sir, yours sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

[Not long afterwards (September) Mr. Chauncey Wright paid 

* The proof-sheets of an article it (' Letters,' p. 238) : — " It is not 

which appeared in the July number properly a rejoinder but a new 

of the ' North American Review.' article, repeating and expounding 

It was a rejoinder to Mr. Mivart's some of the points of my pamphlet, 

reply (' N. Am. Review,' April 1872) and answering some of Mr. Mivart's 

to Mr. Chauncey Wright's pam- replies incidentally." 
phlet. Chauncey Wright says of 



I6 5 

a visit to Down,* which he described in a letter f to Miss S. 
Sedgwick (now Mrs. William Darwin) : " If you can imagine me 
enthusiastic — absolutely and unqualifiedly so, without a but 
or criticism, then think of my last evening's and this morning's 
talks with Mr. Darwin. ... I was never so worked up in my 
life, and did not sleep many hours under the hospitable roof. 
... It would be quite impossible to give by way of report 
any idea of these talks before and at and after dinner, at 
breakfast, and at leave-taking ; and yet I dislike the egotism 
of ' testifying ' like other religious enthusiasts without any 
verification, or hint of similar experience."] 

C. Darwin to Herbert Spencer. 

Bassett, Southampton, June 10 [1872]. 

DEAR SPENCER, — I dare say you will think me a foolish 
fellow, but I cannot resist the wish to express my unbounded 
admiration of your article % in answer to Mr. Martineau. It is, 
indeed, admirable, and hardly less so your second article on 
Sociology (which, however, I have not yet finished) : I never 
believed in the reigning influence of great men on the world's 
progress ; but if asked why I did not believe, I should have 
been sorely perplexed to have given a good answer. Every 
one with eyes to see and ears to hear (the number, I 

* Mr. and Mrs. C. L. Brace, who 
had given much of their lives to 
philanthropic work in New York, 
also paid a visit at Down in this 
summer. Some of their work is 
recorded in Mr. Brace's 'The 
Dangerous Classes of New York,' 
and of this book my father wrote 
to the author : — 

" Since you were here my wife 
has read aloud to me more than 
half of your work, and it has 
interested us both in the highest 
degree, and we shall read every 

word of the remainder. The facts 
seem to me very well told, and the 
inferences very striking. But after 
all, this is but a weak part of the 
impression left on our minds by 
what we have read ; for we are both 
filled with earnest admiration at 
the heroic labours of yourself and 

t ' Letters,' p. 246-248. 

\ "Mr. Martineau on Evolution," 
by Herbert Spencer, ' Contempo- 
rary Review,' July 1872. 


fear, are not many) ought to bow their knee to you, and I 
for one do. 

Believe me, yours most sincerely, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, July 12 [1872]. 

My dear Hooker, — I must exhale and express my joy at 
the way in which the newspapers have taken up your case. 
I have seen the Times, the Daily News, and the Pall Mall, 
and hear that others have taken up the case. 

The Memorial has done great good this way, whatever may 
be the result in the action of our wretched Government. On 
my soul, it is enough to make one turn into an old honest 
Tory. . . . 

If you answer this, I shall be sorry that I have relieved my 
feelings by writing. 

Yours affectionately, 

C. Darwin. 

[The memorial here referred to was addressed to Mr. 
Gladstone, and was signed by a number of distinguished men, 
including Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Bentham, Mr. Huxley, and 
Sir James Paget. It gives a complete account of the arbitrary 
and unjust treatment received by Sir J. D. Hooker at the 
hands of his official chief, the First Commissioner of Works. 
The document is published in full in 'Nature' (July 11, 1872), 
and is well worth studying as an example of the treatment 
which it is possible for science to receive from officialism. As 
\ Nature ' observes, it is a paper which must be read with 
the greatest indignation by scientific men in every part of the 
world, and with shame by all Englishmen. The signatories 
of the memorial conclude by protesting against the expected 
consequences of Sir Joseph Hooker's persecution — namely his 
resignation, and the loss of " a man honoured for his integrity, 

1 8/2.] 



beloved for his courtesy and kindliness of heart ; and who has 
spent in the public service not only a stainless but an 
illustrious life." 

Happily this misfortune was averted, and Sir Joseph was 
freed from further molestation.] 

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace. 

Down, August 3 [1872]. 

My DEAR WALLACE, — I hate controversy, chiefly perhaps 
because I do it badly ; but as Dr. Bree accuses you * of "blund- 
ering," I have thought myself bound to send the enclosed 
letter f to ' Nature,' that is, if you in the least desire it. In this 
case please post it. If you do not at all wish it, I should 
rather prefer not sending it, and in this case please to tear it 
up. And I beg you to do the same, if you intend answering 
Dr. Bree yourself, as you will do it incomparably better 
than I should. Also please tear it up if you don't like the 

My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

* Mr. Wallace had reviewed Dr. 
Bree's book, 'An Exposition of 
Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr. 
Darwin,' in ' Nature,' July 25, 1872. 

f " Bree on Darwinism." ' Na- 
ture,' Aug. 8, 1872. The letter is 
as follows : — " Permit me to state 
— though the statement is almost 
superfluous — that Mr. Wallace, in 
his review of Dr. Bree's work, gives 
with perfect correctness what I 
intended to express, and what I 
believe was expressed clearly, with 
respect to the probable position of 

man in the early part of his pedi- 
gree. As I have not seen Dr. 
Bree's recent work, and as his letter 
is unintelligible to me, I cannot 
even conjecture how he has so 
completely mistaken my meaning : 
but, perhaps, no one who has read 
Mr. Wallace's article, or who has 
read a work formerly published by 
Dr. Bree on the same subject as 
his recent one, will be surprised at 
any amount of misunderstanding on 
his part. — Charles Darwin." 
Aug. 3. 


C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace, 

Down, August 28, 1872. 

My DEAR WALLACE, — I have at last finished the gigantic 
job of reading Dr. Bastian's book,* and have been deeply 
interested by it. You wished to hear my impression, but it 
is not worth sending. 

He seems to me an extremely able man, as, indeed, I 
thought when I read his first essay. His general argument 
in favour of Archebiosist is wonderfully strong, though I 
cannot think much of some few of his arguments. The result 
is that I am bewildered and astonished by his statements, but 
am not convinced, though, on the whole, it seems to me pro- 
bable that Archebiosis is true. I am not convinced, partly 
I think owing to the deductive cast of much of his reasoning ; 
and I know not why, but I never feel convinced by deduction, 
even in the case of H. Spencer's writings. If Dr. Bastian's 
book had been turned upside down, and he had begun with 
the various cases of Heterogenesis, and then gone on to 
organic, and afterwards to saline solutions, and had then given 
his general arguments, I should have been, I believe, much 
more influenced. I suspect, however, that my chief difficulty 
is the effect of old convictions being stereotyped on my brain. 
I must have more evidence that germs, or the minutest frag- 
ments of the lowest forms, are always killed by 2 1 2° of Fahr. 
Perhaps the mere reiteration of the statements given by 
Dr. Bastian [of] other men, whose judgment I respect, and who 
have worked long on the lower organisms, would suffice to 
convince me. Here is a fine confession of intellectual weak- 
ness ; but what an inexplicable frame of mind is that of 

As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being spontaneously gener- 

* 1 

The Beginnings of Life.' H. Generation. For the distinction 
C. Bastian, 1872. between Archebiosis and Hetero- 

t That is to say, Spontaneous genesis, see Bastian, chapter vi. 

1872.] 'BEGINNINGS OF LIFE.' 1 69 

ated, my mind can no more digest such statements, whether 
true or false, than my stomach can digest a lump of lead. 
Dr. Bastian is always comparing Archebiosis, as well as 
growth, to crystallisation ; but, on this view, a Rotifer or Tardi- 
grade is adapted to its humble conditions of life by a happy 
accident, and this I cannot believe. . . . He must have 
worked with very impure materials in some cases, as plenty 
of organisms appeared in a saline solution not containing an 
atom of nitrogen. 

I wholly disagree with Dr. Bastian about many points in 
his latter chapters. Thus the frequency of generalised forms 
in the older strata seems to me clearly to indicate the common 
descent with divergence of more recent forms. Notwith- 
standing all his sneers, I do not strike my colours as yet about 
Pangenesis. I should like to live to see Archebiosis proved 
true, for it would be a discovery of transcendent importance ; 
or, if false, I should like to see it disproved, and the facts 
otherwise explained ; but I shall not live to see all this. If 
ever proved, Dr. Bastian will have taken a prominent part in 
the work. How grand is the onward rush of science; it is 
enough to console us for the many errors which we have com- 
mitted, and for our efforts being overlaid and forgotten in the 
mass of new facts and new views which are daily turning up. 

This is all I have to say about Dr. Bastian's book, and it 
certainly has not been worth saying. . . . 

C. Darwin to A. De Candolle. 

Down, December xi, 1872. 

My dear Sir — I began reading your new book * sooner 
than I intended, and when I once began, I could not stop ; 
and now you must allow me to thank you for the very great 
pleasure which it has given me. I have hardly ever read 

* t 

Histoire des Sciences et des Savants,' 1873. 


anything more original and interesting than your treatment 
of the causes which favour the development of scientific men. 
The whole was quite new to me, and most curious. When 
I began your essay I was afraid that you were going to attack 
the principle of inheritance in relation to mind, but I soon 
found myself fully content to follow you and accept your 
limitations. I have felt, of course, special interest in the 
latter part of your work, but there was here less novelty to 
me. In many parts you do me much honour, and every- 
where more than justice. Authors generally like to hear what 
points most strike different readers, so I will mention that of 
your shorter essays, that on the future prevalence of lan- 
guages, and on vaccination interested me the most, as, indeed, 
did that on statistics, and free will. Great liability to certain 
diseases, being probably liable to atavism, is quite a new idea 
to me. At p. 322 you suggest that a young swallow ought to 
be separated, and then let loose in order to test the power 
of instinct ; but nature annually performs this experiment, 
as old cuckoos migrate in England some weeks before the 
young birds of the same year. By the way, I have just used 
the forbidden word " nature," which, after reading your 
essay, I almost determined never to use again. There 
are very few remarks in your book to which I demur, but 
when you back up Asa Gray in saying that all instincts are 
congenital habits, I must protest. 

Finally, will you permit me to ask you a question : have 
you yourself, or [has] some one who can be quite trusted, 
observed (p. 322) that the butterflies on the Alps are tamer 
than those on the lowlands ? Do they belong to the same 
species ? Has this fact been observed with more than one 
species ? Are they brightly coloured kinds ? I am especially 
curious about their alighting on the brightly coloured parts 
of ladies' dresses, more especially because I have been more 
than once assured that butterflies like bright colours, for 
instance, in India the scarlet leaves of Pointsettia. 


Once again allow me to thank you for having sent me your 
work, and for the very unusual amount of pleasure which I 
have received in reading it. 

With much respect, I remain, my dear Sir, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The last revise of the ' Expression of the Emotions ' was 
finished on August 22nd, 1872, and he wrote in his Diary : — 
" Has taken me about twelve months." As usual he had no 
belief in the possibility of the book being generally successful. 
The following passage in a letter to Haeckel serves to show 
that he had felt the writing of this book as a somewhat 
severe strain : — 

" I have finished my little book on ' Expression,' and when 
it is published in November I will of course send you a copy, 
in case you would like to read it for amusement. I have 
resumed some old botanical work, and perhaps I shall never 
again attempt to discuss theoretical views. 

" I am growing old and weak, and no man can tell when 
his intellectual powers begin to fail. Long life and happiness 
to you for your own sake and for that of science." 

It was published in the autumn. The edition consisted of 
70CO, and of these 5267 copies were sold at Mr. Murray's sale 
in November. Two thousand were printed at the end of the 
year, and this proved a misfortune, as they did not afterwards 
sell so rapidly, and thus a mass of notes collected by the 
author was never employed for a second edition during his 

Among the reviews of the ' Expression of the Emotions ' 
may be mentioned the not unfavourable notices in the Athe- 
nceum, Nov. 9, 1872, and the Times, Dec. 13, 1872. A good 
review by Mr. Wallace appeared in the ' Quarterly Journal 
of Science,' Jan. 1873. Mr. Wallace truly remarks that the 
book exhibits certain " characteristics of the author's mind in 




an eminent degree," namely, " the insatiable longing to dis- 
cover the causes of the varied and complex phenomena pre- 
sented by living things." He adds that in the case of the 
author " the restless curiosity of the child to know the ' what 
for ? ' the ' why ? ' and the ' how ? ' of everything " seems 
" never to have abated its force." 

A writer in one of the theological reviews describes the 
book as " the most powerful and insidious " of all the author's 

Professor Alexander Bain criticised the book in a post- 
script to the ' Senses and the Intellect ; ' to this essay the 
following letter refers :] 

C. Darwin to Alexander Bain. 

Down, October 9, 1873. 

My DEAR Sir, — I am particularly obliged to you for having 
sent me your essay. Your criticisms are all written in a 
quite fair spirit, and indeed no one who knows you or your 
works would expect anything else. What you say about the 
vagueness of what I have called the direct action of the 
nervous system, is perfectly just. I felt it so at the time, and 
even more of late. I confess that I have never been able 
fully to grasp your principle of spontaneity,* as well as some 
other of your points, so as to apply them to special cases, 

* Professor Bain expounded his 
theory of Spontaneity in the essay 
here alluded to. It would be im- 
possible to do justice to it within 
the limits of a foot-note. The 
following quotations may give some 
notion of it : — 

" By Spontaneity I understand the 
readiness to pass into movement, 
in the absence of all stimulation 
whatever; the essential requisite 
being that the nerve-centres and 

muscles shall be fresh and vigorous. 
.... The gesticulations and the 
carols of young and active animals 
are mere overflow of nervous 
energy ; and although they are very 
apt to concur with pleasing emotion, 
they have an independent source. 
.... They are not properly move- 
ments of expression ; they express 
nothing at all except an abundant 
stock of physical power." 

1 872.] 



But as we look at everything from different points of view, it 
is not likely that we should agree closely. 

I have been greatly pleased by what you say about the 
crying expression and about blushing. Did you read a review 
in a late ' Edinburgh ' ? * It was magnificently contemptuous 
towards myself and many others. 

I retain a very pleasant recollection of our sojourn together 
at that delightful place, Moor Park. 

With my renewed thanks, I remain, my dear Sir, 

Yours sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to Mrs. Haliburton.\ 

Down, November 1 [1872]. 
My DEAR Mrs. Haliburton, — I dare say you will be 
surprised to hear from me. My object in writing now is to 

* The review on the ' Expression 
of the Emotions ' appeared in the 
April number of the ' Edinburgh 
Review,' 1873. The opening sen- 
tence is a fair sample of the general 
tone of the article : " Mr. Darwin has 
added another volume of amusing 
stories and grotesque illustrations 
to the remarkable series of works 
already devoted to the exposition 
and defence of the evolutionary 
hypothesis." A few other quota- 
tions may be worth giving. " His 
one-sided devotion to an a priori 
scheme of interpretation seems thus 
steadily tending to impair the 
author's hitherto unrivalled powers 
as an observer. However this may 
be, most impartial critics will, we 
think, admit that there is a marked 
falling off, both in philosophical 
tone and scientific interest, in the 
works produced since Mr. Darwin 
pommitted himself to the crude 
metaphysical conception so largely 

associated with his name." The 
article is directed against Evolution 
as a whole, almost as much as 
against the doctrines of the book 
under discussion. We find through- 
out plenty of that effective style of 
criticism which consists in the use 
of such expressions as " dogma- 
tism," " intolerance," " presump- 
tuous," " arrogant ; " together with 
accusations of such various faults 
as " virtual abandonment of the 
inductive method," and the use of 
slang and vulgarisms. 

The part of the article which 
seems to have interested my father 
is the discussion on the use which 
he ought to have made of painting 
and sculpture. 

f Mrs. Haliburton is a daughter 
of my father's old friend, Mr. Owen 
of Woodhouse. Her husband, 
Judge Haliburton, was the well- 
known author of ' Sam Slick.' 

174 ' DESCENT OF MAN ' — EXPRESSION. [1872. 

say that I have just published a book on the ' Expression of 
the Emotions in Man and Animals ;' and it has occurred to 
me that you might possibly like to read some parts of it ; and 
I can hardly think that this would have been the case with 
any of the books which I have already published. So I send 
by this post my present book. Although I have had no 
communication with you or the other members of your family 
for so long a time, no scenes in my whole life pass so 
frequently or so vividly before my mind as those which relate 
to happy old days spent at Woodhouse. I should very much 
like to hear a little news about yourself and the other 
members of your family, if you will take the trouble to write 
to me. Formerly I used to glean some news about you from 
my sisters. 

I have had many years of bad health and have not been 
able to visit anywhere ; and now I feel very old. As long as 
I pass a perfectly uniform life, I am able to do some daily 
work in Natural History, which is still my passion, as it was 
in old days, when you used to laugh at me for collecting 
beetles with such zeal at Woodhouse. Excepting from my 
continued ill-health, which has excluded me from society, my 
life has been a very happy one ; the greatest drawback being 
that several of my children have inherited from me feeble 
health. I hope with all my heart that you retain, at least to 
a large extent, the famous " Owen constitution." With 
sincere feelings of gratitude and affection for all bearing the 
name of Owen, I venture to sign myself, 

Yours affectionately, 

Charles Darwin. 

C. Darwin to Mrs. Haliburton. 

Down, November 6 [1872]. 

My DEAR SARAH, — I have been very much pleased by 
your letter, which I must call charming. I hardly ventured 


to think that you would have retained a friendly recollection 
of me for so many years. Yet I ought to have felt assured 
that you would remain as warm-hearted and as true-hearted 
as you have ever been from my earliest recollection. I know 
well how many grievous sorrows you have gone through ; but 
I am very sorry to hear that your health is not good. In the 
spring or summer, when the weather is better, if you can 
summon up courage to pay us a visit here, both my wife, as 
she desires me to say, and myself, would be truly glad to see 
you, and I know that you would not care about being rather 
dull here. It would be a real pleasure to me to see you. 
— Thank you much for telling about your family, — much of 
which was new to me. How kind you all were to me 
as a boy, and you especially, and how much happiness I owe 
to you. 

Believe me your affectionate and obliged friend, 

Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — Perhaps you would like to see a photograph of me 
now that I am old. 


[The only work (other than botanical) of this year was the 
preparation of a second edition of the ' Descent of Man,' the 
publication of which is referred to in the following chapter. 
This work was undertaken much against the grain, as he was 
at the time deeply immersed in the manuscript of ' Insec- 
tivorous Plants.' Thus he wrote to Mr. Wallace (Novem- 
ber 19), "I never in my lifetime regretted an interruption so 
much as this new edition of the ' Descent.' " And later (in 
December) he wrote to Mr. Huxley : "The new edition of the 
' Descent ' has turned out an awful job. It took me ten days 
merely to glance over letters and reviews with criticisms and 
new facts. It is a devil of a job." 

The work was continued until April 1, 1874, when he was 


able to return to his much loved Drosera. He wrote to 
Mr. Murray : — 

" I have at last finished, after above three months as hard 
work as I have ever had in my life, a corrected edition of the 
' Descent,' and I much wish to have it printed off as soon as 
possible. As it is to be stereotyped I shall never touch it 

The first of the miscellaneous letters of 1873 refers to a plea- 
sant visit received from Colonel Higginson of Newport, U.S.] 

C. Darwin to Thos. Wentworth Higginson. 

Down, February 27th [1873]. 

My DEAR Sir, — My wife has just finished reading aloud 
your ' Life with a Black Regiment,' and you must allow me to 
thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in 
many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, 
from the little which I have seen of them ; and I have been 
delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their 
character and mental powers so ably discussed. When you 
were here I did not know of the noble position which you had 
filled. I had formerly read about the black regiments, but 
failed to connect your name with your admirable undertaking. 
Although we enjoyed greatly your visit to Down, my wife 
and myself have over and over again regretted that we did 
not know about the black regiment, as we should have greatly 
liked to have heard a little about the South from your own lips. 

Your descriptions have vividly recalled walks taken forty 
years ago in Brazil. We have your collected Essays, which 
were kindly sent us by Mr. [Moncure] Conway, but have not 
yet had time to read them. I occasionally glean a little news 
of you in the ' Index ' ; and within the last hour have read an 
interesting article of yours on the progress of Free Thought. 
Believe me, my dear Sir, with sincere admiration, 

Yours very faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 




[On May 28th he sent the following answers to the ques- 
tions that Mr. Galton was at that time addressing to various 
scientific men, in the course of the inquiry which is given in 
his 'English Men of Science, their Nature and Nurture,' 1874. 
With regard to the questions, my father wrote, " I have filled 
up the answers as well as I could, but it is simply impossible 
for me to estimate the degrees." For the sake of convenience, 
the questions and answers relating to " Nurture " are made to 
precede those on " Nature." 

>How taught ? 

Conducive to or restrictive 
of habits of observation. 

Conducive to health or 
otherwise ? 

Peculiar merits ? 

Chief omissions. 


Has the religious creed taught 
in your youth had any deter- 
rent effect on the freedom of 
your researches ? 

Do your scientific tastes appear 
to have been innate ? 

Were they determined by any 
and what events ? 

I consider that all I have learnt of 
any value has been self-taught. 

Restrictive of observation, being 
almost entirely classical. 


None whatever. 

No mathematics or modern languages, 
nor any habits of observation or 


Certainly innate. 

My innate taste for natural history 
strongly confirmed and directed by 
the voyage in the Beagle. 



i 7 8 







Nominally to Church of England. 


Good throughout life, except from gout. 

Very broad and corpulent. 

• t— ( 





endurance although feeling 
as after consultations, after 
very active — not restless — 
no travels. My father said 
ered much from sense of 
worked very hard. 












Great power of 
much fatigue, 
long journeys ; 
very early riser, 
his father suff 
fatigue, that he 


Science, and field sports to a passionate 
degree during youth. 

Nominally to Church of England. 

Liberal or Radical. 

Good when young — bad for last 33 years. 

Measurement round 
inside of hat. 




I— H 

rj | 







t nervous. 

lown by much activity, and whilst I 
.alth, power of resisting fatigue. I 
s other man were alone able to fetch 
9r a large party of officers and sailors 
prostrated. Some of my expeditions 
merica were adventurous. An early 
the morning. 




Spare, whilst 
young rather 








Energy s' 
had he 
and on 
water f 
in S. A 
riser in 



Specify any interests that 
have becii very actively 

Religion f 


Health ? 





sg 5 



dl-L . 

£ o 

o <~> 

,rt P< 

to 1+-. 

• 2 

. • »— i 





(U > X; 



"5 '5 "§ 

3 rt ? 

xi co 

• -- r- ( cu 

-Q. O r-j 
rt > 4-> 


rd o 

cu 2 
as rt 

3 e 

o -S 



.rH TO 

rd CU 

£ "P 

ft^ « 

CU d <u 

bo rt 


co r-j 






rH CU 

O >i 


ft ^^ 

O lU r-H 

•3 d/2 

<U 4-1 H 


d>5 M 







d dr-2 

.d d ^3 


cu bo> 


d o <+H 


X o 
0) 3 

• > o 


CD Ji 

>- bo 

d tJ 

CU 03 
c to 

d H 



.2-5 . 

■"d to co 

3 4-> cu 

to .rt O 

VrH rr- 

CU rt 

o u o 




5— ( 


*4 d: 



co ■*-> 
§ ^ 

bo d 

JJH cu 

aj r P 


d ^ 

a> cu 

.5 03 
rd * 


cu «s3 

CU £ 


1 <*- 

13 to 

d d 


to - 
Jh rt 
tu ,0 



rt .5 
cu c_> 

rt p^ 

rd t,_ 

S3 * 

a p< 

u d 

d « 

bo d 
■C <u 

4-> *4— 1 1— I 

a o rt 

CU >-i 

b ^ 2 
bo cu d 

rW rj bO 






a ^-£ 

2 > " 

l*H CO 

e*% o 

O -3 o 

rt — ' 

d 4-> . 

— rt ,; 
<u rt bo 

H Pirr-J 

3 2 a> 
















« to 
to S3 

cu o 

d '""' 
d G 










.r-, 4-> C3 

. CU 

6 rtO 


«> Dn.rt 
4_> cu ■*- 
rt <J 

cucy2 o 



•^ to rt 
d in 

rt cu to 

d 4-. 

.S rH 

««+h d 

^ OU 

*5 co 

rt cu 




• d to 

a, rt 

W rrH 

d cu 










. to 
u rt . 
o a; rd 

bo > 

d cu P 

Ord « 
♦H 4-> rH 



H • rH 

O 'bo 

:z; d 

^3 'to 
bo O 

• ~^ rH 

to CU 

CU fH 

h2 bo 

44 d 

^O rt 

Hd -rH 

CU ^ T3 
d CU CU 

drd o- 

d rt '-' 

8 °^ 

I to „ 

rt rt d 

— ' ^ 09 

tj ° d 

rt co ^ 


to ^ Gn 

d 4-1 . 

O UTj 

rt, O C3 

b0"G ~ 

rn CO CO 

>. CU -rH 

•— ' d cu 
,h rt a, 

O d«*H 



bJ 3 d. 

d o 

d ; - , 

Cj CU 

CU r-j 

"^ CU 

*d bo 


rt CO 


d .rt 

, jr*. rH >^, 

c° rt rt 

rt 2 § 

^ dC 

rH •' H O 

rt bo -y 

rQ 4^ CU 
^>v ^ r-H 
r^rQ O 


> •*> cu 
cu *"* 

bo 2 

d >~> rt 

OrO > 








cr 1 












• r- « 







O 00 G 
d d > 

<U --H O 
> bO 

•d S >-. 

bo cu d 



i~~ 1 rt cH 

d ^^ 
■y d 

d S >> 


<-> d 
••> tu 

r2 ^ 8 

d 2 cu 
cu bo.S 

rH r— I 4-) 

.d to 
>, 2 • 

r-V • d CO 

^ ft d3 d 
3 o rt.o 


.5 co 7^ or: 


"dS co 

.5 o 

H J2_, 

*« r-H 

O to 

to o 

d +-» 

O rH 

d rt 

cu bo 

3 2 

to M 


•4— » 



+J CJ 

to cj 

cu cu 


^ ft 


bo cu 

o ° 


|H co 

co d.^ J 



rt rH 

CO irt 

• 1— c ^^ 

^ CO 
r-4 •« 

d <^ 




£ H3 

r] H) U 

to^d O 

CU 2 rP 

> g o 

r^ *— * 

— • cu o 

h-< > d 

f3 rH 

rtrd d 

rd O 

+3h y 

cu 2 

CJ d 

r-4 0J 
r*» d 

rP O 

rrt Ph' 

flj ^ 

o 2, 

d rH 

r o 

cu u 



* rH ""^T 

CO r-H 

3 <U 

rQ * 

rH »> 

O co 

«Hd 4-> 






-H . 

cu to 



cu —1 
d ^ 

O rH 

bo rt 
d d 

»- H CO . 

P4 5 <u ^, 

cu P 


X u 

cu rt 


d x5 
• rt o 

2~ b ^ * 

S G r- ^ 

O -rH Q r- 


d d 

rt rt 







o <*-> 

rQ P 

rt cu 
g cu 

•fi s 

d o 
cu co 

rt t «« 

cu bo 

t-. rt 

bo-P • 

I d co 

I rt d 

to CU O 

tO f ' j 

CJ rl U 

.S h £ 

^ 2 rt 

rt rd rt 

cu 4-> d 






























6, *«. 

*«. r> 'o <^ 



**«i r* ^\ ^ 

^ ^ Ci Si 
r -o 

N 2 


The following refers inter alia to a letter which appeared 
in 'Nature' (Sept. 25, 1873), "On the Males and Comple- 
mental Males of certain Cirripedes, and on Rudimentary 
Organs :"] 

C. Darwin to E. HaeckeL 

Down, September 25, 1873. 

My DEAR Hackel, — I thank you for the present of your 
book,* and I am heartily glad to see its great success. You 
will do a wonderful amount of good in spreading the doctrine 
of Evolution, supporting it as you do by so many original 
observations. I have read the new preface with very great 
interest. The delay in the appearance of the English trans- 
lation vexes and surprises me, for I have never been able to 
read it thoroughly in German, and I shall assuredly do so 
when it appears in English. Has the problem of the later 
stages of reduction of useless structures ever perplexed you ? 
This problem has of late caused me much perplexity. I have 
just written a letter to ^Nature' with a hypothetical explana- 
tion of this difficulty, and I will send you the paper with the 
passage marked. I will at the same time send a paper which 
has interested me ; it need not be returned. It contains a 
singular statement bearing on so-called Spontaneous Gener- 
ation. I much wish that this latter question could be settled, 
but I see no prospect of it. If it could be proved true this 
would be most important to us. . . . 

Wishing you every success in your admirable labours, 
I remain, my dear Hackel, yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

* ' Schopfungs-Geschichte,' 4th ed. The translation (' The History of 
Creation ') was not published until 1876. 

( i8i ) 



1874 AND 1875. 

[The year 1 874 was given up to ' Insectivorous Plants,' with 
the exception of the months devoted to the second edition of 
the ' Descent of Man,' (see Vol. III. p. 175) and with the further 
exception of the time given to a second edition of his ' Coral 
Reefs ' (1874). The Preface to the latter states that new facts 
have been added, the whole book revised, and " the latter 
chapters almost rewritten." In the Appendix some account 
is given of Professor Semper's objections, and this was the 
occasion of correspondence between that naturalist and my 
father. In Professor Semper's volume, ' Animal Life ' (one of 
the International Series), the author calls attention to the 
subject in the following passage which I give in German, the 
published English translation being, as it seems to me, 
incorrect : " Es scheint mir als ob er in der zweiten Ausgabe 
seines allgemein bekannten Werks iiber KorallenrirTe einem 
Irrthume iiber meine Beobachtungen zum Opfer gefallen ist, 
indem er die Angaben, die ich allerdings bisher immer nur 
sehr kurz gehalten hatte, vollstandig falsch wiedergegeben 

The proof-sheets containing this passage were sent by Pro- 
fessor Semper to my father before ' Animal Life ' was published, 
and this was the occasion for the following letter, which was 
afterwards published in Professor Semper's book.] 

1 82 MISCELLANEA. [1874. 

C. Darwin to K. Semper. 

Down, October 2, 1879. 

My dear Professor Semper, — I thank you for your 
extremely kind letter of the 19th, and for the proof-sheets. I 
believe that I understand all, excepting one or two sentences, 
where my imperfect knowledge of German has interfered. 
This is my sole and poor excuse for the mistake which I 
made in the second edition of my ' Coral ' book. Your 
account of the Pellew Islands is a fine addition to our know- 
ledge on coral reefs. I have very little to say on the subject, 
even if I had formerly read your account and seen your maps, 
but had known nothing of the proofs of recent elevation, 
and of your belief that the islands have not since subsided. I 
have no doubt that I should have considered them as formed 
during subsidence. But I should have been much troubled 
in my mind by the sea not being so deep as it usually is 
round atolls, and by the reef on one side sloping so gradually 
beneath the sea ; for this latter fact, as far as my memory 
serves me, is a very unusual and almost unparalleled case. I 
always foresaw that a bank at the proper depth beneath the 
surface would give rise to a reef which could not be distin- 
guished from an atoll, formed during subsidence. I must 
still adhere to my opinion, that the atolls and barrier reefs in 
the middle of the Pacific and Indian Oceans indicate subsi- 
dence ; but I fully agree with you that such cases as that of 
the Pellew Islands, if of at all frequent occurrence, would 
make my general conclusions of very little value. Future 
observers must decide between us. It will be a strange fact 
if there has not been subsidence of the beds of the great 
oceans, and if this has not affected the forms of the coral 

In the last three pages of the last sheet sent I am extremely 
glad to see that you are going to treat of the dispersion of 
animals. Your preliminary remarks seem to me quite ex- 


cellent. There is nothing about M. Wagner, as I expected 
to find. I suppose that you have seen Moseley's last book, 
which contains some good observations on dispersion. 

I am glad that your book will appear in English, for then I 
can read it with ease. Pray believe me, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The most recent criticism on the Coral-reef theory is by 
Mr. Murray, one of the staff of the Challenger, who read a 
paper before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, April 5, 1880.* 
The chief point brought forward is the possibility of the 
building up of submarine mountains, which may serve as 
foundations for coral reefs. Mr. Murray also seeks to prove 
that " the chief features of coral reefs and islands can be 
accounted for without calling in the aid of great and general 
subsidence." The following letter refers to this subject :] 

C. Darwin to A . Agassiz. 

Down, May 5, 188 1. 

. . . You will have seen Mr. Murray's views on the forma- 
tion of atolls and barrier reefs. Before publishing my book, I 
thought long over the same view, but only as far as ordinary 
marine organisms are concerned, for at that time little was 
known of the multitude of minute oceanic organisms. I 
rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the 
Beagle, in the south temperate regions, I concluded that shells, 
the smaller corals, &c, decayed, and were dissolved, when not 
protected by the deposition of sediment, and sediment could 
not accumulate in the open ocean. Certainly, shells, &c, 
were in several cases completely rotten, and crumbled into 
mud between my fingers ; but you will know well whether 

* An abstract is published in vol. x. of the ' Proceedings,' p. 505, and 
in ' Nature,' August 12, 1880. 

1 84 MISCELLANEA. [1874. 

this is in any degree common. I have expressly said that a 
bank at the proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which 
could not be distinguished from one formed during subsidence. 
I can, however, hardly believe in the former presence of as 
many banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are 
atolls in the great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which 
minute oceanic organisms could have accumulated to the thick- 
ness of many hundred feet. . . . Pray forgive me for troubling 
you at such length, but it has occurred [to me] that you 
might be disposed to give, after your wide experience, your 
judgment. If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the 
head and annihilated so much the better. It still seems to 
me a marvellous thing that there should not have been much, 
and long continued, subsidence in the beds of the great 
oceans. I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take 
it into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific 
and Indian atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a 
depth of 500 or 600 feet. . . . 

[The second edition of the ' Descent of Man ' was published 
in the autumn of 1874. Some severe remarks on the 
"monistic hypothesis" appeared in the July* number of 
the ' Quarterly Review ' (p. 45). The reviewer expresses his 
astonishment at the ignorance of certain elementary dis- 
tinctions and principles {e.g. with regard to the verbum 
mentale) exhibited, among others, by Mr. Darwin, who " does 
not exhibit the faintest indication of having grasped them, 
yet a clear perception of them, and a direct and detailed 
examination of his facts with regard to them, was a sine qua 
11011 for attempting, with a chance of success, the solution of 
the mystery as to the descent of man." 

Some further criticisms of a later date may be here alluded 
to. In the 'Academy,' 1876 (pp. 562, 587), appeared a review 
of Mr. Mivart's 'Lessons from Nature,' by Mr. Wallace. 

* The review necessarily deals with the first edition of the ' Descent 
of Man.' 

1 874.] MR. MIVART. 185 

When considering the part of Mr. Mivart's book relating to 
Natural and Sexual Selection, Mr. Wallace says : " In his 
violent attack on Mr. Darwin's theories our author uses 
unusually strong language. Not content with mere argu- 
ment, he expresses ' reprobation of Mr. Darwin's views ' ; and 
asserts that though he (Mr. Darwin) has been obliged, 
virtually, to give up his theory, it is still maintained by 
Darwinians with ' unscrupulous audacity,' and the actual 
repudiation of it concealed by the ' conspiracy of silence.' ' 
Mr. Wallace goes on to show that these charges are without 
foundation, and points out that, " If there is one thing more 
than another for which Mr. Darwin is pre-eminent among 
modern literary and scientific men, it is for his perfect literary 
honesty, his self-abnegation in confessing himself wrong, and 
the eager haste with which he proclaims and even magnifies 
small errors in his works, for the most part discovered by 

The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June 
17th) refers to Mr. Mivart's statement ('Lessons from Nature,' 
p. 144) that Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his views 
as to the " bestiality of man " : — 

" I have only just heard of and procured your two articles 
in the 'Academy.' I thank you most cordially for your 
generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the ' Origin ' 
I did not discuss the derivation of any one species ; but that 
I might not be accused of concealing my opinion, I went out 
of my way, and inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and 
still so seems) to disclose plainly my belief. This was quoted 
in my ' Descent of Man.' Therefore it is very unjust ... of 
Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base fraudulent concealment." 

The letter which here follows is of interest in connection 
with the discussion, in the ' Descent of Man,' on the origin of 
the musical sense in man :] 

1 86 MISCELLANEA. [ [1874. 

C. Darwin to E. Gurney* 

Down, July 8, 1876. 

My DEAR Mr. GURNEY, — I have read your article f with 
much interest, except the latter part, which soared above my 
ken. I am greatly pleased that you uphold my views to a 
certain extent. Your criticism of the rasping noise made by 
insects being necessarily rhythmical is very good ; but though 
not made intentionally, it may be pleasing to the females, 
from the nerve cells being nearly similar in function through- 
out the animal kingdom. With respect to your letter, I 
believe that I understand your meaning, and agree with you. 
I never supposed that the different degrees and kinds of 
pleasure derived from different music could be explained by 
the musical powers of our semi-human progenitors. Does 
not the fact that different people belonging to the same 
civilized nation are very differently affected by the same 
music, almost show that these diversities of taste and pleasure 
have been acquired during their individual lives ? Your 
simile of architecture seems to me particularly good ; for in 
this case the appreciation almost must be individual, though 
possibly the sense of sublimity excited by a grand cathedral 
may have some connection with the vague feelings of terror 
and superstition in our savage ancestors, when they entered 
a great cavern or gloomy forest. I wish some one could 
analyse the feeling of sublimity. It amuses me to think how 
horrified some high-flying aesthetic men will be, at your 
encouraging such low degraded views as mine. 

Believe me, yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The letters which follow are of a miscellaneous interest. 
The first extract (from a letter, Jan. 18, 1874) refers to 
a spiritualistic seance, held at Erasmus Darwin's house, 6 

* Author of ' The Power of Sound.' 

t " Some disputed Points in Music." — ' Fortnightly Review,' July 1876. 

1 874.] SPIRITUALISM. 187 

Queen Anne Street, under the auspices of a well-known 
medium : 

"... We had grand fun, one afternoon, for George hired a 
medium, who made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick, 
and fiery points jump about in my brother's dining-room, in a 
manner that astounded every one, and took away all their 
breaths. It was in the dark, but George and Hensleigh 
Wedgwood held the medium's hands and feet on both sides 
all the time. I found it so hot and tiring that I went away 
before all these astounding miracles, or jugglery, took place. 
How the man could possibly do what was done passes my 
understanding. I came downstairs, and saw all the chairs, 
&c, on the table, which had been lifted over the heads of 
those sitting round it. 

The Lord have mercy on us all, if we have to believe 
in such rubbish. F. Galton was there, and says it was a good 
seance. ..." 

The seance in question led to a smaller and more carefully 
organised one being undertaken, at which Mr. Huxley was 
present, and on which he reported to my father :] 

C. Darwin to Professor T. H. Huxley. 

Down, January 29 [1874]. 

My DEAR HUXLEY, — It was very good of you to write so 
long an account. Though the seance did tire you so much 
it was, I think, really worth the exertion, as the same sort of 

things are done at all the seances, even at 's ; and now to 

my mind an enormous weight of evidence would be requisite 
to make one believe in anything beyond mere trickery. . . . 
I am pleased to think that I declared to all my family, the 
day before yesterday, that the more I thought of all that 
I had heard happened at Queen Anne St., the more convinced 
I was it was all imposture .... my theory was that [the 

188 MISCELLANEA. [1874. 

medium] managed to get the two men on each side of him to 
hold each other's hands, instead of his, and that he was thus 
free to perform his antics. I am very glad that I issued my 
ukase to you to attend. 

Yours affectionately, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[In the spring of this year (1874) he read a book which 
gave him great pleasure and of which he often spoke with 
admiration : — The ' Naturalist in Nicaragua/ by the late 
Thomas Belt. Mr. Belt, whose untimely death may well be 
deplored by naturalists, was by profession an Engineer, so 
that all his admirable observations in natural history, in 
Nicaragua and elsewhere, were the fruit of his leisure. The 
book is direct and vivid in style and is full of description and 
suggestive discussions. With reference to it my father 
wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : — 

11 Belt I have read, and I am delighted that you like it so 
much ; it appears to me the best of all natural history 
journals which have ever been published."] 

C. Darwin to the Marquis de Saporta. 

Down, May 30, 1874. 

Dear Sir, — I have been very neglectful in not having 
sooner thanked you for your kindness in having sent me your 
' Etudes sur la Vegetation,' &c, and other memoirs. I have 
read several of them with very great interest, and nothing can 
be more important, in my opinion, than your evidence of the 
extremely slow and gradual manner in which specific forms 
change. I observe that M. A. De Candolle has lately quoted 
you on this head versus Heer. I hope that you may be able 
to throw light on the question whether such protean, or poly- 
morphic forms, as those of Rubus, Hieracium, &c, at the 
present day, are those which generate new species j as for 

1 874-] 



myself, I have always felt some doubt on this head. I trust 
that you may soon bring many of your countrymen to believe 
in Evolution, and my name will then perhaps cease to be 
scorned. With the most sincere respect, I remain, dear Sir, 

Yours faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

Down, June 5 [1874]. 

My dear Gray, — I have now read your article * in 
1 Nature,' and the last two paragraphs were not included in 
the slip sent before. I wrote yesterday and cannot remember 
exactly what I said, and now cannot be easy without again 
telling you how profoundly I have been gratified. Every one, 
I suppose, occasionally thinks that he has worked in vain, and 
when one of these fits overtakes me, I will think of your 
article, and if that does not dispel the evil spirit, I shall know 
that I am at the time a little bit insane, as we all are 

What you say about Teleologyf pleases me especially, and I 
do not think any one else J has ever noticed the point. I have 
always said you were the man to hit the nail on the head. 

Yours gratefully and affectionately, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[As a contribution to the history of the reception of the 
1 Origin of Species,' the meeting of the British Association in 
1874, at Belfast, should be mentioned. It is memorable for 

* The article, " Charles Darwin," 
in the series of Scientific Worthies 
(' Nature,' June 4, 1874). This ad- 
mirable estimate of my father's work 
in science is given in the form of a 
comparison and contrast between 
Robert Brown and Charles Darwin. 

t "Let us recognise Darwin's 

great service to Natural Science in 
bringing back to it Teleology : so 
that instead of Morphology versus 
Teleology, we shall have Morpho- 
logy wedded to Teleology." 

X Similar remarks had been pre- 
viously made by Mr. Huxley. See 
Vol. II. p. 201. 

190 MISCELLANEA. [1874. 

Professor Tyndall's brilliant presidential address, in which a 
sketch of the history of Evolution is given, culminating in an 
eloquent analysis of the ' Origin of Species/ and of the nature 
of its great success. With regard to Prof. Tyndall's address, 
Lyell wrote (* Life,' vol. ii. p. 455) congratulating my father 
on the meeting, " on which occasion you and your theory of 
Evolution may be fairly said to have had an ovation." In 
the same letter Sir Charles speaks of a paper * by Professor 
Judd, and it is to this that the following letter refers :] 

C. Darwin to C. Lyell. 

Down, September 23, 1874. 

My dear Lyell, — I suppose that you have returned, or 
will soon return, to London ; f and, I hope, reinvigorated by 
your outing. In your last letter you spoke of Mr. Judd's paper 
on the Volcanoes of the Hebrides. I have just finished it, 
and to ease my mind must express my extreme admiration. 

It is years since I have read a purely geological paper 
which has interested me so greatly. I was all the more 
interested, as in the Cordillera I often speculated on the 
sources of the deluges of submarine porphyritic lavas, of 
which they are built ; and, as I have stated, I saw to a 
certain extent the causes of the obliteration of the points of 
eruption. I was also not a little pleased to see my volcanic 
book quoted, for I thought it was completely dead and 
forgotten. What fine work will Mr. Judd assuredly do ! . . . . 
Now I have eased my mind ; and so farewell, with both 
E. D.'s and C. D.'s very kind remembrances to Miss Lyell. 

Yours affectionately, 

Charles Darwin. 

* "On the Ancient Volcanoes f Sir Charles Lyell returned from 

of the Highlands." — 'Journal of Scotland towards the end of Sep- 
Geolog. Soc.,' 1874. tember. 

1 874.] ANTS. 191 

[Sir Charles Lyell's reply to the above letter must have 
been one of the latest that my father received from his old 
friend, and it is with this letter that the last volume of 
Lyell's published correspondence closes.] 

C. Darwin to Aug. For el. 


Down, October 15, 1874. 

My DEAR Sir, — I have now read the whole of your admir- 
able work * and seldom in my life have I been more in- 
terested by any book. There are so many interesting facts 
and discussions, that I hardly know which to specify ; but I 
think, firstly, the newest points to me have been about the 
size of the brain in the three sexes, together with your sugges- 
tion that increase of mind-power may have led to the sterility 
of the workers. Secondly about the battles of the ants, and 
your curious account of the enraged ants being held by their 
comrades until they calmed down. Thirdly, the evidence of 
ants of the same community being the offspring of brothers 
and sisters. You admit, I think, that new communities will 
often be the product of a cross between not-related ants. 
Fritz Miiller has made some interesting observations on this 
head with respect to Termites. The case of Anergates is 
most perplexing in many ways, but I have such faith in the 
law of occasional crossing that I believe an explanation will 
hereafter be found, such as the dimorphism of either sex and 
the occasional production of winged males. I see that you 
are puzzled how ants of the same community recognize each 
other ; I once placed two (F. rufci) in a pill-box smelling 
strongly of asafcetida and after a day returned them to their 
homes ; they were threatened, but at last recognized. I 
made the trial thinking that they might know each other by 

* < 

Les Fourmis de la Suisse,' 4to, 1874. 

I92 MISCELLANEA. [1874. 

their odour ; but this cannot have been the case, and I have 
often fancied that they must have some common signal. 
Your last chapter is one great mass of wonderful facts and 
suggestions, and the whole profoundly interesting. I have 
seldom been more gratified than by [your] honourable mention 
of my work. 

I should like to tell you one little observation which I 
made with care many years ago ; I saw ants (Formica rtifd) 
carrying cocoons from a nest which was the largest I ever saw 
and which was well known to all the country people near, and 
an old man, apparently about eighty years of age, told me 
that he had known it ever since he was a boy. The ants 
carrying the cocoons did not appear to be emigrating ; 
following the line, I saw many ascending a tall fir-tree still 
carrying their cocoons. But when I looked closely I found 
that all the cocoons were empty cases. This astonished me, 
and next day I got a man to observe with me, and we again 
saw ants bringing empty cocoons out of the nest ; each of us 
fixed on one ant and slowly followed it, and repeated the 
observation on many others. We thus found that some ants 
soon dropped their empty cocoons ; others carried them for 
many yards, as much as thirty paces, and others carried them 
high up the fir-tree out of sight. Now here I think we have 
one instinct in contest with another and mistaken one. The 
first instinct being to carry the empty cocoons out of the nest, 
and it would have been sufficient to have laid them on the 
heap of rubbish, as the first breath of wind would have blown 
them away. And then came in the contest with the other 
very powerful instinct of preserving and carrying their 
cocoons as long as possible ; and this they could not help 
doing although the cocoons were empty. According as the 
one or other instinct was the stronger in each individual ant, 
so did it carry the empty cocoon to a greater or less distance. 
If this little observation should ever prove of any use to you, 
you are quite at liberty to use it. Again thanking you 

1 874.] 'COSMIC PHILOSOPHY.' 193 

cordially for the great pleasure which your work has given 
me, I remain with much respect, 

Yours sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. — If you read English easily I should like to send 
you Mr. Belt's book, as I think you would like it as much as 
did Fritz Mullen 

C. Darwin to J. Fiske. 

Down, December 8, 1874. 

My dear Sir, — You must allow me to thank you for the 
very great interest with which I have at last slowly read the 
whole of your work.* I have long wished to know some- 
thing about the views of the many great men whose doctrines 
you give. With the exception of special points I did not 
even understand H. Spencer's general doctrine ; for his style 
is too hard work for me. I never in my life read so lucid an 
expositor (and therefore thinker) as you are ; and I think 
that I understand nearly the whole — perhaps less clearly 
about Cosmic Theism and Causation than other parts. It is 
hopeless to attempt out of so much to specify what has 
'interested me most, and probably you would not care to hear. 
I wish some chemist would attempt to ascertain the result of 
the cooling of heated gases of the proper kinds, in relation 
to your hypothesis of the origin of living matter. It pleased 
me to find that here and there I had arrived from my own 
crude thoughts at some of the same conclusions with you ; 
though I could seldom or never have given my reasons for 
such conclusions. I find that my mind is so fixed by the 
inductive method, that I cannot appreciate deductive reason- 
ing : I must begin with a good body of facts and not from a 
principle (in which I always suspect some fallacy) and then 

* ' Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy,' 2 vols. 8vo. 1874. 

194 MISCELLANEA. [ l ^7S- 

as much deduction as you please. This may be very narrow- 
minded ; but the result is that such parts of H. Spencer as I 
have read with care impress my mind with the idea of his 
inexhaustible wealth of suggestion, but never convince me ; 
and so I find it with some others. I believe the cause to lie 
in the frequency with which I have found first-formed 
theories [to be] erroneous. I thank you for the honourable 
mention which you make of my works. Parts of the 
1 Descent of Man ' must have appeared laughably weak to 
you : nevertheless, I have sent you a new edition just 
published. Thanking you for the profound interest and 
profit with which I have read your work, I remain, 

My dear Sir, yours very faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 


[The only work, not purely botanical, which occupied my 
father in the present year was the correction of the second 
edition of ' The Variation of Animals and Plants,' and on this 
he was engaged from the beginning of July till October 3rd. 
The rest of the year was taken up with his work on in- 
sectivorous plants, and on cross-fertilisation, as will be shown 
in a later chapter. The chief alterations in the second edition 
of 'Animals and Plants' are in the eleventh chapter on " Bud- 
variation and on certain anomalous modes of reproduction ; ' ! 
the chapter on Pangenesis "was also largely altered and re- 
modelled." He mentions briefly some of the authors who 
have noticed the doctrine. Professor Delpino's ' Sulla Dar- 
winiana Teoria della Pangenesi ' (1869), an adverse but fair 
criticism, seems to have impressed him as valuable. Of 
another critic my father characteristically says,* " Dr. Lionel 
Beale ('Nature,' May 11, 1871, p. 26) sneers at the whole 
doctrine with much acerbity and some justice." He also 

* 1 

Animals and Plants,' 2nd edit. vol. ii. p. 350. 


points out that, in Mantegazza's ' Elementi di Igiene,' the 
theory of Pangenesis was clearly forestalled. 

In connection with this subject, a letter of my father's to 
1 Nature' (April 27, 1871) should be mentioned. A paper by 
Mr. Galton had been read before the Royal Society (March 
30, 1 871) in which were described experiments, on intertrans- 
fusion of blood, designed to test the truth of the hypothesis 
•of pangenesis. My father, while giving all due credit to Mr. 
Galton for his ingenious experiments, does not allow that 
pangenesis has " as yet received its death-blow, though from 
presenting so many vulnerable points its life is always in 

He seems to have found the work of correcting very 
wearisome, for he wrote : — 

" I have no news about myself, as I am merely slaving over 
the sickening work of preparing new editions. I wish I could 
get a touch of poor Lyell's feelings, that it was delightful to 
improve a sentence, like a painter improving a picture." 

The feeling of effort or strain over this piece of work, is 
shown in a letter to Professor Haeckel : — 

" What I shall do in future if I live, Heaven only knows ; 
I ought perhaps to avoid general and large subjects, as too 
difficult for me with my advancing years, and I suppose 
enfeebled brain." 

At the end of March, in this year, the portrait for which he 
was sitting to Mr. Ouless was finished. He felt the sittings a 
great fatigue, in spite of Mr. Ouless's considerate desire to 
spare him as far as was possible. In a letter to Sir J. D. 
Hooker he wrote, " I look a very venerable, acute, melan- 
choly old dog ; whether I really look so I do not know." 
The picture is in the possession of the family, and is known 
to many through M. Rajon's etching. Mr. Ouless's portrait 
is, in my opinion, the finest representation of my father that 
has been produced. 

The following letter refers to the death of Sir Charles Lyell, 

O 2 

196 MISCELLANEA. [1875. 

which took place on February 22nd, 1875, in his seventy- 
eighth year.] 

C. Darwin to Miss Buckley (now Mrs. Fisher)* 

Down, February 23, 1875. 

My dear Miss Buckley, — I am grieved to hear of the 
death of my old and kind friend, though I knew that it could 
not be long delayed, and that it was a happy thing that his 
life should not have been prolonged, as I suppose that his 
mind would inevitably have suffered. I am glad that Lady 
Lyell f has been saved this terrible blow. His death makes 
me think of the time when I first saw him, and how full of 
sympathy and interest he was about what I could tell him of 
coral reefs and South America. I think that this sympathy 
with the work of every other naturalist was one of the finest- 
features of his character. How completely he revolutionised 
Geology : for I can remember something of pre-Lyellian days. 

I never forget that almost everything which I have done in 
science I owe to the study of his great works. Well, he has 
had a grand and happy career, and no one ever worked with a 
truer zeal in a noble cause. It seems strange to me that I 
shall never again sit with him and Lady Lyell at their break- 
fast. I am very much obliged to you for having so kindly 
written to me. 

Pray give our kindest remembrances to Miss Lyell, and I 
hope that she has not suffered much in health, from fatigue 
and anxiety. 

Believe me, my dear Miss Buckley, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

* Mrs. Fisher acted as Secretary f Lad Y L Y e11 die( l in l8 73- 

to Sir Charles Lyell. 

j 875.] lyell's death. 197 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, February 25 [1875]. 

My DEAR Hooker, — Your letter so full of feeling has 
Interested me greatly. I cannot say that I felt his [Lyell's] 
death much, for I fully expected it, and have looked for some 
little time at his career as finished. 

I dreaded nothing so much as his surviving with impaired 
mental powers. He was, indeed, a noble man in very many 
ways ; perhaps in none more than in his warm sympathy with 
the work of others. How vividly I can recall my first con- 
versation with him, and how he astonished me by his interest 
in what I told him. How grand also was his candour and 
pure love of truth. Well, he is gone, and I feel as if we were 
all soon to go. ... I am deeply rejoiced about West- 
minster Abbey,* the possibility of which had not occurred to 
me when I wrote before. I did think that his works were the 
most enduring of all testimonials (as you say) to him ; but 
then I did not like the idea of his passing away with no out- 
ward sign of what scientific men thought of his merits. Now 
all this is changed, and nothing can be better than West- 
minster Abbey. Mrs. Lyell has asked me to be one of the 
pall-bearers, but I have written to say that I dared not, as I 
should so likely fail in the midst of the ceremony, and have 
my head whirling off my shoulders. All this affair must have 
cost you much fatigue and worry, and how I do wish you 
were out of England. . . . 

[In 1 88 1 he wrote to Mrs. Fisher in reference to her article 
on Sir Charles Lyell in the ' Encyclopaedia Britannica ' : — 

" For such a publication I suppose you do not want to say 
much about his private character, otherwise his strong sense 
of humour and love of society might have been added. Also 
his extreme interest in the progress of the world, and in the 

* Sir Charles Lyell was buried in Westminster Abbey. 

198 MISCELLANEA. [1875. 

happiness of mankind. Also his freedom from all religious 
bigotry, though these perhaps would be a superfluity." 

The following refers to the Zoological station at Naples, a 
subject on which my father felt an enthusiastic interest :] 

C. Darwin to Anto?i Dohrn. 

Down [1875 ?]• 

My DEAR Dr. DOHRN, — Many thanks for your most kind 
letter. I most heartily rejoice [at your improved health and 
at the success of your grand undertaking, which will have 
so much influence on the progress of Zoology throughout 

If we look to England alone, what capital work has already 

been done at the Station by Balfour and Ray Lankester 

When you come to England, I suppose that you will bring 
Mrs. Dohrn, and we shall be delighted to see you both here. 
I have often boasted that I have had a live Uhlan in my 
house ! It will be very interesting to me to read your new 
views on the ancestry of the Vertebrates. I shall be sorry to 
give up the Ascidians, to whom I feel profound gratitude ; but 
the great thing, as it appears to me, is that any link whatever 
should be found between the main divisions of the Animal 
Kingdom. . . . 

C. Darwin to August Weismann. 

Down, December 6, 1875. 

My DEAR Sir, — I have been profoundly interested by your 
essay on Amblystoma,* and think that you have removed a 
great stumbling-block in the way of Evolution. I once thought 
of reversion in this case ; but in a crude and imperfect manner. 
I write now to call your attention to the sterility of moths 
when hatched out of their proper season ; I give references in 
chapter 18 of my 'Variation under Domestication' (vol. ii. 

* c Umwandlung des Axolotl.' 




p. 157, of English edition), and these cases illustrate, I think, 
the sterility of Amblystoma. Would it not be worthwhile to 
examine the reproductive organs of those individuals of whig- 
less Hemiptera which occasionally have wings, as in the case 
of the bed-bug? I think I have heard that the females of 
Mutilla sometimes have wings. These cases must be due to 
reversion. I dare say many anomalous cases will be hereafter 
explained on the same principle. 

I hinted at this explanation in the extraordinary case of 
the black-shouldered peacock, the so-called Pavo nigripennis 
given in my ' Var. under Domest. ; ' and I might have been 
bolder, as the variety is in many respects intermediate between 
the two known species. 

With much respect, 

Yours sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 


[It was in November 1875 that my father gave his evidence 
before the Royal Commission on Vivisection.* I have, there- 
fore, placed together here the matter relating to this subject, 
irrespective of date. Something has already been said of my 
father's strong feeling with regard to suffering f both in man 
and beast. It was indeed one of the strongest feelings in his 
nature, and was exemplified in matters small and great, in 
his sympathy with the educational miseries of dancing dogs, 
or in his horror at the sufferings of slaves. 

* See Vol. I. p. 141. 

f He once made an attempt to 
free a patient in a mad-house, who 
(as he wrongly supposed) was sane. 
He had some correspondence with 
the gardener at the asylum, and on 
one occasion he found a letter from 
a patient enclosed with one from 
the gardener. The letter was ra- 

tional in tone and declared that 
the writer was sane and wrongfully 

My father wrote to the Lunacy 
Commissioners (without explaining 
the source of his information) and 
in due time heard that the man had 
been visited by the Commissioners, 
and that he was certainly insane. 


200 MISCELLANEA. [1875. 

The remembrance of screams, or other sounds heard in 
Brazil, when he was powerless to interfere with what he 
believed to be the torture of a slave, haunted him for years, 
especially at night. In smaller matters, where he could inter- 
fere, he did so vigorously. He returned one day from his walk 
pale and faint frOm having seen a horse ill-used, and from the 
agitation of violently remonstrating with the man. On 
another occasion he saw a horse-breaker teaching his son to 
ride, the little boy was frightened and the man was rough ; 
my father stopped, and jumping out of the carriage reproved 
the man in no measured terms. 

One other little incident may be mentioned, showing that 
his humanity to animals was well known in his own neigh- 
bourhood. A visitor, driving from Orpington to Down, told 
the cabman to go faster. "Why," said the man, "if I had 
whipped the horse this much, driving Mr. Darwin, he would 
have got out of the carriage and abused me well." 

With respect to the special point under consideration, — the 
sufferings of animals subjected to experiment, — nothing could 
show a stronger feeling than the following extract from a 
letter to Professor Ray Lankester (March 22, 1871) : — 

" You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree 
that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology ; but 
not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a 
subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say 
another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night." 

An extract from Sir Thomas Farrer's notes shows how 
strongly he expressed himself in a similar manner in con- 
versation : — 

" The last time I had any conversation with him was at my 
house in Bryanston Square, just before one of his last seizures. 
He was then deeply interested in the vivisection question ; 

Some time afterwards the patient that he had undoubtedly been in- 
was discharged, and wrote to thank sane when he wrote his former 
my father for his interference, adding letter. 

1 87 5-] VIVISECTION. 201 

and what he said made a deep impression on me. He was a 
man eminently fond of animals and tender to them ; he would 
not knowingly have inflicted pain on a living creature ; but 
he entertained the strongest opinion that to prohibit experi- 
ments on living animals, would be to put a stop to the know- 
ledge of and the remedies for pain and disease." 

The Anti- Vivisection agitation, to which the following 
letters refer, seems to have become specially active in 1874, as 
may be seen, e.g. by the index to ' Nature ' for that year, in 
which the word " Vivisection " suddenly comes into promi- 
nence. But before that date the subject had received the 
earnest attention of biologists. Thus at the Liverpool 
Meeting of the British Association in 1870, a Committee 
was appointed, whose report defined the circumstances and 
conditions under which, in the opinion of the signatories, 
experiments on living animals were justifiable. In the spring 
of 1875, Lord Hartismere introduced a Bill into the Upper 
House to regulate the course of physiological research. 
Shortly afterwards a Bill more just towards science in its 
provisions was introduced to the House of Commons by 
Messrs. Lyon Playfair, Walpole, and Ashley. It was 
however, withdrawn on the appointment of a Royal Com- 
mission to inquire into the whole question. The Commis- 
sioners were Lords Cardwell and Winmarleigh, Mr. W. E. 
Forster, Sir J. B. Karslake, Mr. Huxley, Professor Erichssen, 
and Mr. R. H. Hutton : they commenced their inquiry in 
July, 1875, and the Report was published early in the follow- 
ing year. 

In the early summer of 1876, Lord Carnarvon's Bill, 
entitled, " An Act to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to 
Animals," was introduced. It cannot be denied that the 
framers of this Bill, yielding to the unreasonable clamour of 
the public, went far beyond the recommendations of the 
Royal Commission. As a correspondent in ' Nature ' put it 
(1876, p. 248), " the evidence on the strength of which legisla- 

202 MISCELLANEA. [1875. 

tion was recommended went beyond the facts, the Report 
went beyond the evidence, the Recommendations beyond the 
Report ; and the Bill can hardly be said to have gone beyond 
the Recommendations ; but rather to have contradicted them." 
The legislation which my father worked for, as described 
in the following letters, was practically what was introduced 
as Dr. Lyon Playfair's Bill.] 

C. Darwin to Mrs. 'Litchfield* 

January 4, 1875. 

MY DEAR H. — Your letter has led me to think over vivisec- 
tion (I wish some new word like anses-section could be 
invented t) for some hours, and I will jot down my conclu- 
sions, which will appear very unsatisfactory to you. I have 
long thought physiology one of the greatest of sciences, sure 
sooner, or more probably later, greatly to benefit mankind ; 
but, judging from all other sciences, the benefits will accrue 
only indirectly in the search for abstract truth. It is certain 
that physiology can progress only by experiments on living 
animals. Therefore the proposal to limit research to points 
of which we can now see the bearings in regard to health, &c, 
I look at as puerile. I thought at first it would be good to 
limit vivisection to public laboratories ; but I have heard only 
of those in London and Cambridge, and I think Oxford ; but 
probably there may be a few others. Therefore only men 
living in a few great towns would carry on investigation, and 
this I should consider a great evil. If private men were per- 
mitted to work in their own houses, and required a licence, I 
do not see who is to determine whether any particular man 
should receive one. It is young unknown men who are the 

* His daughter. abstract of which was published 

f He communicated to ' Nature' (p. 517). Dr. Wilder advocated the 

(Sept. 30, 1880) an article by Dr. use of the word ' Callisection ' for 

Wilder, of Cornell University, an painless operations on animals. 

1 875.] VIVISECTION. 20 


most likely to do good work. I would gladly punish severely 
any one who operated on an animal not rendered insensible, if 
the experiment made this possible ; but here again I do not 
see that a magistrate or jury could possibly determine such a 
point. Therefore I conclude, if (as is likely) some experi- 
ments have been tried too often, or anaesthetics have not been 
used when they could have been, the cure must be in the 
improvement of humanitarian feelings. Under this point of 
view I have rejoiced at the present agitation. If stringent 
laws are passed, and this is likely, seeing how unscientific the 
House of Commons is, and that the gentlemen of England 
are humane, as long as their sports are not considered, which 
entail a hundred or thousand-fold more suffering than the 
experiments of physiologists — if such laws are passed, the 
result will assuredly be that physiology, w r hich has been until 
within the last few years at a standstill in England, will 
languish or quite cease. It will then be carried on solely on 
the Continent ; and there will be so many the fewer workers 
on this grand subject, and this I should greatly regret. By 
the way, F. Balfour, who has worked for two or three years 
in the laboratory at Cambridge, declares to George that he 
has never seen an experiment, except with animals rendered 
insensible. No doubt the names of doctors will have great 
weight with the House of Commons ; but very many prac- 
titioners neither know nor care anything about the progress 
of knowledge. I cannot at present see my way to sign any 
petition, without hearing what physiologists thought would 
be its effect, and then judging for myself. I certainly could 
not sign the paper sent me by Miss Cobbe, with its monstrous 
(as it seems to me) attack on Virchow for experimenting on 
the Trichinae. I am tired and so no more. 

Yours affectionately, 
Charles Darwin. 

204 MISCELLANEA. [1875. 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, April 14 [1875]. 
My DEAR HOOKER. — I worked all the time in London on 
the vivisection question ; and we now think it advisable to go 
further than a mere petition. Litchfield* drew up a sketch 
of a Bill, the essential features of which have been approved 
by Sanderson, Simon and Huxley, and from conversation, 
will, I believe, be approved by Paget, and almost certainly, I 
think, by Michael Foster. Sanderson, Simon and Paget wish 
me to see Lord Derby, and endeavour to gain his advocacy 
with the Home Secretary. Now, if this is carried into effect, 
it will be of great importance to me to be able to say that the 
Bill in its essential features has the approval of some half- 
dozen eminent scientific men. I have therefore asked 
Litchfield to enclose a copy to you in its first rough form ; 
and if it is not essentially modified, may I say that it meets 
with your approval as President of the Royal Society ? The 
object is to protect animals, and at the same time not to 
injure Physiology, and Huxley and Sanderson's approval 
almost suffices on this head. Pray let me have a line from 
you soon. 

Yours affectionately, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The Physiological Society, which was founded in 1876, was 
in some measure the outcome of the anti-vivisection move- 
ment, since it was this agitation which impressed on Physiolo- 
gists the need of a centre for those engaged in this particular 
branch of science. With respect to the Society, my father 
wrote to Mr. Romanes (May 29, 1876) : — 

" I was very much gratified by the wholly unexpected 
honour of being elected one of the Honorary Members. 
This mark of sympathy has pleased me to a very high 

* Mr. R. B. Litchfield, his son-in-law. 

1 875.] VIVISECTION. 205 

The following letter appeared in the Times, April 18th, 
1 881:] 


C, Darwin to Frithiof Holmgren. 

Down, April 14, i88r. 

Dear Sir, — In answer to your courteous letter of April 7, 
I have no objection to express my opinion with respect to 
the right of experimenting on living animals. I use this latter 
expression as more correct and comprehensive than that of 
vivisection. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter 
which you may think fit, but if published I should wish the 
whole to appear. I have all my life been a strong advocate 
for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my 
writings to enforce this duty. Several years ago, when the 
agitation against physiologists commenced in England, it 
was asserted that inhumanity was here practised, and useless 
suffering caused to animals ; and I was led to think that it 
might be advisable to have an Act of Parliament on the 
subject. I then took an active part in trying to get a Bill 
passed, such as would have removed all just cause of com- 
plaint, and at the same time have left physiologists free to 
pursue their researches, — a Bill very different from the Act 
which has since been passed. It is right to add that the 
investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved 
that the accusations made against our English physiologists 
were false. From all that I have heard, however, I fear that 
in some parts of Europe little regard is paid to the sufferings 
of animals, and if this be the case, I should be glad to hear of 
legislation against inhumanity in any such country. On the 
other hand, I know that physiology cannot possibly progress 
except by means of experiments on living animals, and I 
feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress 
of physiology commits a crime against mankind. Any one 

* Professor of Physiology at Upsala. 

206 MISCELLANEA. [1875. 

who remembers, as I can, the state of this science half a 
century ago, must admit that it has made immense progress, 
and it is now progressing at an ever-increasing rate. What 
improvements in medical practice may be directly attributed 
to physiological research is a question which can be properly 
discussed only by those physiologists and medical practitioners 
who have studied the history of their subjects ; but, as far as 
I can learn, the benefits are already great. However this may 
be, no one, unless he is grossly ignorant of what science has 
done for mankind, can entertain any doubt of the incalculable 
benefits which will hereafter be derived from physiology, not 
only by man, but by the lower animals. Look for instance 
at Pasteur's results in modifying the germs of the most 
malignant diseases, from which, as it so happens, animals will 
in the first place receive more relief than man. Let it be 
remembered how many lives and what a fearful amount of 
suffering have been saved by the knowledge gained of 
parasitic worms through the experiments of Virchow and 
others on living animals. In the future every one will be 
astonished at the ingratitude shown, at least in England, to 
these benefactors of mankind. As for myself, permit me to 
assure you that I honour, and shall always honour, every one 
who advances the noble science of physiology. 

Dear Sir, yours faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

[In the Times of the following day appeared a letter headed 
" Mr. Darwin and Vivisection," signed by Miss Frances Power 
Cobbe. To this my father replied in the Times of April 22, 
1 88 1. On the same day he wrote to Mr. Romanes : — 

" As I have a fair opportunity, I sent a letter to the Times 
on Vivisection, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to 
bear my share of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner 
on all physiologists."] 

1 875.] VIVISECTION. 207 

C. Darwin to the Editor of the ' Times! 

Sir, — I do not wish to discuss the views expressed by 
Miss Cobbe in the letter which appeared in the Times of the 
19th inst. ; but as she asserts that I have "misinformed" my 
correspondent in Sweden in saying that "the investigation of 
the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accu- 
sations made against our English physiologists were false," 
I will merely ask leave to refer to some other sentences 
from the report of the Commission. 

(1.) The sentence — " It is not to be doubted that in- 
humanity may be found in persons of very high position as 
physiologists," which Miss Cobbe quotes from page 17 of the 
report, and which, in her opinion, "can necessarily concern 
English physiologists alone and not foreigners," is imme- 
diately followed by the words " We have seen that it was so 
in Majendie." Majendie was a French physiologist who 
became notorious some half century ago for his cruel 
experiments on living animals. 

(2.) The Commissioners, after speaking of the "general 
sentiment of humanity " prevailing in this country, say 
(p. 10) :— 

"This principle is accepted generally by the very highly 
educated men whose lives are devoted either to scientific 
investigation and education or to the mitigation or the 
removal of the sufferings of their fellow-creatures ; though 
differences of degree in regard to its practical application 
will be easily discernible by those who study the evidence as 
it has been laid before us." 

Again, according to the Commissioners (p. 10) : — 

" The secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals, when asked whether the general tendency 
of the scientific world in this country is at variance with 
humanity, says he believes it to be very different, indeed, 
from that of foreign physiologists ; and while giving it as the 

208 MISCELLANEA. [1875.. 

opinion of the society that experiments are performed which 
are in their nature beyond any legitimate province of science, 
and that the pain which they inflict is pain which it is not 
justifiable to inflict even for the scientific object in view, he 
readily acknowledges that he does not know a single case of 
wanton cruelty, and that in general the English physiologists 
have used anaesthetics where they think they can do so with 
safety to the experiment." 

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 

Charles Darwin. 

April 21. 

[In the Times of Saturday, April 23, 188 1, appeared a 
letter from Miss Cobbe in reply.] 

C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes. 

Down, April 25, 1881. 

My dear Romanes, — I was very glad to read your last 
note with much news interesting to me. But I write now to 
say how I, and indeed all of us in the house, have admired 
your letter in the Times* It was so simple and direct. I was 
particularly glad about Burdon Sanderson, of whom I have 
been for several years a great admirer. I was also especially 
elad to read the last sentences. I have been bothered with 


several letters, but none abusive. Under a selfish point of 
view I am very glad of the publication of your letter, as I 
was at first inclined to think that I had done mischief by 
stirring up the mud. Now I feel sure that I have done good- 
Mr. Jesse has written to me very politely, he says his Society 
has had nothing to do with placards and diagrams against 
physiology, and I suppose, therefore, that these all originate 
with Miss Cobbe Mr. Jesse complains bitterly that the 

* April 25, 1 88 1. — Mr. Romanes defended Dr. Sanderson against the 
accusations made by Miss Cobbe. 

1 87 5.] VIVISECTION. 209 

Times will " burke " all his letters to this newspaper, nor am 
I surprised, judging from the laughable tirades advertised in 
' Nature.' 

Ever yours, very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[The next letter refers to a projected conjoint article on 
vivisection, to which Mr. Romanes wished my father to 
contribute :] 

C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes. 

Down, September 2, 1881. 

My dear Romanes, — Your letter has perplexed me 
beyond all measure. I fully recognise the duty of every one 
whose opinion is worth anything, expressing his opinion pub- 
licly on vivisection ; and this made me send my letter to the 
Times. I have been thinking at intervals all morning what I 
could say, and it is the simple truth that I have nothing worth 
saying. You and men like you, whose ideas flow freely, and 
who can express them easily, cannot understand the state 
of mental paralysis in which I find myself. What is most 
wanted is a careful and accurate attempt to show what physi- 
ology has already done for man, and even still more strongly 
what there is every reason to believe it will hereafter do. 
Now I am absolutely incapable of doing this, or of discussing 
the other points suggested by you. 

If you wish for my name (and I should be glad that it 
should appear with that of others in the same cause), could 
you not quote some sentence from my letter in the Times 
which I enclose, but please return it. If you thought fit you 
might say you quoted it with my approval, and that after still 
further reflection I still abide most strongly in my expressed 

For Heaven's sake, do think of this. I do not grudge 
the labour and thought ; but I could write nothing worth 
any one reading. 

VOL. III. p 

210 MISCELLANEA. [1875. 

Allow me to demur to your calling your conjoint article a 
" symposium " strictly a " drinking party." This seems to me 
very bad taste, and I do hope every one of you will avoid any 
semblance of a joke on the subject. I knoiu that words, like 
a joke, on this subject have quite disgusted some persons not 
at all inimical to physiology. One person lamented to me 
that Mr. Simon, in his truly admirable Address at the Medical 
Congress (by far the best thing which I have read), spoke of 
the fantastic sensuality* (or some such term) of the many 
mistaken, but honest men and women who are half mad on 
the subject. . . . 

[To Dr. Lauder Brunton my father wrote in February 
1882 :— 

"Have you read Mr. [Edmund] Gurney's articles in the * Fort- 
nightly' f and ' Cornhill ' ? % They seem to me very clever, 
though obscurely written, and I agree with almost everything 
he says, except with some passages which appear to imply that 
no experiments should be tried unless some immediate good 
can be predicted, and this is a gigantic mistake contradicted 
by the whole history of science."] 

* 'Transactions of the Interna- f "A chapter in the Ethics of 

tional Medical Congress,' 1881, vol. Pain," ' Fortnightly Review,' 1881, 

iv. p. 413. The expression " lacka- vol. xxx. p. 778. 

daisical " (not fantastic) , and % " An Epilogue on Vivisection," 

"feeble sensuality," are used with ' Cornhill Magazine,' 1882, vol. xlv. 

regard to the feelings of the anti- p. 191. 

( 211 ) 




[We have now to consider the work (other than botanical) 
which occupied the concluding six years of my father's life. 
A letter to his old friend Rev. L. Blomfield (Jenyns), written 
in March, 1877, shows what was my father's estimate of his 
own powers of work at this time : — 

" My dear Jenyns (I see I have forgotten your proper 
names), — Your extremely kind letter has given me warm 
pleasure. As one gets old, one's thoughts turn back to the 
past rather than to the future, and I often think of the 
pleasant, and to me valuable, hours which I spent with you on 
the borders of the Fens. 

" You ask about my future work ; I doubt whether I shall 
be able to do much more that is new, and I always keep 

before my mind the example of poor old , who in his old 

age had a cacoethes for writing. But I cannot endure doing 
nothing, so I suppose that I shall go on as long as I can 
without obviously making a fool of myself. I have a great 
mass of matter with respect to variation under nature ; but so 
much has been published since the appearance of the ' Origin 
of Species,' that I very much doubt whether I retain power of 
mind and strength to reduce the mass into a digested whole. 
I have sometimes thought that I would try, but dread the 
attempt. . . ." 

P 2 

212 MISCELLANEA (continued). [1876. 

His prophecy proved to be a true one with regard to any 
continuation of any general work in the direction of Evolu- 
tion, but his estimate of powers which could afterwards prove 
capable of grappling with the 'Movements of Plants,' and 
with the work on ' Earthworms,' was certainly a low one. 

The year 1876, with which the present chapter begins, 
brought with it a revival of geological work. He had been 
astonished, as I hear from Professor Judd, and as appears 
in his letters, to learn that his books on ' Volcanic Islands,' 
1844, and on 'South America,' 1846, were still consulted 
by geologists, and it was a surprise to him that new editions 
should be required. Both these works were originally 
published by Messrs. Smith and Elder, and the new edition 
of 1876 was also brought out by them. This appeared in 
one volume with the title ' Geological Observations on the 
Volcanic Islands, and Parts of South America visited during 
the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle.' He has explained in the 
preface his reasons for leaving untouched the text of the 
original editions : " They relate to parts of the world which 
have been so rarely visited by men of science, that I am not 
aware that much could be corrected or added from observa- 
tions subsequently made. Owing to the great progress which 
Geology has made within recent times, my views on some 
few points may be somewhat antiquated ; but I have thought 
it best to leave them as they originally appeared." 

It may have been the revival of geological speculation, 
due to the revision of his early books, that led to his re- 
cording the observations of which some account is given in the 
following letter. Part of it has been published in Professor ' 
James Geikie's ' Prehistoric Europe,' chaps, vii. and ix.,* a fe\A 
verbal alterations having been made at my father's request 11 
the passages quoted. Mr. Geikie lately wrote to me : " The 

* My father's suggestion is also America,' given at Edinburgh, Nov 
noticed in Prof. Geikie's address on 20, 1884. 
the ' Ice Age in Europe and North 

1876.] GEOLOGY. 213 

views suggested in his letter as to the origin of the angular 
gravels, &c., in the South of England will, I believe, come 
to be accepted as the truth. This question has a much 
wider bearing than might at first appear. In point of fact 
it solves one of the most difficult problems in Quaternary 
Geology — and has already attracted the attention of German 

C. Danvin to James Geikie. 

Down, November 16, 1876. 

My DEAR Sir, — I hope that you will forgive me for 
troubling you with a very long letter. But first allow me to 
tell you with what extreme pleasure and admiration I have 
just finished reading your ' Great Ice Age.' It seems to me 
admirably done, and most clear. Interesting as many 
chapters are in the history of the world, I do not think that 
any one comes [up] nearly to the glacial period or periods. 
Though I have steadily read much on the subject, your book 
makes the whole appear almost new to me. 

I am now going to mention a small observation, made by 
me two or three years ago, near Southampton, but not fol- 
lowed out, as I have no strength for excursions. I need say 
nothing about the character of the drift there (which includes 
palaeolithic celts), for you have described its essential features 
in a few words at p. 506. It covers the whole country [in an] 
even plain-like surface, almost irrespective of the present 
outline of the land. 

The coarse stratification has sometimes been disturbed. I 
find that you allude " to the larger stones often standing on 
end ;" and this is the point which struck me so much. Not 
only moderately sized angular stones, but small oval pebbles 
often stand vertically up, in a manner which I have never seen 
in ordinary gravel beds. This fact reminded me of what 
occurs near my home, in the stiff red clay, full of unworn flints 
over the chalk, which is no doubt the residue left undissolved 

214 MISCELLANEA {continued). [1876. 

by rain water. In this clay, flints as long and thin as my arm 
often stand perpendicularly up ; and I have been told by the 
tank-diggers that it is their " natural position " ! I presume 
that this position may safely be attributed to the differential 
movement of parts of the red clay as it subsided very slowly 
from the dissolution of the underlying chalk ; so that the 
flints arrange themselves in the lines of least resistance. The 
similar but less strongly marked arrangement of the stones in 
the drift near Southampton makes me suspect that it also 
must have slowly subsided ; and the notion has crossed my 
mind that during the commencement and height of the glacial 
period great beds of frozen snow accumulated over the south 
of England, and that, during the summer, gravel and stones 
were washed from the higher land over its surface, and 
in superficial channels. The larger streams may have cut 
right through the frozen snow, and deposited gravel in lines 
at the bottom. But on each succeeding autumn, when the 
running water failed, I imagine that the lines of drainage 
would have been filled up by blown snow afterwards con- 
gealed, and that, owing to great surface accumulations of snow, 
it would be a mere chance whether the drainage, together with 
gravel and sand, would follow the same lines during the next 
summer. Thus, as I apprehend, alternate layers of frozen 
snow and drift, in sheets and lines, would ultimately have 
covered the country to a great thickness, with lines of drift 
probably deposited in various directions at the bottom by 
the larger streams. As the climate became warmer, the 
lower beds of frozen snow would have melted with extreme 
slowness, and the many irregular beds of interstratified drift 
would have sunk down with equal slowness ; and during this 
movement the elongated pebbles would have arranged them- 
selves more or less vertically. The drift would also have been 
deposited almost irrespective of the outline of the under- 
lying land. When I viewed the country I could not per- 
suade myself that any flood, however great, could have depo- 

1876.] GEOLOGY. 215 

sited such coarse gravel over the almost level platforms 

between the valleys. My view differs from that of Hoist, 

p. 415 ['Great Ice Age'], of which I had never heard, as his 

relates to channels cut through glaciers, and mine to beds 

of drift interstratified with frozen snow where no glaciers 

existed. The upshot of this long letter is to ask you to 

keep my notion in your head, and look out for upright 

pebbles in any lowland country which you may examine, 

where glaciers have not existed. Or if you think the notion 

deserves any further thought, but not otherwise, to tell any 

one of it, for instance Mr. Skertchly, who is examining such 

districts. Pray forgive me for writing so long a letter, and 

again thanking you for the great pleasure derived from your 


I remain yours very faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. . . . I am glad that you have read Blytt ;* his paper 
seemed to me a most important contribution to Botanical 
Geography. How curious that the same conclusions should 
have been arrived at by Mr. Skertchly, who seems to be a 
first-rate observer ; and this implies, as I always think, a 
sound theoriser. 

I have told my publisher to send you in two or three days 
a copy (second edition) of my geological work during the 
voyage of the Beagle. The sole point which would perhaps 
interest you is about the steppe-like plains of Patagonia. 

For many years past I have had fearful misgivings that it 
must have been the level of the sea, and not that of the land 
which has changed. 

I read a few months ago your [brother's] very interesting 
life of Murchison.f Though I have always thought that he 
ranked next to W. Smith in the classification of formations, 

* Axel Blytt. — ' Essay on the Im- sons.' Christiania, 1876. 
migration of the Norwegian Flora f By Mr. Archibald Geikie. 

during alternate rainy and dry Sea- 

216 MISCELLANEA (continued). [1881. 

and though I knew how kind-hearted [he was], yet the book 
has raised him greatly in my respect, notwithstanding his 
foibles and want of broad philosophical views. 

[The only other geological work of his later years was 
embodied in his book on earthworms (1881), which may 
therefore be conveniently considered in this place. This 
subject was one which had interested him many years before 
this date, and in 1838 a paper on the formation of mould 
was published in the Proceedings of the Geological Society 
(see vol. i. p. 284). 

Here he showed that " fragments of burnt marl, cinders, &c.,. 
which had been thickly strewed over the surface of several 
meadows were found after a few years lying at a depth of 
some inches beneath the turf, but still forming a layer." For 
the explanation of this fact, which forms the central idea of 
the geological part of the book, he was indebted to his uncle 
Josiah Wedgwood, who suggested that worms, by bringing 
earth to the surface in their castings, must undermine any 
objects lying on the surface and cause an apparent sinking. 

In the book of 1881 he extended his observations on this 
burying action, and devised a number of different ways of 
checking his estimates as to the amount of work done.* He 
also added a mass of observations on the habits, natural 
history and intelligence of worms, a part of the work which 
added greatly to its popularity. 

In 1877 Sir Thomas Farrer had discovered close to his 
garden the remains of a building of Roman-British times, 
and thus gave my father the opportunity of seeing for himself 

* He received much valuable trouble which you have taken, 

help from Dr. King, of the Botanical You have attended exactly and fully 

Gardens, Calcutta. The following to the points about which I was 

passage is from a letter to Dr. King, most anxious. If I had been each 

dated January 18, 1873 : — evening by your side, I could not 

" I really do not know how to have suggested anything else." 
thank you enough for the immense 

1 88 1.] worms. 217 

the effects produced by earthworms on the old concrete-floors, 
walls, &c. On his return he wrote to Sir Thomas Farrer : — 

" I cannot remember a more delightful week than the last. 
I know very well that E. will not believe me, but the worms 
were by no means the sole charm." 

In the autumn of 1880, when the 'Power of Movements in 
Plants ' was nearly finished, he began once more on the 
subject. He wrote to Professor Carus (September 21) : — 

" In the intervals of correcting the press, I am writing a 
very little book, and have done nearly half of it. Its title 
will be (as at present designed), ' The Formation of Vegetable 
Mould through the Action of Worms.' * As far as I can judge 
it will be a curious little book." 

The manuscript was sent to the printers in April, 1881,, 
and when the proof-sheets were coming in he wrote to Pro- 
fessor Carus : "The subject has been to me a hobby-horse, and 
I have perhaps treated it in foolish detail." 

It was published on October 10, and 2000 copies were sold 
at once. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker, " I am glad that 
you approve of the 'Worms.' When in old days I was to 
tell you whatever I was doing, if you were at all interested, I 
always felt as most men do when their work is finally pub- 

To Mr. Mellard Reade he wrote (November 8) : " It has 
been a complete surprise to me how many persons have cared 
for the subject." And to Mr. Dyer (in November) : " My 
book has been received with almost laughable enthusiasm,, 
and 3500 copies have been sold! ! !" Again, to his friend 
Mr. Anthony Rich, he wrote on February 4, 1882, "I have 
been plagued with an endless stream of letters on the sub- 
ject ; most of them very foolish and enthusiastic ; but some 
containing good facts which I have used in correcting 
yesterday the ' Sixth Thousand.' " The popularity of the 

* The full title is 'The Forma- the Action of Worms, with Observa- 
tion of Vegetable Mould through tions on their Habits/ 188 1. 

2i8 MISCELLANEA {continued). [1879. 

book may be roughly estimated by the fact that, in the three 
years following its publication, 8500 copies were sold — a 
sale relatively greater than that of the ' Origin of Species.' 

It is not difficult to account for its success with the non- 
scientific public. Conclusions so wide and so novel, and so 
easily understood, drawn from the study of creatures so 
familiar, and treated with unabated vigour and freshness, 
may well have attracted many readers. A reviewer remarks : 
*' In the eyes of most men. . . the earthworm is a mere 
blind, dumb, senseless, and unpleasantly slimy annelid. 
Mr. Darwin undertakes to rehabilitate his character, and the 
earthworm steps forth at once as an intelligent and beneficent 
personage, a worker of vast geological changes, a planer 
down of mountain sides ... a friend of man . . . and an 
ally of the Society for the preservation of ancient monu- 
ments." The St. James's Gazette, of October 17th, 1881, 
pointed out that the teaching of the cumulative importance 
of the infinitely little is the point of contact between this 
book and the author's previous work. 

One more book remains to be noticed, the ' Life of Erasmus 

In February 1879 an essay by Dr. Ernst Krause, on the 
scientific work of Erasmus Darwin, appeared in the evolu- 
tionary journal, ' Kosmos,' The number of ' Kosmos ' in 
question was a " Gratulationsheft," * or special congratulatory 
issue in honour of my father's birthday, so that Dr. Krause's 
essay, glorifying the older evolutionist, was quite in its place. 
He wrote to Dr. Krause, thanking him cordially for the honour 
paid to Erasmus, and asking his permission to publish t an 
English translation of the Essay. 

* The same number contains a list of my father's publications, 

good biographical sketch of my f The wish to do so was shared 

father, of which the material was to by his brother, Erasmus Darwin 

a large extent supplied by him to the younger, who continued to be 

the writer, Prof. Preyer of Jena. associated with the project. 
The article contains an excellent 

1 879.] ERASMUS DARWIN. 219 

His chief reason for writing a notice of his grandfather's 
life was " to contradict flatly some calumnies by Miss Seward." 
This appears from a letter of March 27, 1879, to his cousin 
Reginald Darwin, in which he asks for any documents and 
letters which might throw light on the character of Erasmus. 
This led to Mr. Reginald Darwin placing in my father's hands 
a quantity of valuable material, including a curious folio 
common-place book, of which he wrote : " I have been 
deeply interested by the great book, .... reading and 
looking at it is like having communion with the dead .... 
[it] has taught me a good deal about the occupations and 
tastes of our grandfather." A subsequent letter (April 8) to 
the same correspondent describes the source of a further 
supply of material : — 

" Since my last letter I have made a strange discovery ; 
for an old box from my father marked ' Old Deeds,' and 
which consequently I had never opened, I found full of 
letters — hundreds from Dr. Erasmus — and others from old 
members of the family : some few very curious. Also a 
drawing of Elston before it was altered, about 1750, of which 
I think I will give a copy." 

Dr. Krause's contribution formed the second part of the 
* Life of Erasmus Darwin,' my father supplying a " preliminary 
notice." This expression on the title-page is somewhat mis- 
leading ; my father's contribution is more than half the book, 
and should have been described as a biography. Work of 
this kind was new to him, and he wrote doubtfully to Mr. 
Thiselton Dyer, June 18th: "God only knows what I shall 
make of his life, it is such a new kind of work to me." The 
strong interest he felt about his forebears helped to give 
zest to the work, which became a decided enjoyment to him. 
With the general public the book was not markedly success- 
ful, but many of his friends recognised its merits. Sir J. D. 
Hooker was one of these, and to him my father wrote, 
•" Your praise of the Life of Dr. D. has pleased me exceed- 

220 MISCELLANEA {continued). [1880. 

ingly, for I despised my work, and thought myself a perfect 
fool to have undertaken such a job." 

To Mr. Galton, too, he wrote, November 14 : — 

" I am extremely glad that you approve of the little ' Life * 
of our grandfather, for I have been repenting that I ever 
undertook it, as the work was quite beyond my tether." 

The publication of the ' Life of Erasmus Darwin ' led to an 
attack by Mr. Samuel Butler, which amounted to a charge 
of falsehood against my father. After consulting his friends, 
he came to the determination to leave the charge unanswered, 
as being unworthy of his notice.* Those who wish to know 
more of the matter, may gather the facts of the case from Ernst 
Krause's ' Charles Darwin/ and they will find Mr. Butler's 
statement of his grievance in the Athenceum^ January 31, 1880, 
and in the St. James's Gazette, December 8, 1880. The affair 
gave my father much pain, but the warm sympathy of those 
whose opinion he respected soon helped him to let it pass into 
a well-merited oblivion. 

The following letter refers to M. J. H. Fabre's ' Souvenirs 
Entomologiques.' It may find a place here, as it contains 
a defence of Erasmus Darwin on a small point. The post- 
script is interesting, as an example of one of my father's 
bold ideas both as to experiment and theory :] 

C. Darwin to J. H. Fabre. 

Down, January 31, 1880. 

My DEAR Sir, — I hope that you will permit me to have 
the satisfaction of thanking you cordially for the lively 
pleasure which I have derived from reading your book. 
Never have the wonderful habits of insects been more vividly 
described, and it is almost as good to read about them as to 

* He had, in a letter to Mr. oversight which caused so much 
Butler, expressed his regret at the offence. 

1880.] ERASMUS DARWIN. 221 

see them. I feel sure that you would not be unjust to even 
an insect, much less to a man. Now, you have been misled 
by some translator, for my grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, 
states ('Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 183, 1794) that it was a wasp 
(guepe) which he saw cutting off the wings of a large fly. I 
have no doubt that you are right in saying that the wings are 
generally cut off instinctively ; but in the case described by 
my grandfather, the wasp, after cutting off the two ends of 
the body, rose in the air, and was turned round by the wind ; 
he then alighted and cut off the wings. I must believe, with 
Pierre Huber, that insects have " une petite dose de raison." 
In the next edition of your book, I hope that you will alter 
part of what you say about my grandfather. 

I am sorry that you are so strongly opposed to the Descent 
theory ; I have found the searching for the history of each 
structure or instinct an excellent aid to observation ; and 
wonderful observer as you are, it would suggest new points to 
you. If I were to write on the evolution of instincts, I could 
make good use of some of the facts which you give. Permit 
me to add, that when I read the last sentence in your book, I 
sympathised deeply with you.* 

With the most sincere respect, 

I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — Allow me to make a suggestion in relation to your 
wonderful account of insects finding their way home. I for- 
merly wished to try it with pigeons : namely, to carry the 
insects in their paper " cornets," about a hundred paces in the 
opposite direction to that which you ultimately intended to 
carry them ; but before turning round to return, to put the 
insect in a circular box, with an axle which could be made to 

* The book is intended as a father's assistant in his observations 
memorial of the early death of on insect life. 
M. Fabre's son, who had been his 

222 MISCELLANEA {continued). [1876-82. 

revolve very rapidly, first in one direction, and then in. 
another, so as to destroy for a time all sense of direction in 
the insects. I have sometimes imagined that animals may 
feel in which direction they were at the first start carried.* If 
this plan failed, I had intended placing the pigeons within an 
induction coil, so as to disturb any magnetic or dia-magnetic 
sensibility, which it seems just possible that they may 
possess. C. D. 

[During the latter years of my father's life there was a 
growing tendency in the public to do him honour. In 1877 
he received the honorary degree of LL.D. from the University 
of Cambridge. The degree was conferred on November 17, 
and with the customary Latin speech from the Public Orator, 
concluding with the words : " Tu vero, qui leges naturae tarn 
docte illustraveris, legum doctor nobis esto. ,} 

The honorary degree led to a movement being set on foot 
in the University to obtain some permanent memorial of my 
father. A sum of about £400 was subscribed, and after the 
rejection of the idea that a bust would be the best memorial,, 
a picture was determined on. In June 1879 he sat to Mr. W. 
Richmond for the portrait in the possession of the University, 
now placed in the Library of the Philosophical Society at 
Cambridge. He is represented seated in a Doctor's gown, 
the head turned towards the spectator : the picture has many 
admirers, but, according to my own view, neither the attitude 
nor the expression are characteristic of my father. 

A similar wish on the part of the Linnean Society — with 
which my father was so closely associated — led to his sitting 

* This idea was a favourite one marked desire to go eastward, even, 

with him, and he has described in when his stable lay in the opposite 

' Nature' (vol. vii. 1873, p. 360) the direction. In the same volume of 

behaviour of his cob Tommy, in 'Nature,' p. 417, is a letter on the 

whom he fancied he detected a sense ' Origin of Certain Instincts,' which 

of direction. The horse had been contains a short discussion on the 

taken by rail from Kent to the Isle of sense of direction. 
Wight ; when there he exhibited a 




in August, 1 88 1, to Mr. John Collier, for the portrait now in 
the possession of the Society. Of the artist, he wrote, 
' Collier was the most considerate, kind and pleasant painter a 
sitter could desire." The portrait represents him standing 
facing the observer in the loose cloak so familiar to those who 
knew him, and with his slouch hat in his hand. Many of 
those who knew his face most intimately, think that Mr. 
Collier's picture is the best of the portraits, and in this 
judgment the sitter himself was inclined to agree. According 
to my feeling it is not so simple or strong a representation of 
him as that given by Mr. Ouless. There is a certain expres- 
sion in Mr. Collier's portrait which I am inclined to consider 
an exaggeration of the almost painful expression which 
Professor Cohn has described in my father's face, and which he 
had previously noticed in Humboldt. Professor Cohn's remarks 
occur in a pleasantly written account of a visit to Down* 
in 1876, published in the Breslauer Zeitung, April 23, 1882. 

Besides the Cambridge degree, he received about the same 
time honours of an academic kind from some foreign societies. 

On August 5, 1878, he was elected a Corresponding 
Member of the French Institute! in the Botanical Section,]: 
and wrote to Dr. Asa Gray : — 

" I see that we are both elected Corresponding Members 

* In this connection may be 
mentioned a visit (1881) from 
another distinguished German, 
Hans Richter. The occurrence is 
otherwise worthy of mention, inas- 
much as it led to the publication, 
after my father's death, of Herr 
Richter's recollections of the visit. 
The sketch is simply and sympa- 
thetically written, and the author 
has succeeded in giving a true 
picture of my father as he lived at 
Down. It appeared in the Nene 
Tagblatt of Vienna, and was repub- 
lished by Dr. O. Zacharias in his 

' Charles R. Darwin/ Berlin, 1882. 

t " Lyell always spoke of it as a 
great scandal that Danvin was so 
long kept out of the French Insti- 
tute. As he said, even if the de- 
velopment hypothesis were objected 
to, Darwin's original works on 
Coral Reefs, the Cirripedia, and 
other subjects, constituted a more 
than sufficient claim." — From Pro- 
fessor Judd's notes. 

% The statement has been more 
than once published that he was 
elected to the Zoological Section, 
but this was not the case. 


miscellanea {continued). 


of the Institute. It is rather a good joke that I should be 
elected in the Botanical Section, as the extent of my know- 
ledge is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant 
and a pea a Leguminous one." 

In the early part of the same year he was elected a Corre- 
sponding Member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and 
lie wrote (March 12) to Professor Du Bois Reymond, who had 
proposed him for election : — 

" I thank you sincerely for your most kind letter, in which 
you announce the great honour conferred on me. The know- 
ledge of the names of the illustrious men, who seconded the 
proposal is even a greater pleasure to me than the honour itself." 

The seconders were Helmholtz, Peters, Ewald, Pringsheim 
and Virchow. 

In 1879 he received the Baly Medal of the Royal College 
of Physicians.* 

He received twenty-six votes out 
of a possible 39, five blank papers 
were sent in, and eight votes were 
recorded for the other candidates. 

In 1872 an attempt had been 
made to elect him to the Section of 
Zoology, when, however, he only 
received 15 out of 48 votes, and 
Loven was chosen for the vacant 
place. It appears (' Nature,' August 
1, 1872), that an eminent member 
of the Academy, wrote to Les 
Mondes to the following effect : — 

" What has closed the doors of 
the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that 
the science of those of his books 
which have made his chief title to 
fame— the ' Origin of Species,' and 
still more the ' Descent of Man,' is 
not science, but a mass of assertions 
and absolutely gratuitous hypo- 
theses, often evidently fallacious. 
This kind of publication and these 
theories are a bad example, which 

a body that respects itself cannot 

* The visit to London, necessi- 
tated by the presentation of the 
Baly Medal, was combined with a 
visit to Miss Forster's house at 
Abinger, in Surrey, and this was 
the occasion of the following cha- 
racteristic letter : — " I must write 
a few words to thank you cordially 
for lending us your house. It was 
a most kind thought, and has 
pleased me greatly ; but I know 
well that I do not deserve such 
kindness from any one. On the 
other hand, no one can be too kind 
to my dear wife, who is worth her 
weight in gold many times over, 
and she was anxious that I should 
get some complete rest, and here 
I cannot rest. Your house will be 
a delightful haven, and again I 

thank you truly." 

1876-82.] BRESSA PRIZE. 225 

Again in 1879 he received from the Royal Academy of 
Turin the Bressa Prize for the years 1875-78, amounting 
to the sum of 12,000 francs. In the following year he 
received on his birthday, as on previous occasions, a kind 
letter of congratulation from Dr. Dohrn of Naples. In 
writing (February 15th) to thank him and the other 
naturalists at the Zoological Station, my father added : — 

" Perhaps you saw in the papers that the Turin Society 
honoured me to an extraordinary degree by awarding me 
the Bressa Prize. Now it occurred to me that if your station 
wanted some piece of apparatus, of about the value of ^"ioo, 
I should very much like to be allowed to pay for it. Will 
you be so kind as to keep this in mind, and if any want 
should occur to you, I would send you a cheque at any 

I find from my father's accounts that ^"ioo was presented 
to the Naples Station. 

He received also several tokens of respect and sympathy of 
a more private character from various sources. With regard 
to such incidents, and to the estimation of the public generally, 
his attitude may be illustrated by a passage from a letter to 
Mr. Romanes :* — 

"You have indeed passed a most magnificent eulogium 
upon me, and I wonder that you were not afraid of hearing 
1 oh ! oh ! ' or some other sign of disapprobation. Many 
persons think that what I have done in science has been 
much overrated, and I very often think so myself; but my 
comfort is that I have never consciously done anything to 
gain applause. Enough and too much about my dear self." 

Among such expressions of regard he valued very highly 
the two photographic albums received from Germany and 
Holland on his birthday, 1877. Herr Emil Rade of Miinster, 
originated the idea of the German birthday gift, and under- 

* The lecture referred to was given at the Dublin meeting of the 
British Association. 


226 MISCELLANEA (continued). [1881. 

took the necessary arrangements. To him my father wrote 
(February 16, 1877) : — 

" I hope that you will inform the one hundred and fifty-four 
men of science, including some of the most highly honoured 
names in the world, how grateful I am for their kindness and 
generous sympathy in having sent me their photographs on 
my birthday." 

To Professor Haeckel he wrote (February 16, 1877) : — 

" The album has just arrived quite safe. It is most superb.* 
It is by far the greatest honour which I have ever received, 
and my satisfaction has been greatly enhanced, by your most 
kind letter of February 9. ... I thank you all from my 
heart. I have written by this post to Herr Rade, and I hope 
he will somehow manage to thank all my generous friends." 

To Professor A. van Bemmelen he wrote, on receiving a 
similar present from a number of distinguished men and 
lovers of Natural History in the Netherlands : — 

" Sir, — I received yesterday the magnificent present of the 
album, together with your letter. I hope that you will 
endeavour to find some means to express to the two hundred 
and seventeen distinguished observers and lovers of natural 
science, who have sent me their photographs, my gratitude 
for their extreme kindness. I feel deeply gratified by this 
gift, and I do not think that any testimonial more honourable 
to me could have been imagined. I am well aware that my 
books could never have been written, and would not have 
made any impression on the public mind, had not an immense 
amount of material been collected by a long series of admir- 
able observers ; and it is to them that honour is chiefly due. 
I suppose that every worker at science occasionally feels 
depressed, and doubts whether what he has published has 
been worth the labour which it has cost him, but for the few 

* The album is magnificently of an artist, Herr A. Fitger of 
bound and decorated with a beauti- Bremen, who also contributed the 
fully illuminated titlepage, the work dedicatory poem. 

1 882.] BIRTHDAY GIFTS. 227 

remaining years of my life, whenever I want cheering-, I will 
look at the portraits of my distinguished co-workers in the 
field of science, and remember their generous sympathy. 
When I die, the album will be a most precious bequest to my 
children. I must further express my obligation for the very 
interesting history contained in your letter of the progress of 
opinion in the Netherlands, with respect to Evolution, the 
whole of which is quite new to me. I must again thank all 
my kind friends, from my heart, for their ever-memorable 
testimonial, and I remain, Sir, 

Your obliged and grateful servant, 

Charles R. Darwin." 

[In the June of the following year (1878) he was gratified 
by learning that the Emperor of Brazil had expressed a wish 
to meet him. Owing to absence from home my father was 
unable to comply with this wish ; he wrote to Sir J. D. 
Hooker : — 

" The Emperor has done so much for science, that every 
scientific man is bound to show him the utmost respect, 
and I hope that you will express in the strongest language, 
and which you can do with entire truth, how greatly I feel 
honoured by his wish to see me ; and how much I regret my 
absence from home." 

Finally it should be mentioned that in 1880 he received an 
address personally presented by members of the Council of 
the Birmingham Philosophical Society, as well as a memorial 
from the Yorkshire Naturalist Union presented by some of 
the members, headed by Dr. Sorby. He also received in the 
same year a visit from some of the members of the Lewisham 
and Blackheath Scientific Association, — a visit which was, I 
think, enjoyed by both guests and host] 

Q 2 

228 MISCELLANEA {continued). [1876. 


[The chief incident of a personal kind (not already dealt 
with) in the years which we are now considering was the 
death of his brother Erasmus, who died at his house in Queen 
Anne Street, on August 26th, 1881. My father wrote to 
Sir J. D. Hooker (Aug. 30) : — 

" The death of Erasmus is a very heavy loss to all of us, for 
he had a most affectionate disposition. He always appeared 
to me the most pleasant and clearest headed man, whom I 
have ever known. London will seem a strange place to me 
without his presence ; I am deeply glad that he died without 
any great suffering, after a very short illness from mere 
weakness and not from any definite disease.* 

" I cannot quite agree with you about the death of the old 
and young. Death in the latter case, when there is a bright 
future ahead, causes grief never to be wholly obliterated/' 

An incident of a happy character may also be selected for 
especial notice, since it was one which strongly moved my 
father's sympathy. A letter (Dec. 17, 1879) to Sir Joseph 
Hooker shows that the possibility of a Government Pension 
being conferred on Mr. Wallace first occurred to my father at 
this time. The idea was taken up by others, and my father's 
letters show that he felt the most lively interest in the success 
of the plan. He wrote, for instance, to Mrs. Fisher, " I hardly 
ever wished for anything more than I do for the success 
of our plan." He was deeply pleased when this thoroughly 
deserved honour was bestowed on his friend, and wrote 
to the same correspondent (January 7, 1881), on receiving a 
letter from Mr. Gladstone announcing the fact : " How extra- 
ordinarily kind of Mr. Gladstone to find time to write under 

* " He was not, I think, a happy ing." — From a letter to Sir Thomas 
man, and for many years did not Farrer. 
value life, though never complain- 

1876.] MR. WALLACE. ' 229 

the present circumstances.* Good heavens ! how pleased 


The letters which follow are of a miscellaneous character 
and refer principally to the books he read, and to his minor 

C. Darwin to Miss Buckley {Mrs. Fisher). 

Down, February 11 [1876]. 

My dear Miss Buckley, — You must let me have the 
pleasure of saying that I have just finished reading with very 
great interest your new book.f The idea seems to me a 
capital one, and as far as I can judge very well carried out. 
There is much fascination in taking a bird's eye view of all 
the grand leading steps in the progress of science. At first I 
regretted that you had not kept each science more separate ; 
but I dare say you found it impossible. I have hardly any 
criticisms, except that I think you ought to have introduced 
Murchison as a great classifier of formations, second only to 
W. Smith. You have done full justice, and not more than 
justice, to our dear old master, Lyell. Perhaps a little more 
ought to have been said about botany, and if you should ever 
add this, you would find Sachs' ' History,' lately published, 
very good for your purpose. 

You have crowned Wallace and myself with much honour 
and glory. I heartily congratulate you on having produced 
so novel and interesting a work, and remain, 

My dear Miss Buckley, yours very faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

* Mr. Gladstone was then in opening of Parliament (Jan. 6). 

office, and the letter must have been f 'A Short History of Natural 

written when he was overwhelmed Science.' 
with business connected with the 

230 - MISCELLANEA (continued}. [1876. 

C. Darzuin to A. R. Wallace. 

[Hopedene] *, June 5, 1876. 

My dear Wallace, — I must have the pleasure of ex- 
pressing to you my unbounded admiration of your book,f 
tho' I have read only to page 184 — my object having been 
to do as little as possible while resting. I feel sure that you 
have laid a broad and safe foundation for all future work on 
Distribution. How interesting it will be to see hereafter 
plants treated in strict relation to your views ; and then all 
insects, pulmonate molluscs and fresh-water fishes, in greater 
detail than I suppose you have given to these lower animals. 
The point which has interested me most, but I do not say the 
most valuable point, is your protest against sinking imaginary 
continents in a quite reckless manner, as was stated by Forbes, 
followed, alas, by Hooker, and caricatured by Wollaston and 
[Andrew] Murray ! By the way, the main impression that 
the latter author has left on my mind is his utter want of all 
scientific judgment. I have lifted up my voice against the 
above view with no avail, but I have no doubt that you will 
succeed, owing to your new arguments and the coloured chart. 
Of a special value, as it seems to me, is the conclusion that 
we must determine the areas, chiefly by the nature of the 
mammals. When I worked many years ago on this subject, 
I doubted much whether the now called Palaearctic and 
Nearctic regions ought to be separated ; and I determined if I 
made another region that it should be Madagascar. I have, 
therefore, been able to appreciate your evidence on these 
points. What progress Palaeontology has made during the 
last 20 years ; but if it advances at the same rate in the 
future, our views on the migration and birth-place of the 
various groups will, I fear, be greatly altered. I cannot feel 
quite easy about the Glacial period, and the extinction of large 

* Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood's f ' Geographical Distribution,' 

house in Surrey. 1876. 


mammals, but I must hope that you are right. I think you 
will have to modify your belief about the difficulty of 
dispersal of land molluscs ; I was interrupted when beginning 
to experimentize on the just hatched young adhering to the 
feet of ground-roosting birds. I differ on one other point, 
viz. in the belief that there must have existed a Tertiary 
Antarctic continent, from which various forms radiated to the 
southern extremities of our present continents. But I could 
go on scribbling for ever. You have written, as I believe, a 
grand and memorable work which will last for years as the 
foundation for all future treatises on Geographical Distribution, 
My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

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

[The following letters illustrate my father's power of taking 
a vivid interest in work bearing on Evolution, but unconnected 
with his own special researches at the time. The books 
referred to in the first letter are Professor Weismann's 
' Studien zur Descendenzlehre,' * being part of the series of 
essays by which the author has done such admirable service 
to the cause of Evolution :] 

C. Darwin to Aug. Weismann. 

... I read German so slowly, and have had lately to read 
several other papers, so that I have as yet finished only half 
of your first essay and two-thirds of your second. They 
have excited my interest and admiration in the highest 
degree, and whichever I think of last, seems to me the most 

* My father contributed a pre- lation of Prof. Weismann's ' Stu- 
fatory note to Mr. Meldola's trans- dien,' 1880-81. 

232 miscellanea {continued). [ l %77* 

valuable. I never expected to see the coloured marks on 
caterpillars so well explained ; and the case of the ocelli 
delights me especially. . . . 

. . . There is one other subject which has always seemed 
to me more difficult to explain than even the colours of cater- 
pillars, and that is the colour of birds' eggs, and I wish you 
would take this up. 

C. Darwin to Melchior Nenmayr* Vienna. 

Down, Beckenham, Kent, March 9, 1877. 

Dear Sir, — From having been obliged to read other books, 
I finished only yesterday your essay on ' Die Congerien,' &c.f 

I hope that you will allow me to express my gratitude for 
the pleasure and instruction which I have derived from read- 
ing it. It seems to me to be an admirable work ; and is by 
far the best case which I have ever met with, showing the 
direct influence of the conditions of life on the organization. 

Mr. Hyatt, who has been studying the Hilgendorf case, 
writes to me with respect to the conclusions at which he has 
arrived, and these are nearly the same as yours. He insists 
that closely similar forms may be derived from distinct lines 
of descent ; and this is what I formerly called analogical 
variation. There can now be no doubt that species may 
become greatly modified through the direct action of the 
environment. I have some excuse for not having formerly 
insisted more strongly on this head in my ' Origin of Species/ 
as most of the best facts have been observed since its publi- 

With my renewed thanks for your most interesting essay, 
and with the highest respect, I remain, dear Sir, 

Yours very faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

* Professor of Palaeontology at t ' Die Congerien und Paludinen- 

Vienna. schichten Slavoniens,' 4to, 1875. 


C. Darwin to E. S, Morse. 

Down, April 23, 1877. 

My dear Sir, — You must allow me just to tell you how 
very much I have been interested with the excellent Address * 
which you have been so kind as to send me, and which I had 
much wished to read. I believe that I had read all, or very 
nearly all, the papers by your countrymen to which you refer, 
but I have been fairly astonished at their number and im- 
portance when seeing them thus put together. I quite agree 
about the high value of Mr. Allen's works,f as showing how 
much change may be expected apparently through the direct 
action of the conditions of life. As for the fossil remains in 
the West, no words will express how wonderful they are. 
There is one point which I regret that you did not make clear 
in your Address, namely what is the meaning and importance 
of Professors Cope and Hyatt's views on acceleration and 
retardation. I have endeavoured, and given up in despair, 
the attempt to grasp their meaning. 

Permit me to thank you cordially for the kind feeling 
shown towards me through your Address, and I remain, my 
dear Sir, 

Yours faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[The next letter refers to his ' Biographical Sketch of 
an Infant,' written from notes made 37 years previously, and 
published in ' Mind,' July, 1877. The article attracted a good 
deal of attention, and was translated at the time in ' Kosmos,' 
and the * Revue Scientifique,' and has been recently pub- 
lished in Dr. Krause's ' Gesammelte kleinere Schriften von 
Charles Darwin,' 1887 :] 

* " What American Zoologists Proceedings of the Association, 

have done for Evolution," an Ad- f Mr. J. A. Allen shows the exis- 

dress to the American Association tence of geographical races of birds 

for the Advancement of Science, and mammals. Proc. Boston Soc. 

August, 1S76. Vol. xxv. of the Nat. Hist. vol. xv. 

234 MISCELLANEA (continued). [i877- 

C. Darwin to G. Croom Robertson* 

Down, April 27, 1877. 

Dear Sir, — I hope that you will be so good as to take the 
trouble to read the enclosed MS., and if you think it fit for 
publication in your admirable journal of ' Mind,' I shall be 
gratified. If you do not think it fit, as is very likely, will you 
please to return it to me. I hope that you will read it in an 
extra critical spirit, as I cannot judge whether it is worth 
publishing from having been so much interested in watching 
the dawn of the several faculties in my own infant. I may 
add that I should never have thought of sending you the 
MS., had not M. Taine's article appeared in your Journal.f 
If my MS. is printed, I think that I had better see a proof. 
I remain, dear Sir, 

Yours faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[The two following extracts show the lively interest he 
preserved in diverse fields of inquiry. Professor Cohn, of 
Breslau, had mentioned, in a letter, Koch's researches on 
Splenic Fever ; my father replied, January 3 : — 

" I well remember saying to myself, between twenty and 
thirty years ago, that if ever the origin of any infectious 
disease could be proved, it would be the greatest triumph to 
science ; and now I rejoice to have seen the triumph." 

In the spring he received a copy of Dr. E. von Mojsisovics' 
'Dolomit Riffe;' his letter to the author (June 1, 1878) is 
interesting, as bearing on the influence of his own work on 
the methods of geology. 

" I have at last found time to read the first chapter of your 
' Dolomit Riffe,' and have been exceedingly interested by it, 
What a wonderful change in the future of geological chron- 
ology you indicate, by assuming the descent theory to be 

* The editor of { Mind.' peared in the 'Revue Philoso- 

t 1877, p. 252. The original ap- phique," 1876. 

1878.] GEOLOGY. 235 

established, and then taking the graduated changes of the 
same group of organisms as the true standard ! I never 
hoped to live to see such a step even proposed by any one." 

Another geological research which roused my father's 
admiration was Mr. D. Mackintosh's work on erratic blocks. 
Apart from its intrinsic merit the work keenly excited his 
sympathy from the conditions under which it was executed, 
Mr. Mackintosh being compelled to give nearly his whole 
time to tuition. The following passage is from a letter to 
Mr. Mackintosh of October 9, 1879, and refers to his paper in 
the Journal of the Geological Society, 1878 : — 

"I hope that you will allow me to have the pleasure of 
thanking you for the very great pleasure which I have derived 
from just reading your paper on erratic blocks. The map 
is wonderful, and what labour each of those lines shows ! I 
have thought for some years that the agency of floating ice, 
which nearly half a century ago was overrated, has of late 
been underrated. You are the sole man who has ever noticed 
the distinction suggested by me * between flat or planed 
scored rocks, and mammillated scored rocks."] 

C. Darwin to C. Ridley. 

Down, November 28, 1878. 

Dear Sir, — I just skimmed through Dr. Pusey's sermon, 
as published in the Guardian, but it did [not] seem to me 
worthy of any attention. As I have never answered criticisms 
excepting those made by scientific men, I am not willing that 
this letter should be published ; but I have no objection to 
your saying that you sent me the three questions, and that 
I answered that Dr. Pusey was mistaken in imagining that I 
wrote the ' Origin ' with any relation whatever to Theology. I 
should have thought that this would have been evident to 

* In his paper on the ' Ancient Glaciers of Carnarvonshire,' Phil. 
Mag. xxi. 1842. See p. 187. 

236 MISCELLANEA (continued). [1878. 

any one who had taken the trouble to read the book, more 
especially as in the opening lines of the introduction I specify 
how the subject arose in my mind. This answer disposes of 
your two other questions ; but I may add that, many years 
ago, when I was collecting facts for the ' Origin,' my belief in 
what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr. 
Pusey himself, and as to the eternity of matter I have never 
troubled myself about such insoluble questions. Dr. Pusey's 
attack will be as powerless to retard by a day the belief in 
Evolution, as were the virulent attacks made by divines fifty 
years ago against Geology, and the still older ones of the 
Catholic Church against Galileo, for the public is wise enough 
always to follow Scientific men when they agree on any 
subject ; and now there is almost complete unanimity 
amongst Biologists about Evolution, though there is still 
considerable difference as to the means, such as how far 
natural selection has acted, and how far external conditions, 
or whether there exists some mysterious innate tendency to 
perfectibility. I remain, dear Sir, 

Yours faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[Theologians were not the only adversaries of freedom in 
science. On Sept. 22, 1877, Prof. Virchow delivered an address 
at the Munich meeting of German Naturalists and Physicians, 
which had the effect of connecting Socialism with the Descent 
theory. This point of view was taken up by anti-evolu- 
tionists to such an extent that, according to Haeckel, the 
Kreuz Zeitung threw " all the blame " of the " treasonable 
attempts of the democrats Hodel and Nobiling . . . directly 
on the theory of Descent." Prof. Haeckel replied with vigour 
and ability in his ' Freedom in Science and Teaching ' (Eng. 
Transl. 1879), an essay which must have the sympathy of all 
lovers of freedom. 

The following passage from a letter (December 26, 1879) to 




Dr. Scherzer, the author of the ' Voyage of the NovaraJ gives 
a hint of my father's views on this once burning question : — 

" What a foolish idea seems to prevail in Germany on the 
connection between Socialism and Evolution through Natural 

C. Darwin to H. N. Moseley* 

Down, January 20, 1879. 

DEAR MOSELEY, — I have just received your book, and I 
declare that never in my life have I seen a dedication which 
I admired so much.t Of course I am not a fair judge, but I 
hope that I speak dispassionately, though you have touched 
me in my very tenderest point, by saying that my old Journal 
mainly gave you the wish to travel as a Naturalist. I shall 
begin to read your book this very evening, and am sure that 
I shall enjoy it much. 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to H. N. Moseley. 

Down, February 4, 1879. 

DEAR MOSELEY, — I have at last read every word of your 
book, and it has excited in me greater interest than any other 
scientific book which I have read for a long time. You will 
perhaps be surprised how slow I have been, but my head 
prevents me reading except at intervals. If I were asked 
which parts have interested me most, I should be somewhat 

* Professor of Zoology at Oxford. 
The book alluded to is Prof. Mose- 
ley 's ' Notes by a Naturalist on the 

f " To Charles Darwin, Esquire, 
LL.D., F.R.S., &c, from the study 
of whose ' Journal of Researches ' I 
mainly derived my desire to travel 

round the world ; to the develop- 
ment of whose theory I owe the 
principal pleasures and interests of 
my life, and who has personally 
given me much kindly encourage- 
ment in the prosecution of my 
studies, this book is, by permission, 
gratefully dedicated." 

238 MISCELLANEA (continued). [1879. 

puzzled to answer. I fancy that the general reader would 
prefer your account of Japan. For myself I hesitate between 
your discussions and description of the Southern ice, which 
seems to me admirable, and the last chapter which contained 
many facts and views new to me, though I had read your 
papers on the stony Hydroid Corals, yet your resumi made 
me realise better than I had done before, what a most curious 
case it is. 

You have also collected a surprising number of valuable 
facts bearing on the disposal of plants, far more than in any 
other book known to me. In fact your volume is a mass of 
interesting facts and discussions, with hardly a superfluous 
word ; and I heartily congratulate you on its publication. 

Your dedication makes me prouder than ever. 

Believe me, yours sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[In November, 1879, he answered for Mr. Galton a series of 
questions for his 'Inquiries into Human Faculty/ 1883. He 
wrote to Mr. Galton : — 

" I have answered the questions as well as I could, but they 
are miserably answered, for I have never tried looking into 
my own mind. Unless others answer very much better than 
I can do, you will get no good from your queries. Do you 
not think you ought to have the age of the answerer ? I 
think so, because I can call up faces of many schoolboys, not 
seen for sixty years, with much distinctness, but nowadays I 
may talk with a man for an hour, and see him several times 
consecutively, and, after a month, I am utterly unable to 
recollect what he is at all like. The picture is quite washed 

The greater number of the answers are given in the 
annexed table :] 

1 879.] visualising. 239 

Questions on the Faculty of Visualising. 




Illumination ? 

Moderate, but my solitary breakfast was 
early, and the morning dark. 


Definitioji ? 

Some objects quite denned, a slice of cold 
beef, some grapes and a pear, the state 
of my plate when 1 had finished, and a 
few other objects, are as distinct as if 1 
had photos before me. 


Complete7iess ? 

Very moderately so. 


Colouring f 

The objects above-named, perfectly 


Extent of Field of 

Rather small. 




Printed pages f 

1 cannot remember a single sentence, but 
1 remember the place of the sentence 
and the kind of type. 


Furniture ? 

1 have never attended to it. 


Persons ? 

1 remember the faces of persons formerly 
well-known vividly, and can make them 
do anything 1 like. 


Scenery ? 

Remembrance vivid and distinct, and gives 
me pleasure. 


Geography ? 



Military movements t 



Mechaiiism ? 

Never tried. 


Geometry ? 

1 do not think 1 have any power of the 


Numerals ? 

When 1 think of any number, printed 
figures arise before my mind. 1 can't 
remember for an hour four consecutive 


Card playing f 

Have not played for many years, but 1 am 
sure should not remember. 


Chess ? 

Never played. 

240 miscellanea {continued). [1880. 

[In 1880 he published a short paper in 'Nature' (vol. 
xxi. p. 207) on the "Fertility of Hybrids from the com- 
mon and Chinese goose." He received the hybrids from 
the Rev. Dr. Goodacre, and was glad of the opportunity of 
testing the accuracy of the statement that these species are 
fertile inter se. This fact, which was given in the ' Origin ' on 
the authority of Mr. Eyton, he considered the most remark- 
able as yet recorded with respect to the fertility of hybrids. 
The fact (as confirmed by himself and Dr. Goodacre) is of 
interest as giving another proof that sterility is no criterion 
of specific difference, since the two species of goose now 
shown to be fertile inter se are so distinct that they have 
been placed by some authorities in distinct genera or sub- 

The following letter refers to Mr. Huxley's lecture : " The 
Coming of Age of the Origin of Species," * given at the 
Royal Institution, April 9, 1880, published in 'Nature,' and 
in ' Science and Culture,' p. 310 :] 

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley. 

Abinger Hall, Dorking, Sunday, April 11, 1880. 

My dear Huxley, — I wished much to attend your 
Lecture, but I have had a bad cough, and we have come 
here to see whether a change would do me good, as it has 
done. What a magnificent success your lecture seems to 

* This same" Coming of Age "was is given in ' Nature,' February 24, 
the subject of an address from the 1881. 
Council of the Otago Institute. It 

1 88a] MR. HUXLEY'S LECTURE. 241 

have been, as I judge from the reports in the Standard and 
Daily News, and more especially from the accounts given me 
by three of my children. I suppose that you have not 
written out your lecture, so I fear there is no chance of its 
being printed in extenso. You appear to have piled, as on 
so many other occasions, honours high and thick on my old 
head. But I well know how great a part you have played in 
establishing and spreading the belief in the descent-theory, 
ever since that grand review in the Times and the battle 
royal at Oxford up to the present day. 

Ever, my dear Huxley, 

Yours sincerely and gratefully, 

Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — It was absurdly stupid in me, but I had read the 
announcement of your Lecture, and thought that you meant 
the maturity of the subject, until my wife one day remarked, 
" it is almost twenty-one years since the ' Origin ' appeared," 
and then for the first time the meaning of your words flashed 
on me ! 

[In the above-mentioned lecture Mr. Huxley made a strong 
point of the accumulation of palaeontological evidence which 
the years between 1859 and 1880 have given us in favour of 
Evolution. On this subject my father wrote (August 31, 

My dear Professor Marsh, — I received some time ago 
your very kind note of July 28th, and yesterday the mag- 
nificent volume.* I have looked with renewed admiration at 
the plates, and will soon read the text. Your work on these 
old birds, and on the many fossil animals of North America, 
has afforded the best support to the theory of Evolution, 

* Odontornithes. A monograph on the extinct Toothed Birds of N. 
America. 1880. By 0. C. Marsh. 



MISCELLANEA — (continued). 


which has appeared within the last twenty years.* The 
general appearance of the copy which you have sent me is 
worthy of its contents, and I can say nothing stronger than 

With cordial thanks, believe me, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

[In November, 1880, he received an account of a flood in 
Brazil, from which his friend Fritz Miiller had barely escaped 
with his life. My father immediately wrote to Hermann Miiller 
anxiously enquiring whether his brother had lost books, instru- 
ments, &c, by this accident, and begging in that case " for the 
sake of science, so that science should not suffer," to be allowed 
to help in making good the loss. Fortunately, however, the 
injury to Fitz M tiller's possessions was not so great as was 
expected, and the incident remains only as a memento, which 
I trust cannot be otherwise than pleasing to the survivor, of 
the friendship of the two naturalists. 

In 'Nature' (November 1 1, 1880) appeared a letter from 
my father, which is, I believe, the only instance in which 
he wrote publicly with anything like severity. The late 
Sir Wyville Thomson wrote, in the Introduction to the 
' Voyage of the Challenger ' : " The character of the abyssal 
fauna refuses to give the least support to the theory which 
refers the evolution of species to extreme variation guided 
only by natural selection." My father, after characterising 
these remarks as a "standard of criticism, not uncommonly 
reached by theologians and metaphysicians," goes on to take 

* Mr. Huxley has well pointed 
out (' Science and Culture,' p. 317) 
that : "In 1875, the discovery of 
the toothed birds of the cretaceous 
formation in N. America, by Prof. 
Marsh, completed the series of 
transitional forms between birds 
and reptiles, and removed Mr. 

Darwin's proposition that, 'many 
animal forms of life have been 
utterly lost, through which the 
early progenitors of birds were 
formerly connected with the early 
progenitors of the other vertebrate 
classes,' from the region of hypo- 
thesis to that of demonstrable fact." 

1 88 1.] SIR WYVILLE THOMSON. 243 

exception to the term "extreme variation," and challenges 
Sir Wy ville to name any one who has " said that the evolu- 
tion of species depends only on natural selection." The letter 
closes with an imaginary scene between Sir Wyville and a 
breeder, in which Sir Wyville criticises artificial selection in 
a somewhat similar manner. The breeder is silent, but on 
the departure of his critic he is supposed to make use of 
"emphatic but irreverent language about naturalists." The 
letter, as originally written, ended with a quotation from 
Sedgwick on the invulnerability of those who write on what 
they do not understand, but this was omitted on the advice 
of a friend, and curiously enough a friend whose combative- 
ness in the good cause my father had occasionally curbed.] 

C. Darwi?i to G. J. Romanes. 

Down, April 16, 1881. 

My DEAR ROMANES, — My MS. on 'Worms' has been sent 
to the printers, so I am going to amuse myself by scribbling 
to you on a few points ; but you must not waste your time 
in answering at any length this scribble. 

Firstly, your letter on intelligence was very useful to me 
and I tore up and re-wrote what I sent to you. I have not 
attempted to define intelligence ; but have quoted your 
remarks on experience, and have shown how far they apply 
to worms. It seems to me that they must be said to work 
with some intelligence, anyhow they are not guided by a 
blind instinct. 

Secondly, I was greatly interested by the abstract in 
1 Nature ' of your work on Echinoderms,* the complexity with 
simplicity, and with such curious co-ordination of the nervous 
system is marvellous ; and you showed me before what 
splendid gymnastic feats they can perform. 

* " On the locomotor system of and J. Cossar Evvart. ■ Philoso- 
Echinoderms," by G. J. Romanes phical Transactions,' 1881, p. 829. 

R 2 

244 MISCELLANEA — {continued). [1881. 

Thirdly, Dr. Roux has sent me a book just published by 
him: ' Der Kampf der Theile,' &c., 1881 (240 pages in 

He is manifestly a well-read physiologist and pathologist, 
and from his position a good anatomist. It is full of reason- 
ing, and this in German is very difficult to me, so that I have 
only skimmed through each page ; here and there reading 
with a little more care. As far as I can imperfectly judge, it 
is the most important book on Evolution which has appeared 
for some time. I believe that G. H. Lewes hinted at the 
same fundamental idea, viz. that there is a struggle going on 
within every organism between the organic molecules, the 
cells and the organs. I think that his basis is, that every cell 
which best performs its function is, in consequence, at the same 
time best nourished and best propagates its kind. The book 
does not touch on mental phenomena, but there is much 
discussion on rudimentary or atrophied parts, to which 
subject you formerly attended. Now if you would like to 
read this book, I would send it. . . . If you read it, and are 
struck with it (but I may be wholly mistaken about its value), 
you would do a public service by analysing and criticising it 
in 'Nature.' 

Dr. Roux makes, I think, a gigantic oversight in never con- 
sidering plants ; these would simplify the problem for him. 

Fourthly, I do not know whether you will discuss in your 
book on the mind of animals any of the more complex and 
wonderful instincts. It is unsatisfactory work, as there can 
be no fossilised instincts, and the sole guide is their state in 
other members of the same order, and mere probability. 

But if you do discuss any (and it will perhaps be expected 
of you), I should think that you could not select a better case 
than that of the sand wasps, which paralyse their prey, as 
formerly described by Fabre, in his wonderful paper in the 
1 Annates des Sciences,' and since amplified in his admirable 
* Souvenirs.' 


Whilst reading this latter book, I speculated a little on the 
subject. Astonishing nonsense is often spoken of the sand 
wasp's knowledge of anatomy. Now will any one say that 
the Gauchos on the plains of La Plata have such knowledge, 
yet I have often seen them pith a struggling and lassoed cow 
on the ground with unerring skill, which no mere anatomist 
could imitate. The pointed knife was infallibly driven in 
between the vertebrae by a single slight thrust. I presume 
that the art was first discovered by chance, and that each 
young Gaucho sees exactly how the others do it, and then 
with a very little practice learns the art. Now I suppose that 
the sand wasps originally merely killed their prey by stinging 
them in many places (see p. 129 of Fabre's ' Souvenirs,' 
and p. 241) on the lower and softest side of the body — and 
that to sting a certain segment was found by far the most 
successful method ; and was inherited like the tendency of a 
bulldog to pin the nose of a bull, or of a ferret to bite the 
cerebellum. It would not be a very great step in advance to 
prick the ganglion of its prey only slightly, and thus to give 
its larvae fresh meat instead of old dried meat. Though 
Fabre insists so strongly on the unvarying character of 
instinct, yet it is shown that there is some variability, as at 
p. 176, 177. 

I fear that I shall have utterly wearied you with my 
scribbling and bad handwriting. 

My dear Romanes, yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

Postscript of a Letter to Professor A. Agassiz, May $t/i, 

1881 :— 

"I read with much interest your address before the American 
Association. However true your remarks on the genealogies 
of the several groups may be, I hope and believe that you 
have over-estimated the difficulties to be encountered in the 
future : — A few days after reading your address, I interpreted 

246 MISCELLANEA — (continued). [188 1. 

to myself your remarks on one point (I hope in some degree 
correctly) in the following fashion : — 

Any character of an ancient, generalised, or intermediate 
form may, and often does, re-appear in its descendants, after 
countless generations, and this explains the extraordinarily 
complicated affinities of existing groups. This idea seems 
to me to throw a flood of light on the lines, sometimes used 
to represent affinities, which radiate in all directions, often to 
very distant sub-groups, — a difficulty which has haunted me 
for half a century. A strong case could be made out in favour 
of believing in such reversion after immense intervals of time. 
I wish the idea had been put into my head in old days, for I 
shall never again write on difficult subjects, as I have seen too 
many cases of old men becoming feeble in their minds, without 
being in the least conscious of it. If I have interpreted your 
ideas at all correctly, I hope that you will re-urge, on any fitting 
occasion, your view. I have mentioned it to a few persons 
capable of judging, and it seemed quite new to them. I beg 
you to forgive the proverbial garrulity of old age. 

C. D." 

[The following letter refers to Sir J. D. Hooker's Geo- 
graphical address at the York Meeting (188 1) of the British 
Association : ] 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker, 

Down, August 6, 1881. 

My Dear HOOKER, — For Heaven's sake never speak of 
boring me, as it would be the greatest pleasure to aid you in 
the slightest degree and your letter has interested me ex- 
ceedingly. I will go through your points seriatim, but I have 
never attended much to the history of any subject, and my 
memory has become atrociously bad. It will therefore be a 
mere chance whether any of my remarks are of any use. 


Your idea, to show what travellers have done, seems to me 
a brilliant and just one, especially considering your audience. 

1. I know nothing about Tournefort's works. 

2. I believe that you are fully right in calling Humboldt 
the greatest scientific traveller who ever lived. I have lately 
read two or three volumes again. His Geology is funny stuff; 
but that merely means that he was not in advance of his age. 
I should say he was wonderful, more for his near approach to 
omniscience than for originality. Whether or not his position 
as a scientific man is as eminent as we think, you might truly 
call him the parent of a grand progeny of scientific travellers, 
who, taken together, have done much for science. 

3. It seems to me quite just to give Lyell (and secondarily 
E. Forbes) a very prominent place. 

4. Dana was, I believe, the first man who maintained the 
permanence of continents and the great oceans. . . . When I 
read the ' Challenger 's ' conclusion that sediment from the 
land is not deposited at greater distances than 200 to 300 
miles from the land, I was much strengthened in my old 
belief. Wallace seems to me to have argued the case ex- 
cellently. Nevertheless, I would speak, if I were in your place, 
rather cautiously ; for T. Mellard Reade has argued lately 
with some force against the view ; but I cannot call to mind his 
arguments. If forced to express a judgment, I should abide 
by the view of approximate permanence since Cambrian days. 

5. The extreme importance of the Arctic fossil plants, is 
self-evident. Take the opportunity of groaning over [our] 
ignorance of the Lignite Plants of Kerguelen Land, or any 
Antarctic land. It might do good. 

6. I cannot avoid feeling sceptical about the travelling of 
plants from the North except during the Tertiary period. It 
may of course have been so and probably was so from one 
of the two poles at the earliest period, during Pre-Cambrian 
ages ; but such speculations seem to me hardly scientific, 
seeing how little we know of the old Floras. 

248 MISCELLANEA — (continued). [188 1. 

I will now jot down without any order a few miscellaneous 

I think you ought to allude to Alph. De Candolle's great 
book, for though it (like almost everything else) is washed out 
of my mind, yet I remember most distinctly thinking it a 
very valuable work. Anyhow, you might allude to his 
excellent account of the history of all cultivated plants. 

How shall you manage to allude to your New Zealand and 
Tierra del Fuego work ? if you do not allude to them you 
will be scandalously unjust. 

The many Angiosperm plants in the Cretacean beds of the 
United States (and as far as I can judge the age of these 
beds has been fairly well made out) seems to me a fact of 
very great importance, so is their relation to the existing flora 
of the United States under an Evolutionary point of view. 
Have not some Australian extinct forms been lately found in 
Australia ? or have I dreamed it ? 

Again, the recent discovery of plants rather low down in 
our Silurian beds is very important. 

Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the Vege- 
table Kingdom, as it seems to me, than the apparently very 
sudden or abrupt development of the higher plants. I have 
sometimes speculated whether there did not exist somewhere 
during long ages an extremely isolated continent, perhaps 
near the South Pole. 

Hence I was greatly interested by a view which Saporta 
propounded to me, a few years ago, at great length in MS. 
and which I fancy he has since published, as I urged him to 
do — viz., that as soon as flower-frequenting insects were 
developed, during the latter part of the secondary period, an 
enormous impulse was given to the development of the higher 
plants by cross-fertilization being thus suddenly formed. 

A few years ago I was much struck with Axel Blytt's * 
Essay showing from observation, on the peat beds in Scandi- 

* See footnote, Vol. iii. p. 215. 


navia, that there had apparently been long periods with more 
rain and other with less rain (perhaps connected with Croll's 
recurrent astronomical periods), and that these periods had 
largely determined the present distribution of the plants of 
Norway and Sweden. This seemed to me a very important 

I have just read over my remarks and I fear that they will 
not be of the slightest use to you. 

I cannot but think that you have got through the hardest, 
or at least the most difficult, part of your work in having made 
so good and striking a sketch of what you intend to say ; 
but I can quite understand how you must groan over the 
great necessary labour. 

I most heartily sympathise with you on the successes of 
B. and R. : as years advance what happens to oneself 
becomes of very little consequence, in comparison with the 
careers of our children. 

Keep your spirits up, for I am convinced that you will 
make an excellent address. 

Ever yours affectionately, 

Charles Darwin. 

[In September he wrote : — 

" I have this minute finished reading your splendid but 
too short address. I cannot doubt that it will have been 
fully appreciated by the Geographers at York ; if not, they 
are asses and fools."] 

C. Darwin to John Lubbock. 

Sunday evening [1881]. 

My DEAR L., — Your address * has made me think over 
what have been the great steps in Geology during the last 
fifty years, and there can be no harm in telling you my im- 
pression. But it is very odd that I cannot remember what 

* Presidential Address at the York Meeting of the British Association. 

250 miscellanea— {continued). [1881. 

you have said on Geology. I suppose that the classification 
of the Silurian and Cambrian formations must be considered 
the greatest or most important step ; for I well remember 
when all these older rocks were called grau-wacke, and 
nobody dreamed of classing them ; and now we have three 
azoic formations pretty well made out beneath the Cambrian 1 
But the most striking step has been the discovery of the 
Glacial period : you are too young to remember the pro- 
digious effect this produced about the year 1840 (?) on all our 
minds. Elie de Beaumont never believed in it to the day 
of his death ! the study of the glacial deposits led to the 
study of the superficial drift, which was formerly never 
studied and called Diluvium, as I well remember. The study 
under the microscope of rock-sections is another not incon- 
siderable step. So again the making out of cleavage and the 
foliation of the metamorphic rocks. But I will not run on, 
having now eased my mind. Pray do not waste even one 
minute in acknowledging my horrid scrawls. 

Ever yours, 
Ch. Darwin. 

[The following extracts referring to the late Francis Mait- 
land Balfour,* show my father's estimate of his work and 
intellectual qualities, but they give merely an indication of 
his strong appreciation of Balfour's most loveable personal 
character : — 

From a letter to Fritz Miiller, January 5, 1882 : — 
" Your appreciation of Balfour's book [ 4 Comparative Em- 
bryology '] has pleased me excessively, for though I could not 
properly judge of it, yet it seemed to me one of the most 
remarkable books which have been published for some con- 
siderable time. He is quite a young man, and if he keeps 

* Professor of Animal Morpho- on the Aiguille Blanche, near 
logy at Cambridge. He was born Courmayeur, in July, 1882. 
185 1, and was killed, with his guide, 

1 882.] AUTOMATISM. 25 1 

his health, will do splendid work. ... He has a fair fortune 

of his own, so that he can give up his whole time to Biology. 

He is very modest, and very pleasant, and often visits here 

and we like him very much." 

From a letter to Dr. Dohrn, February 13, 1882 : — 

" I have got one very bad piece of news to tell you, that 

F. Balfour is very ill at Cambridge with typhoid fever. . . . 

I hope that he is not in a very dangerous state ; but the 

fever is severe. Good Heavens, what a loss he would be to 

Science, and to his many loving friends ! "] 

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley. 

Down, January 12, 1882. 

My DEAR Huxley, — Very many thanks for 'Science and 
Culture,' and I am sure that I shall read most of the essays 
with much interest. With respect to Automatism,* I wish 
that you could review yourself in the old, and of course for- 
gotten, trenchant style, and then you would here answer 
yourself with equal incisiveness ; and thus, by Jove, you 
might go on ad infinitum, to the joy and instruction of the 

Ever yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The following letter refers to Dr. Ogle's translation of 
Aristotle, ■ On the Parts of Animals ' (1882) :] 

C. Darwin to W. Ogle. 

Down, February 22, 1882. 

My DEAR Dr. Ogle, — You must let me thank you for 
the pleasure which the introduction to the Aristotle book 

* "On the hypothesis that ani- 1874, and published in the ' Fort- 

mals are automata and its history," nightly Review,' 1874, an d i n 

an Address given at the Belfast ' Science and Culture.' 
meeting of the British Association, 

252 MISCELLANEA — {continued). [1882. 

has given me. I have rarely read anything which has inte- 
rested me more, though I have not read as yet more than a 
quarter of the book proper. 

From quotations which I had seen, I had a high notion of 
Aristotle's merits, but I had not the most remote notion what 
a wonderful man he was. Linnasus and Cuvier have been 
my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were 
mere schoolboys to old Aristotle. How very curious, also, 
his ignorance on some points, as on muscles as the means of 
movement. I am glad that you have explained in so probable 
a manner some of the grossest mistakes attributed to him. I 
never realized, before reading your book, to what an enormous 
summation of labour we owe even our common knowledge. 
I wish old Aristotle could know what a grand Defender of 
the Faith he had found in you. Believe me, my dear Dr. 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[In February, he received a letter and a specimen from a 
Mr. W. D. Crick, which illustrated a curious mode of dispersal 
of bivalve shells, namely, by closure of their valves so as to 
hold on to the leg of a water-beetle. This class of fact had 
a special charm for him, and he wrote to ' Nature ' describing 
the case.* 

In April, he received a letter from Dr. W. Van Dyck, 
Lecturer in Zoology at the Protestant College of Beyrout. 
The letter showed that the street dogs of Beyrout had been 
rapidly mongrelised by introduced European dogs, and the 
facts have an interesting bearing on my father's theory of 
Sexual Selection.] 

* 1 

Nature,' April 6, 1882. 

1 882.] DR. VAN DYCK'S PAPER. 253 

C. Darwin to W. Van Dyck. 

Down, April 3, 1882. 

DEAR Sir, — After much deliberation, I have thought it 
best to send your very interesting paper to the Zoological 
Society, in hopes that it will be published in their Journal. 
This journal goes to every scientific institution in the world, 
and the contents are abstracted in all year-books on Zoology. 
Therefore I have preferred it to 'Nature,' though the latter has 
a wider circulation, but is ephemeral. 

I have prefaced your essay by a few general remarks, to 
which I hope that you will not object. 

Of course I do not know that the Zoological Society, which 
is much addicted to mere systematic work, will publish your 
essay. If it does, I will send you copies of your essay, but 
these will not be ready for some months. If not published 
by the Zoological Society, I will endeavour to get ' Nature' to 
publish it. I am very anxious that it should be published 
and preserved. Dear Sir, 

Yours faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[The paper was read at a meeting of the Zoological Society 
on April 18th — the day before my father's death. 

The preliminary remarks with which Dr. Van Dyck's paper 
is prefaced are thus the latest of my father's writings. ] 

We must now return to an early period of his life, and give 
a connected account of his botanical work, which has hitherto 
been omitted. 

( 254 ) 



[In the letters already given we have had occasion to notice 
the general bearing of a number of botanical problems on the 
wider question of Evolution. The detailed work in botany 
which my father accomplished by the guidance of the light 
cast on the study of natural history by his own work on 
Evolution remains to be noticed. In a letter to Mr. Murray, 
September 24th, 186 1, speaking of his book on the 'Ferti- 
lisation of Orchids/ he says : " It will perhaps serve to 
illustrate how Natural History may be worked under the 
belief of the modification of species." This remark gives a 
suggestion as to the value and interest of his botanical work, 
and it might be expressed in far more emphatic language 
without danger of exaggeration. 

In the same letter to Mr. Murray, he says : " I think this 
little volume will do good to the ' Origin,' as it will show that 
I have worked hard at details." It is true that his botanical 
work added a mass of corroborative detail to the case for 
Evolution, but the chief support to his doctrines given by 
these researches was of another kind. They supplied an 
argument against those critics who have so freely dogmatised 
as to the uselessness of particular structures, and as to the 
consequent impossibility of their having been developed by 
means of natural selection. His observations on Orchids 
enabled him to say : " I can show the meaning of some of 
the apparently meaningless ridges, horns ; who will now 


venture to say that this or that structure is useless ? " A 
kindred point is expressed in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker 
(May 14th, 1862):— 

"When many parts of structure, as in the woodpecker, 
show distinct adaptation to external bodies, it is preposterous 
to attribute them to the effects of climate, &c, but when a 
single point alone, as a hooked seed, it is conceivable it may 
thus have arisen. I have found the study of Orchids emi- 
nently useful in showing me how nearly all parts of the flower 
are co-adapted for fertilisation by insects, and therefore the 
results of natural selection, — even the most trifling details of 

One of the greatest services rendered by my father to the 
study of Natural History is the revival of Teleology. The 
evolutionist studies the purpose or meaning of organs with 
the zeal of the older Teleology, but with far wider and more 
coherent purpose. He has the invigorating knowledge that 
he is gaining not isolated conceptions of the economy of the 
present, but a coherent view of both past and present. And 
even where he fails to discover the use of any part, he may, 
by a knowledge of its structure, unravel the history of the 
past vicissitudes in the life of the species. In this way a 
vigour and unity is given to the study of the forms of 
organised beings, which before it lacked. This point has 
already been discussed in Mr. Huxley's chapter on the 
'Reception of the Origin of Species] and need not be 
here considered. It does, however, concern us to recognize 
that this "great service to natural science," as Dr. Gray 
describes it, was effected almost as much by his special 
botanical work as by the ' Origin of Species.' 

For a statement of the scope and influence of my father's 
botanical work, I may refer to Mr. Thiselton Dyer's article 
in ' Charles Darwin,' one of the Nature Series. Mr. Dyer's 
wide knowledge, his friendship with my father, and especially 
his power of sympathising with the work of others, combine 


to give this essay a permanent value. The following passage 
(p. 43) gives a true picture : — 

" Notwithstanding the extent and variety of his botanical 
work, Mr. Darwin always disclaimed any right to be regarded 
as a professed botanist. He turned his attention to plants, 
doubtless because they were convenient objects for studying 
organic phenomena in their least complicated forms ; and this 
point of view, which, if one may use the expression without 
disrespect, had something of the amateur about it, was in 
itself of the greatest importance. For, from not being, till he 
took up any point, familiar with the literature bearing on it, 
his mind was absolutely free from any prepossession. He 
was never afraid of his facts, or of framing any hypothesis, 
however startling, which seemed to explain them. ... In any 
one else such an attitude would have produced much work 
that was crude and rash. But Mr. Darwin — if one may 
venture on language which will strike no one who had con- 
versed with him as over-strained — seemed by gentle persua- 
sion to have penetrated that reserve of nature which baffles 
smaller men. In other words, his long experience had given 
him a kind of instinctive insight into the method of attack of 
any biological problem, however unfamiliar to him, while he 
rigidly controlled the fertility of his mind in hypothetical 
explanations by the no less fertility of ingeniously devised 

To form any just idea of the greatness of the revolution 
worked by my father's researches in the study of the fertilisa- 
tion of flowers, it is necessary to know from what a condition 
this branch of knowledge has emerged. It should be re- 
membered that it was only during the early years of the 
present century that the idea of sex, as applied to plants, 
became firmly established. Sachs, in his ' History of Botany ' 
(1875), has given some striking illustrations of the remark- 
able slowness with which its acceptance gained ground. He 
remarks that when we consider the experimental proofs given 


by Camerarius (1694), and by Kolreuter (1761-66), it appears 
incredible that doubts should afterwards have been raised as 
to the sexuality of plants. Yet he shows that such doubts 
did actually repeatedly crop up. These adverse criticisms 
rested for the most part on careless experiments, but in many 
cases on d priori arguments. Even as late as 1820, a book of 
this kind, which would now rank with circle squaring, or flat- 
earth philosophy, was seriously noticed in a botanical journal. 

A distinct conception of sex as applied to plants had not 
long emerged from the mists of profitless discussion and 
feeble experiment, at the time when my father began botany 
by attending Henslow's lectures at Cambridge. 

When the belief in the sexuality of plants had become 
established as an incontrovertible piece of knowledge, a 
weight of misconception remained, weighing down any 
rational view of the subject. Camerarius * believed (naturally 
enough in his day) that hermaphrodite flowers are necessarily 
self-fertilised. He had the wit to be astonished at this, a 
degree of intelligence which, as Sachs points out, the majority 
of his successors did not attain to. 

The following extracts from a note-book show that this 
point occurred to my father as early as 1837 : — 

" Do not plants which have male and female organs 
together [i.e. in the same flower] yet receive influence from 
other plants ? Does not Lyell give some argument about 
varieties being difficult to keep [true] on account of pollen 
from other plants ? Because this may be applied to show all 
plants do receive intermixture." 

Sprengel, f indeed, understood that the hermaphrodite 
structure of flowers by no means necessarily leads to self- 
fertilisation. But although he discovered that in many cases 
pollen is of necessity carried to the stigma of another flower, 
he did not understand that in the advantage gained by the 

* Sachs, ' Geschichte,' p. 419. 

t Christian Conrad Sprengel, born 1750, died 1816. 



intercrossing of distinct plants lies the key to the whole 
question. Hermann Miiller has well remarked that this 
" omission was for several generations fatal to Sprengel's 
work. .... For both at the time and subsequently, botanists 
felt above all the weakness of his theory, and they set aside, 
along with his defective ideas, his rich store of patient and 
acute observations and his comprehensive and accurate inter- 
pretations." It remained for my father to convince the world 
that the meaning hidden in the structure of flowers was to 
be found by seeking light in the same direction in which 
Sprengel, seventy years before, had laboured. Robert Brown 
was the connecting link between them ; for although, accord- 
ing to Dr. Gray, * Brown, in common with the rest of the 
world, looked on Sprengel's ideas as fantastic, yet it was at 
his recommendation that my father in 1841 read Sprengel's 
now celebrated ' Secret of Nature Displayed. \ The book 
impressed him as being " full of truth," although " with some 
little nonsense." It not only encouraged him in kindred 
speculation, but guided him in his work, for in 1844 he 
speaks of verifying Sprengel's observations. It may be 
doubted whether Robert Brown ever planted a more fruitful 
seed than in putting such a book into such hands. 

A passage in the * Autobiography ' (vol. i. p. 90) shows 
how it was that my father was attracted to the subject of 
fertilisation: "During the summer of 1839, and I believe 
during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the 
cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from 
having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the 
origin of species, that crossing played an important part in 
keeping specific forms constant." 

The original connection between the study of flowers and 
the problem of Evolution is curious, and could hardly have 
been predicted. Moreover, it was not a permanent bond. 

* ' Nature,' 1874, p. 80. Natur im Baue und in der Befruch- 

f 'Das entdeckte Geheimniss der tung der Blumen.' Berlin, 1793. 

1857.] OF FLOWERS. 259 

As soon as the idea arose that the offspring of cross- 
fertilisation is, in the struggle for life, likely to conquer the 
seedlings of self-fertilised parentage, a far more vigorous 
belief in the potency of natural selection in moulding the 
structure of flowers is attained. A central idea is gained 
towards which experiment and observation may be directed. 

Dr. Gray has well remarked with regard to this central idea 
(' Nature,' June 4, 1874) : — "The aphorism, ' Nature abhors a 
vacuum,' is a characteristic specimen of the science of the 
middle ages. The aphorism, ' Nature abhors close fertilisa- 
tion,' and the demonstration of the principle, belong to our 
age and to Mr. Darwin. To have originated this, and also 
the principle of Natural Selection .... and to have applied 
these principles to the system of nature, in such a manner as 
to make, within a dozen years, a deeper impression upon 
natural history than has been made since Linnaeus, is ample 
title for one man's fame." 

The flowers of the Papilionaceae attracted his attention 
early, and were the subject of his first paper on fertilisation.* 
The following extract from an undated letter to Dr. Asa 
Gray seems to have been written before the publication of 
this paper, probably in 1856 or 1857 : — 

" . . . . What you say on Papilionaceous flowers is very 
true ; and I have no facts to show that varieties are crossed ; 
but yet (and the same remark is applicable in a beautiful way 
to Fumaria and Dielytra, as I noticed many years ago), I 
must believe that the flowers are constructed partly in direct 
relation to the visits of insects ; and how insects can avoid 
bringing pollen from other individuals I cannot understand. 
It is really pretty to watch the action of a Humble-bee on 
the scarlet kidney bean, and in this genus (and in Lathyrus 

* Gardeners* Chronicle, 1857, founded leguminous paper was done 

p. 725. It appears that this paper in the afternoon, and the conse- 

was a piece of " over-time " work. quence was I had to go to Moor 

He wrote to a friend, " that con- Park for a week." 

S 2 


grandiflorus) the honey is so placed that the bee invariably 
alights on that one side of the flower towards which the spiral 
pistil is protruded (bringing out with it pollen), and by the 
depression of the wing-petal is forced against the bee's side 
all dusted with pollen.* In the broom the pistil is rubbed on 
the centre of the back of the bee. I suspect there is some- 
thing to be made out about the Leguminosae, which will 
bring the case within our theory ; though I have failed to do 
so. Our theory will explain why in the vegetable and ani- 
mal kingdom the act of fertilisation even in hermaphrodites 
usually takes place sub-jove, though thus exposed to great 
injury from damp and rain. In animals which cannot 
be [fertilised] by insects or wind, there is no case of land- 
animals being hermaphrodite without the concourse of two 

A letter to Dr. Asa Gray (Sept. 5th, 1857) gives the sub- 
stance of the paper in the Gardeners Chronicle : — 

" Lately I was led to examine buds of kidney bean with 
the pollen shed ; but I was led to believe that the pollen could 
hardly get on the stigma by wind or otherwise, except by 
bees visiting [the flower] and moving the wing petals : hence 
I included a small bunch of flowers in two bottles in every 
way treated the same : the flowers in one I d^ily just 
momentarily moved, as if by a bee ; these set three fine 
pods, the other not one. Of course this little experiment 
must be tried again, and this year in England it is too late, 
as the flowers seem now seldom to set. If bees are neces- 
sary to this flower's self-fertilisation, bees must almost cross 
them, as their dusted right-side of head and right legs 
constantly touch the stigma. 

"I have, also, lately been re-observing daily Lobelia fulgens 
— this in my garden is never visited by insects, and never sets 

* If you will look at a bed of alone are all scratched by the tarsi 
scarlet kidney beans you will find of the bees. [Note in the original 
that the wing-petals on the left side letter by C. Darwin.] 

1858.] OF FLOWERS. 261 

seeds, without pollen be put on the stigma (whereas the small 
blue Lobelia is visited by bees and does set seed) ; I mention 
this because there are such beautiful contrivances to prevent 
the stigma ever getting its own pollen ; which seems only 
explicable on the doctrine of the advantage of crosses." 

The paper was supplemented by a second in 1858.* The 
chief object of these publications seems to have been to 
obtain information as to the possibility of growing varieties 
of leguminous plants near each other, and yet keeping 
them true. It is curious that the Papilionacese should not 
only have been the first flowers which attracted his attention 
by their obvious adaptation to the visits of insects, but should 
also have constituted one of his sorest puzzles. The common 
pea and the sweet pea gave him much difficulty, because, 
although they are as obviously fitted for insect-visits as the 
rest of the order, yet their varieties keep true. The fact is 
that neither of these plants being indigenous, they are not 
perfectly adapted for fertilisation by British insects. He 
could not, at this stage of his observations, know that the 
co-ordination between a flower and the particular insect 
which fertilises it may be as delicate as that between a lock 
and its key, so that this explanation was not likely to occur 
to him.f 

Besides observing the Leguminosae, he had already begun, 
as shown in the foregoing extracts, to attend to the structure 
of other flowers in relation to insects. At the beginning of 
i860 he worked at Leschenaultia,J which at first puzzled him, 

* Gardeners' Chronicle, 1858, in the habits of insects. He pub- 

p. 828. In 1 86 1 another paper on lished a short note in the Entomo- 

Fertilisation appeared in the Gar- logisfs Weekly Intelligencer, i860, 

deners 1 Chronicle, p. 552, in which asking whether the Tineina and 

he explained the action of insects other small moths suck flowers, 
on Vinca major. He was attracted % He published a short paper on 

to the periwinkle by the fact that it the manner of fertilisation of this 

is not visited by insects and never flower, in the Gardeners' Chronicle, 

sets seeds. i87i,p. 1166. 

t He was of course alive to variety 


but was ultimately made out. A passage in a letter chiefly 
relating to Leschenaultia seems to show that it was only in 
the spring of i860 that he began widely to apply his know- 
ledge to the relation of insects to other flowers. This is 
somewhat surprising, when we remember that he had read 
Sprengel many years before. He wrote (May 14) : — 

" I should look at this curious contrivance as specially 
related to visits of insects ; as I begin to think is almost 
universally the case." 

Even in July 1862 he wrote to Dr. Asa Gray : — ■ 

"There is no end to the adaptations. Ought not these 
cases to make one very cautious when one doubts about the 
use of all parts? I fully believe that the structure of all 
irregular flowers is governed in relation to insects. Insects 
are the Lords of the floral (to quote the witty Atheiiceuni) 

He was probably attracted to the study of Orchids by 
the fact that several kinds are common near Down. The 
letters of i860 show that these plants occupied a good deal of 
his attention; and in 1861 he gave part of the summer , and 
all the autumn to the subject. He evidently considered 
himself idle for wasting time on Orchids which ought to 
have been given to ' Variation under Domestication.' Thus 
he wrote : — 

" There is to me incomparably more interest in observing 
than in writing ; but I feel quite guilty in trespassing on 
these subjects, and not sticking to varieties of the con- 
founded cocks, hens and ducks. I hear that Lyell is savage 
at me. I shall never resist Linum next summer." 

It was in the summer of i860 that he made out one of the 
most striking and familiar facts in the book, namely, the 
manner in which the pollen masses in Orchis are adapted 
for removal by insects. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker 
July 12 : — 

" I have been examining Orchis pyramidalis, and it almost 

i860.] of flowers. 263 

equals, perhaps even beats, your Listera case ; the sticky- 
glands are congenitally united into a saddle-shaped organ, 
which has great power of movement, and seizes hold of 
a bristle (or proboscis) in an admirable manner, and then 
another movement takes place in the pollen masses, by 
which they are beautifully adapted to leave pollen on the 
two lateral stigmatic surfaces. I never saw anything so 

In June of the same year he wrote : — 

"You speak of adaptation being rarely visible,, though 
present in plants. I have just recently been looking at the 
common Orchis, and I declare I think its adaptations in every 
part of the flower quite as beautiful and plain, or even more 
beautiful than in the Woodpecker. I have written and sent a 
notice for the Gardeners" Chronicle* on a curious difficulty in 
the Bee Orchis, and should much like to hear what you think 
of the case. In this article I have incidentally touched on 
adaptation to visits of insects ; but the contrivance to keep 
the sticky glands fresh and sticky beats almost everything in 
nature. I never remember having seen it described, but it 
must have been, and, as I ought not in my book to give 
the observation as my own, I should be very glad to know 
where this beautiful contrivance is described." 

He wrote also to Dr. Gray, June 8, i860 : — 

" Talking of adaptation, I have lately been looking at our 
common orchids, and I dare say the facts are as old and well- 
known as the hills, but I have been so struck with admiration 
at the contrivances, that I have sent a notice to the Gardeners* 
Chronicle. The Ophrys apifera, offers, as you will see, a curious 
contradiction in structure." 

Besides attending to the fertilisation of the flowers he was 
already, in i860, busy with the homologies of the parts, a 

* June 9,1860. This seems to was reprinted in the Entomologisfs 
have attracted some attention, es- Weekly Intelligencer, i860, 
pecially among entomologists, as it 


subject of which he made good use in the Orchid book. 
He wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (July) : — 

" It is a real good joke my discussing homologies of Orchids 
with you, after examining only three or four genera ; and this 
very fact makes me feel positive I am right ! ! I do not quite 
understand some of your terms ; but sometime I must get 
you to explain the homologies ; for I am intensely interested 
on the subject, just as at a game of chess." 

This work was valuable from a systematic point of view. 
In 1880 he wrote to Mr. Bentham : — 

"It was very kind in you to write to me about the 
Orchideae, for it has pleased me to an extreme degree that I 
could have been of the least use to you about the nature of 
the parts." 

The pleasure which his early observations on Orchids gave 
him is shown in such extracts as the following from a letter 
to Sir J. D. Hooker (July 27, 1861) : — 

" You cannot conceive how the Orchids have delighted me. 
They came safe, but box rather smashed ; cylindrical old 
cocoa- or snuff-canister much safer. I enclose postage. As 
an account of the movement, I shall allude to what I suppose 
is Oncidium, to make certain, — is the enclosed flower with 
crumpled petals this genus ? Also I most specially want to 
know what the enclosed little globular brown Orchid is. I 
have only seen pollen of a Cattleya on a bee, but surely have 
you not unintentionally sent me what I wanted most (after 
Catasetum or Mormodes), viz. one of the Epidendreae ? ! I 
particularly want (and will presently tell you why) another 
spike of this little Orchid, with older flowers, some even 
almost withered." 

His delight in observation is again shown in a letter to 
Dr. Gray (1863). Referring to Criiger's letters from Trinidad, 
he wrote : — " Happy man, he has actually seen crowds of 
bees flying round Catasetum, with the pollinia sticking to 
their backs !" 

l86l.] OF FLOWERS. 265 

The following extracts of letters to Sir J. D. Hooker illus- 
trate further the interest which his work excited in him : — 

" Veitch sent me a grand lot this morning. What wonderful 
structures ! 

" I have now seen enough, and you must not send me more, 
for though I enjoy looking at them much, and it has been 
very useful to me, seeing so many different forms, it is 
idleness. For my object each species requires studying for 
days. I wish you had time to take up the group. I would 
give a good deal to know what the rostellum is, of which I have 
traced so many curious modifications. I suppose it cannot be 
one of the stigmas,* there seems a great tendency for two 
lateral stigmas to appear. My paper, though touching on 
only subordinate points will run, I fear, to 100 MS. folio 
pages ! The beauty of the adaptation of parts seems to me 
unparalleled. I should think or guess waxy pollen was most 
differentiated. In Cypripedium which seems least modified, 
and a much exterminated group, the grains are single. In 
all others, as far as I have seen, they are in packets of four ; 
and these packets cohere into many wedge-formed masses in 
Orchis ; into eight, four, and finally two. It seems curious 
that a flower should exist, which could at most fertilise only 
two other flowers, seeing how abundant pollen generally is ; 
this fact I look at as explaining the perfection of the con- 
trivance by which the pollen, so important from its fewness, 
is carried from flower to flower" (1861). 

" I was thinking of writing to you to-day, when your note 
with the Orchids came. What frightful trouble you have 
taken about Vanilla ; you really must not take an atom 
more ; for the Orchids are more play than real work. I have 
been much interested by Epidendrum, and have worked all 
morning at them ; for heaven's sake, do not corrupt me by 
any more" (August 30, 1861). 

* It is a modification of the upper stigma. 


He originally intended to publish his notes on Orchids 
as a paper in the Linnean Society's Journal, but it soon 
became evident that a separate volume would be a more 
suitable form of publication. In a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, 
Sept. 24, 1 861, he writes : — 

" I have been acting, I fear that you will think, like a goose ; 
and perhaps in truth I have. When I finished a few days 
ago my Orchis paper, which turns out 140 folio pages ! ! and 
thought of the expense of woodcuts, I said to myself, I will 
offer the Linnean Society to withdraw it, and publish it in a 
pamphlet. It then flashed on me that perhaps Murray would 
publish it, so I gave him a cautious description, and offered 
to share risks and profits. This morning he writes that he 
will publish and take all risks, and share profits and pay for 
all illustrations. It is a risk, and heaven knows whether it 
will not be a dead failure, but I have not deceived Murray, 
and [have] told him that it would interest those alone who 
cared much for natural history. I hope I do not exaggerate 
the curiosity of the many special contrivances." 

He wrote the two following letters to Mr. Murray about 
the publication of the book :] 

Down, Sept. 21 [1861]. 

My DEAR Sir, — Will you have the kindness to give me 
your opinion, which I shall implicitly follow. I have just 
finished a very long paper intended for Linnean Society 
(the title is enclosed), and yesterday for the first time it 
occurred to me that possibly it might be worth publishing 
separately, which would save me trouble and delay. The 
facts are new, and have been collected during twenty years 
and strike me as curious. Like a Bridgewater treatise, the 
chief object is to show the perfection of the many contrivances 
in Orchids. The subject of propagation is interesting to 
most people, and is treated in my paper so that any woman 
could read it. Parts are dry and purely scientific ; but I 

1 86 1.] OF FLOWERS. 267 

think my paper would interest a good many of such persons 
who care for Natural History, but no others. 

... It would be a very little book, and I believe you think 
very little books objectionable. I have myself great doubts 
on the subject. I am very apt to think that my geese are 
swans ; but the subject seems to me curious and interesting. 

I beg you not to be guided in the least in order to oblige 
me, but as far as you can judge, please give me your opinion. 
If I were to publish separately, I would agree to any terms, 
such as half risk and half profit, or what you liked ; but I 
would not publish on my sole risk, for to be frank, I have 
been told that no publisher whatever, under such circum- 
stances, cares for the success of a book. 

C. Darwin to J. Murray. 

Down, Sept. 24 [1861]. 

MY DEAR Sir, — I am very much obliged for your note and 
very liberal offer. I have had some qualms and fears. All 
that I can feel sure of is that the MS. contains many new and 
curious facts, and I am sure the Essay would have interested 
me, and will interest those who feel lively interest in the 
wonders of nature ; but how far the public will care for such 
minute details, I cannot at all tell. It is a bold experiment ; 
and at worst, cannot entail much loss ; as a certain amount 
of sale will, I think, be pretty certain. A large sale is out of 
the question. As far as I can judge, generally the points 
which interest me I find interest others ; but I make the 
experiment with fear and trembling, — not for my own sake, 
but for yours. . . . 

[On Sept. 28th he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : — 

" What a good soul you are not to sneer at me, but to pat 
me on the back. I have the greatest doubt whether I am not 
going to do, in publishing my paper, a most ridiculous thing. 


It would annoy me much, but only for Murray's sake, if the 
publication were a dead failure." 

There was still much work to be done, and in October he 
was still receiving Orchids from Kew, and wrote to Hooker : — 

" It is impossible to thank you enough. I was almost mad 
at the wealth of Orchids." And again — 

" Mr. Veitch most generously has sent me two splendid 
buds of Mormodes, which will be capital for dissection, but 
I fear will never be irritable ; so for the sake of charity 
and love of heaven do, I beseech you, observe what move- 
ment takes place in Cychnoches, and what part must be 
touched. Mr. V. has also sent me one splendid flower of 
Catasetum, the most wonderful Orchid I have seen." 

On Oct. 13th he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker : — 

" It seems that I cannot exhaust your good nature. I 
have had the hardest day's work at Catasetum and buds of 
Mormodes, and believe I understand at last the mechanism of 
movements and the functions. Catasetum is a beautiful case 
of slight modification of structure leading to new functions. I 
never was more interested in any subject in my life than in 
this of Orchids. I owe very much to you." 

Again to the same friend, Nov. 1, 1 861 : — 

" If you really can spare another Catasetum, when nearly 
ready, I shall be most grateful ; had I not better send for it ? 
The case is truly marvellous ; the (so-called) sensation, or 
stimulus from a light touch is certainly transmitted through 
the antennae for more than one inch instantaneously. ... A 
cursed insect or something let my last flower off last night." 

Professor de Candolle has remarked * of my father, " Ce 
n'est pas lui qui aurait demande de constrUrre des palais 
pour y loger des laboratoires." This was singularly true of 
his orchid work, or rather it would be nearer the truth to say 
that he had no laboratory, for it was only after the publication 

* ' Darwin consider^, &c.,' ' Ar- Naturelles,' 3 erne pe'riode. Tome 
chives des Sciences Physiques et vii. 481, 1882 (May). 

1 86 1.] OF FLOWERS. 269 

of the ' Fertilisation of Orchids/ that he built himself a green- 
house. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (Dec. 24th, 1862) : — 

" And now I am going to tell you a most important piece 
of news ! ! I have almost resolved to build a small hot-house ; 
my neighbour's really first-rate gardener has suggested it, 
and offered to make me plans, and see that it is well done, 
and he is really a clever fellow, who wins lots of prizes, and 
is very observant. He believes that we should succeed with 
a little patience ; it will be a grand amusement for me to 
experiment with plants." 

Again he wrote (Feb. 15th, 1863) : — 

" I write now because the new hot-house is ready, and I 
long to stock it, just like a schoolboy. Could you tell me 
pretty soon what plants you can give me ; and then I shall 
know what to order ? And do advise me how I had better 
get such plants as you can spare. Would it do to send my 
tax-cart early in the morning, on a day that was not frosty, 
lining the cart with mats, and arriving here before night? 
I have no idea whether this degree of exposure (and of course 
the cart would be cold) could injure stove-plants ; they would 
be about five hours (with bait) on the journey home." 

A week later he wrote : — 

" You cannot imagine what pleasure your plants give 
me (far more than your dead Wedgwood ware can give you) ; 
H. and I go and gloat over them, but we privately confessed 
to each other, that if they were not our own, perhaps we 
should not see such transcendent beauty in each leaf." 

And in March, when he was extremely unwell he wrote : — 

" A few words about the Stove-plants ; they do so amuse 
me. I have crawled to see them two or three times. Will 
you correct and answer, and return enclosed. I have hunted 
in all my books and cannot find these names,* and I like 
much to know the family." 

* His difficulty with regard to with regard to a Lupine on which 
the names of plants is illustrated, he was at work, in an extract from 




The book was published May 15th, 1862. Of its reception 
he writes to Mr. Murray, June 13th and 18th : — 

" The Botanists praise my Orchid-book to the skies. Some 
one sent me (perhaps you) the ' Parthenon,' with a good review. 
The Athenceum * treats me with very kind pity and contempt ; 
but the reviewer knew nothing of his subject." 

" There is a superb, but I fear exaggerated, review in the 
' London Review.' f But I have not been a fool, as I thought 
I was, to publish ; % for Asa Gray, about the most competent 
judge in the world, thinks almost as highly of the book as 
does the 'London Review.' The Athenceum will hinder the 
sale greatly." 

The Rev. M. J. Berkeley was the author of the notice 
in the 'London Review,' as my father learned from Sir J. 
D. Hooker, who added, " I thought it very well done indeed. 
I have read a good deal of the Orchid-book, and echo all 
he says." 

To this my father replied (June 30th, 1862): — 

" My dear Old Friend, — You speak of my warming the 
cockles of your heart, but you will never know how often you 
have warmed mine. It is not your approbation of my scien- 
tific work (though I care for that more than for any one's) : it 
is something deeper. To this day I remember keenly a letter 
you wrote to me from Oxford, when I was at the Water-cure, 
and how it cheered me when I was utterly weary of life. 

a letter (July 21, 1866) to Sir J. D. 
Hooker : "I sent to the nursery- 
garden, whence I bought the seed, 
and could only hear that it was 
' the common blue Lupine,' the man 
saying 'he was no scholard, and 
did not know Latin, and that parties 
who make experiments ought to 
find out the names.' " 

* May 24, 1862. 

f June 14, 1862. 

% Doubts on this point still, how- 
ever, occurred to him about this 
time. He wrote to Prof. Oliver 
(June 8) : " I am glad that you have 
read my Orchis-book and seem to 
approve of it ; for I never published 
anything which I so much doubted 
whether it was worth publishing, 
and indeed I still doubt. The sub- 
ject interested me beyond what, I 
suppose, it is worth." 

1 862.] OF FLOWERS. 27 1 

Well, my Orchis-book is a success (but I do not know 
whether it sells)." 

In another letter to the same friend, he wrote : — 
" You have pleased me much by what you say in regard to 
Bentham and Oliver approving of my book ; for I had got a 
sort of nervousness, and doubted whether I had not made an 
egregious fool of myself, and concocted pleasant little stinging 
remarks for reviews, such as ' Mr. Darwin's head seems to have 
been turned by a certain degree of success, and he thinks that 
the most trifling observations are worth publication.' " 

Mr. Bentham's approval was given in his Presidential 
Address to the Linnean Society, May 24, 1862, and was 
all the more valuable, because it came from one who was 
by no means supposed to be favourable to Evolutionary 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

Down, June 10 [1862]. 
My DEAR GRAY, — Your generous sympathy makes you over- 
estimate what you have read of my Orchid-book. But your 
letter of May 1 8th and 26th has given me an almost foolish 
amount of satisfaction. The subject interested me, I knew, 
beyond its real value ; but I had lately got to think that I had 
made myself a complete fool by publishing in a semi-popular 
form. Now I shall confidently defy the world. I have heard 
that Bentham and Oliver approve of it ; but I have heard the 
opinion of no one else whose opinion is worth a farthing. . . . 
No doubt my volume contains much error : how curiously 
difficult it is to be accurate, though I try my utmost. Your 
notes have interested me beyond measure. I can now afford 
to d — my critics with ineffable complacency of mind. Cordial 
thanks for this benefit. It is surprising to me that you should 
have strength of mind to care for science, amidst the awful 
events daily occurring in your country. I daily look at the 
Times with almost as much interest as an American could do. 


When will peace come ? it is dreadful to think of the desola- 
tion of large parts of your magnificent country ; and all the 
speechless misery suffered by many. I hope and think it 
not unlikely that we English are wrong in concluding that it 
will take a long time for prosperity to return to you. It is an 
awful subject to reflect on. . . . 

[Dr. Asa Gray reviewed the book in ' Silliman's Journal,' * 
where he speaks, in strong terms, of the fascination which 
it must have for even slightly instructed readers. He made, 
too, some original observations on an American orchid, and 
these first-fruits of the subject, sent in MS. or proof sheet 
to my father, were welcomed by him in a letter (July 23rd) : — 

" Last night, after writing the above, I read the great 
bundle of notes. Little did I think what I had to read. 
What admirable observations ! You have distanced me on 
my own hobby-horse ! I have not had for weeks such a glow 
of pleasure as your observations gave me." 

The next letter refers to the publication of the review :] 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

Down, July 28, [1862]. 

My dear Gray, — I hardly know what to thank for first. 
Your stamps gave infinite satisfaction. I took him f first one 
lot, and then an hour afterwards another lot. He actually raised 
himself on one elbow to look at them. It was the first animation 
he showed. He said only : " You must thank Professor Gray 
awfully." In the evening after a long silence, there came out 
the oracular sentence : " He is awfully kind." And indeed you 
are, overworked as you are, to take so much trouble for our 

* ' Silliman's Journal,' vol. xxiv. same volume, p. 259 ; also, with 

p. 138. Here is given an account other species, in a second notice of 

of the fertilisation of Platanthera the Orchid-book at p. 420. 

Hookeri. P. hyperborea is discussed f One of his boys who was ill. 
in Dr. Gray's ' Enumeration ' in the 

1 862.] OF FLOWERS. 273 

poor dear little man. — And now I must begin the " awfullys " 
on my own account : what a capital notice you have published 
on the Orchids ! It could not have been better ; but I fear that 
you overrate it. I am very sure that I had not the least 
idea that you or any one would approve of it so much. I 
return your last note for the chance of your publishing any 
notice on the subject ; but after all perhaps you may not 
think it worth while ; yet in my judgment several of your 
facts, especially Platantliera hyperborea> are much too good 
to be merged in a review. But I have always noticed that 
you are prodigal in originality in your reviews. . . . 

[Sir Joseph Hooker reviewed the book in the Gardeners' 
Chronicle, writing in a successful imitation of the style of 
Lindley, the Editor. My father wrote to Sir Joseph (Nov. 12, 
1862) :— 

" So you did write the review in the Gardeners' Chronicle. 
Once or twice I doubted whether it was Lindley ; but when 
I came to a little slap at R. Brown, I doubted no longer. 
You arch-rogue ! I do not wonder you have deceived others 
also. Perhaps I am a conceited dog ; but if so, you have 
much to answer for ; I never received so much praise, and 
coming from you I value it much more than from any other." 

With regard to botanical opinion generally, he wrote to 
Dr. Gray, " I am fairly astonished at the success of my book 
with botanists." Among naturalists who were not botanists, 
Lyell was pre-eminent in his appreciation of the book. I have 
no means of knowing when he read it, but in later life, as 
I learn from Professor Judd, he was enthusiastic in praise of 
the ' Fertilisation of Orchids,' which he considered " next to 
the * Origin,' as the most valuable of all Darwin's works." 
Among the general public the author did not at first hear 
of many disciples, thus he wrote to his cousin Fox in 
September 1862 : " Hardly any one not a botanist, except 
yourself, as far as I know, has cared for it." 



A favourable notice appeared in the Saturday Review, 
October 1 8th, 1 862 ; the reviewer points out that the book would 
escape the angry polemics aroused by the ( Origin.' * This is 
illustrated by a review in the Literary Churchman, in which 
only one fault is found, namely, that Mr. Darwin's expression 
of admiration at the contrivances in orchids is too indirect a 
way of saying, " O Lord, how manifold are Thy works ! " 

A somewhat similar criticism occurs in the i Edinburgh 
Review ' (October 1 862). The writer points out that Mr. Darwin 
constantly uses phrases, such as " beautiful contrivance," " the 
labellum is . . . in order to attract," " the nectar is purposely 
lodged." The Reviewer concludes his discussion thus : " We 
know, too, that these purposes and ideas are not our own, 
but the ideas and purposes of Another." 

The 'Edinburgh' reviewer's treatment of his subject was 
criticised in the Saturday Review, November 15th, 1862. With 
reference to this article my father wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker 
(December 29th, 1862) : — 

" Here is an odd chance ; my nephew Henry Parker, an 
Oxford Classic, and Fellow of Oriel, came here this evening ; 
and I asked him whether he knew who had written the little 
article in the Saturday, smashing the [Edinburgh reviewer], 
which we liked ; and after a little hesitation he owned he 
had. I never knew that he wrote in the Saturday ; and was 
it not an odd chance ?" 

The ' Edinburgh ' article was written by the Duke of 
Argyll, and has since been made use of in his * Reign of Law,' 
1867. Mr. Wallace replied f to the Duke's criticisms, making 
some especially good remarks on those which refer to orchids. 
He shows how, by a " beautiful self-acting adjustment," the 
nectary of the orchid Angraecum (from 10 to 14 inches in 

* Dr. Gray pointed out that if matised by the natural theologians, 
the Orchid-book (with a few trifling f ' Quarterly Journal of Science,' 

omissions) had appeared before the October 1867. Republished in 

'Origin/ the author would have ' Natural Selection/ 187 1. 
been canonised rather than anathe- 

1 862.] OF FLOWERS. 275 

length), and the proboscis of a moth sufficiently long to reach 
the nectar, might be developed by natural selection. He goes 
on to point out that on any other theory we must suppose 
that the flower was created with an enormously long nectary, 
and that then by a special act, an insect was created fitted to 
visit the flower, which would otherwise remain sterile. With re- 
gard to this point my father wrote (October 12 or 13, 1867) : — 

" I forgot to remark how capitally you turn the tables on 
the Duke, when you make him create the Angrsecum and 
Moth by special creation." 

If we examine the literature relating to the fertilisation of 
flowers, we do not find that this new branch of study showed 
any great activity immediately after the publication of the 
Orchid-book. There are a few papers by Asa Gray, in 1862 
and 1863, by Hildebrand in 1864, and by Moggridge in 1865, 
but the great mass of work by Axell, Delpino, Hildebrand, 
and the Miillers, did not begin to appear until about 1867. 
The period during which the new views were being assimi- 
lated, and before they became thoroughly fruitful, was, how- 
ever, surprisingly short. The later activity in this depart- 
ment may be roughly gauged by the fact that the valuable 
' Bibliography,' given by Prof. D'Arcy Thompson in his 
translation of Muller's ' Befruchtung ' (1883), contains refer- 
ences to 814 papers. 

Besides the book on Orchids, my father wrote two or three 
papers on the subject, which will be found mentioned in the 
Appendix. The earliest of these, on the three sexual forms 
of Catasetum, was published in 1862 ; it is an anticipation 
of part of the Orchid-book, and was merely published in the 
Linnean Society's Journal, in acknowledgment of the use 
made of a specimen in the Society's possession. The possi- 
bility of apparently distinct species being merely sexual forms 
of a single species, suggested a characteristic experiment, 
which is alluded to in the following letter to one of his earliest 
disciples in the study of the fertilisation of flowers :] 

T 2 


C. Darwin to J. Traherne Moggridge* 

Down, October 13 [1865]. 
My DEAR Sir, — I am especially obliged to you for your 
beautiful plates and letter-press ; for no single point in natural 
history interests and perplexes me so much as the self-fertili- 
sation f of the Bee-orchis. You have already thrown some 
light on the subject, and your present observations promise 
to throw more. 

I formed two conjectures : first, that some insect during 
certain seasons might cross the plants, but I have almost 
given up this ; nevertheless, pray have a look at the flowers 
next season. Secondly, I conjectured that the Spider and 
Bee-orchids might be a crossing and self-fertile form of the 
same species. Accordingly I wrote some years ago to an 
acquaintance, asking him to mark some Spider-orchids, and 
observe whether they retained the same character ; but he 
evidently thought the request as foolish as if I had asked him 
to mark one of his cows with a ribbon, to see if it would turn 
next spring into a horse. Now will you be so kind as to tie 
a string round the stem of half-a-dozen Spider-orchids, and 
when you leave Mentone dig them up, and I would try and 
cultivate them and see if they kept constant ; but I should re- 
quire to know in what sort of soil and situations they grow. It 
would be indispensable to mark the plant so that there could be 
no mistake about the individual. It is also just possible that 
the same plant would throw up, at different seasons different 
flower-scapes, and the marked plants would serve as evidence. 

With many thanks, my dear sir, 

Yours sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

* The late Mr. Moggridge, author thousand years, was his desire to 
of ' Harvesting Ants and Trap-door see the extinction of the Bee- 
Spiders,' ' Flora of Mentone,' &c. orchis, — an end to which he be- 

t He once remarked to Dr. Nor- lieved its self-fertilising habit was 

man Moore that one of the things leading, 
that made him wish to live a few 

1 868]. OF FLOWERS. 277 

PS. — I send by this post my paper on climbing plants, parts 
of which you might like to read. 

[Sir Thomas Farrer and Dr. W. Ogle were also guided and 
encouraged by my father in their observations. The following 
refers to a paper by Sir Thomas Farrer, in the 'Annals and 
Magazine of Natural History,' 1868, on the fertilisation of 
the Scarlet Runner :] 

C. Darwin to T. H. Farrer. 

Down, Sept. 15, 1868. 

My dear Mr. Farrer, — I grieve to say that the main 
features of your case are known. I am the sinner and de- 
scribed them some ten years ago. But I overlooked many 
details, as the appendage to the single stamen, and several 
other points. I send my notes, but I must beg for their 
return, as I have no other copy. I quite agree, the facts are 
most striking, especially as you put them. Are you sure that 
the Hive-bee is the cutter ? it is against my experience. 
If sure, make the point more prominent, or if not sure, erase 
it. I do not think the subject is quite new enough for the 
Linnean Society ; but I dare say the ' Annals and Magazine 
of Natural History,' or Gardeners' Chronicle would gladly 
publish your observations, and it is a great pity they should 
be lost. If you like I would send your paper to either 
quarter with a note. In this case you must give a title, 
and your name, and perhaps it would be well to premise 
your remarks with a line of reference to my paper stating 
that you had observed independently and more fully. 

I have read my own paper over after an interval of several 
years, and am amused at the caution with which I put the 
case that the final end was for crossing distinct individuals, of 
which I was then as fully convinced as now, but I knew that 
the doctrine would shock all botanists. Now the opinion is 
becoming familiar. 


To see penetration of pollen-tubes is not difficult, but in 
most cases requires some practice with dissecting under a 
one-tenth of an inch focal distance single lens ; and just at 
first this will seem to you extremely difficult. 

What a capital observer you are — a first-rate Naturalist 
has been sacrificed, or partly sacrificed, to Public life. 

Believe me, yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. — If you come across any large Salvia, look at it — the 
contrivance is admirable. It went to my heart to tell a man 
who came here a few weeks ago with splendid drawings and 
MS. on Salvia, that the work had been all done in Germany.* 

[The following extract is from a letter, November 26th, 1868, 
to Sir Thomas Farrer, written as I learn from him, " in answer 
to a request for some advice as to the best modes of ob- 

" In my opinion the best plan is to go on working and 
making copious notes, without much thought of publication, 
and then if the results turn out striking publish them. It 
is my impression, but I do not feel sure that I am right, 
that the best and most novel plan would be, instead of de- 
scribing the means of fertilisation in particular plants, to 
investigate the part which certain structures play with all 
plants or throughout certain orders ; for instance, the brush 
of hairs on the style, or the diadelphous condition of the 
stamens in the Leguminosa^, or the hairs within the corolla, 
&c. &c. Looking to your note, I think that this is perhaps 
the plan which you suggest. 

It is well to remember that Naturalists value observations 

* Dr. W. Ogle, the observer of gratefully to his relationship with 

the fertilisation of Salvia here my father in the introduction to 

alluded to, published his results in his translation of Kerner's ' Flowers 

the 'Pop. Science Review,' 1869. and their Unbidden Guests.' 
He refers both gracefully and 

1 868.] OF FLOWERS. 279 

far more than reasoning ; therefore your conclusions should 
be as often as possible fortified by noticing how insects actu- 
ally do the work." 

In 1869, Sir Thomas Farrer corresponded with my father 
on the fertilisation of Passiflora and of Tacsonia. He has 
given me his impressions of the correspondence : — ■ 

" I had suggested that the elaborate series of chevaux-dc- 
frise, by which the nectary of the common Passiflora is 
guarded, were specially calculated to protect the flower from 
the stiff-beaked humming birds which would not fertilize it, 
and to facilitate the access of the little proboscis of the 
humble bee, which would do so ; whilst, on the other hand, the 
long pendent tube and flexible valve-like corona which retains 
the nectar of Tacsonia would shut out the bee, which would 
not, and admit the humming bird which would, fertilize that 
flower. The suggestion is very possibly worthless, and could 
only be verified or refuted by examination of flowers in the 
countries where they grow naturally. . . . What interested 
me was to see that on this as on almost any other point of 
detailed observation, Mr. Darwin could always say, 'Yes; 
but at one time I made some observations myself on this 
particular point ; and I think you will find, &c. &c.' That 
he should after years of interval remember that he had 
noticed the peculiar structure to which I was referring in the 
Passiflora princeps struck me at the time as very remark- 

With regard to the spread of a belief in the adaptation of 
flowers for cross -fertilisation, my father wrote to Mr. Bentham 
April 22, 1868 : — 

" Most of the criticisms which I sometimes meet with in 
French works against the frequency of crossing, I am certain 
are the 'result of mere ignorance. I have never hitherto 
found the rule to fail that when an author describes the 
structure of a flower as specially adapted for self-fertilisation, 
it is really adapted for crossing. The Fumariaceae offer a 


good instance of this, and Treviranus threw this order in my 
teeth ; but in Corydalis, Hildebrand shows how utterly false 
the idea of self-fertilisation is. This author's paper on Salvia 
is really worth reading, and I have observed some species, 
and know that he is accurate." 

The next letter refers to Professor Hildebrand's paper on 
Corydalis, published in the 'Proc. Internat. Hort. Congress/ 
London, 1866, and in Pringsheim's * Jahrbucher,' vol. v. The 
memoir on Salvia alluded to is contained in the previous 
volume of the same Journal :] 

C. Darwin to F. Hildebrand* 

Down, May 16 [1866]. 

My DEAR Sir, — The state of my health prevents my attend- 
ing the Hort. Congress ; but I forwarded yesterday your paper 
to the secretary, and if they are not overwhelmed with papers, 
yours will be gladly received. I have made many observa- 
tions on the Fumariaceae, and convinced myself that they were 
adapted for insect agency ; but I never observed anything 
nearly so curious as your most interesting facts. I hope you 
will repeat your experiments on the Corydalis on a larger 
scale, and especially on several distinct plants ; for your 
plant might have been individually peculiar, like certain indi- 
vidual plants of Lobelia, &c, described by Gartner, and of 
Passiflora and Orchids described by Mr. Scott. . . . 

Since writing to you before, I have read your admirable 
memoir on Salvia, and it has interested me almost as much as 
when I first investigated the structure of Orchids. Your 
paper illustrates several points in my ' Origin of Species,' 
especially the transition of organs. Knowing only two or 
three species in the genus, I had often marvelled how one 
cell of the anther could have been transformed into the mov- 
able plate or spoon ; and how well you show the gradations ; 

* Professor of Botany at Freiburg. 

1 873-] OF FLOWERS. 28 1 

but I am surprised that you did not more strongly insist on 
this point. 

I shall be still more surprised if you do not ultimately 
come to the same belief with me, as shown by so many beau- 
tiful contrivances, that all plants require, from some unknown 
cause, to be occasionally fertilized by pollen from a distinct 
individual. With sincere respect, believe me, my dear Sir, 

Yours very faithfully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[The following letter refers to the late Hermann M tiller's 
* Befruchtung der Blumen,' by far the most valuable of the 
mass of literature originating in the ' Fertilisation of Orchids.' 
An English translation, by Prof. D'Arcy Thompson was pub- 
lished in 1883. My father's " Prefatory Notice " to this work 
is dated February 6, 1882, and is therefore almost the last of 
his writings :] 

C, Darwin to H. Miiller. 

Down, May 5, 1873. 

My DEAR Sir, — Owing to all sorts of interruptions and to 
my reading German so slowly, I have read only to p. 88 of 
your book ; but I must have the pleasure of telling you how 
very valuable a work it appears to me. Independently of the 
many original observations, which of course form the most 
important part, the work will be of the highest use as a means 
of reference to all that has been done on the subject. I am 
fairly astonished at the number of species of insects, the visits 
of which to different flowers you have recorded. You must 
have worked in the most indefatigable manner. About half a 
year ago the editor of ' Nature' suggested that it would be a 
grand undertaking if a number of naturalists were to do what 
you have already done on so large a scale with respect to the 
visits of insects. I have been particularly glad to read your 
historical sketch, for I had never before seen all the references 


put together. I have sometimes feared that I was in error 
when I said that C. K. Sprengel did not fully perceive that 
cross-fertilisation was the final end of the structure of flowers ; 
but now this fear is relieved, and it is a great satisfaction to 
me to believe that I have aided in making his excellent book 
more generally known. Nothing has surprised me more 
than to see in your historical sketch how much I myself have 
done on the subject, as it never before occurred to me to 
think of all my papers as a whole. But I do not doubt that 
your generous appreciation of the labours of others has led 
you to over-estimate what I have done. With very sincere 
thanks and respect, believe me, 

Yours faithfully, 

Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — I have mentioned your book to almost every one 
who, as far as I know, cares for the subject in England ; and 
I have ordered a copy to be sent to our Royal Society. 

[The next letter, to Dr. Behrens, refers to the same subject 
as the last :] 

C. Darwin to W. Behrens. 

Down, August 29 [1878]. 
DEAR Sir, — I am very much obliged to you for having sent 
me your ' Geschichte der Bestaubungs-Theorie,' * and which 
has interested me much. It has put some things in a new 
light, and has told me other things which I did not know. 
I heartily agree with you in your high appreciation of poor 
old C. Sprengel's work ; and one regrets bitterly that he did 
not live to see his labours thus valued. It rejoices me also 
to notice how highly you appreciate H. M tiller, who has 
always seemed to me an admirable observer and reasoner. 
I am at present endeavouring to persuade an English 
publisher to bring out a translation of his ' Befruchtung.' 

* Progr. der K. Gewerbschule zu Elberfeld, 1877, 1878. 

1 874.] OF FLOWERS. 283 

Lastly, permit me to thank you for your very generous 
remarks on my works. By placing what I have been able to 
do on this subject in systematic order, you have made me 
think more highly of my own work than I ever did before ! 
Nevertheless, I fear that you have done me more than justice. 
I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully and obliged, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The letter which follows was called forth by Dr. Gray's 
article in ' Nature/ to which reference has already been made, 
and which appeared June 4, 1874 :] 

C. Darzuin to Asa Gray. 

Down, June 3 [1874]. 

My DEAR Gray, — I was rejoiced to see your handwriting 
again in your note of the 4th, of which more anon. I was 
astonished to see announced about a week ago that you were 
going to write in ' Nature ' an article on me, and this morning 
I received an advance copy. It is the grandest thing ever 
written about me, especially as coming from a man like 
yourself. It has deeply pleased me, particularly some of 
your side remarks. It is a wonderful thing to me to live to 
see my name coupled in any fashion with that of Robert 
Brown. But you are a bold man, for I am sure that you 
will be sneered at by not a few botanists. I have never been 
so honoured before, and I hope it will do me good and make 
me try to be as careful as possible ; and good heavens, how 
difficult accuracy is ! I feel a very proud man, but I hope 
this won't last. . . . 

[Fritz Miiller has observed that the flowers of Hedychium 
are so arranged that the pollen is removed by the wings of 
hovering butterflies. My father's prediction of this observa- 
tion is given in the following letter : — ] 


C. Darwin to H. Midler. 

Down, August 7, 1876. 

.... I was much interested by your brother's article on 
Hedychium ; about two years ago I was so convinced that 
the flowers were fertilized by the tips of the wings of large 
moths, that I wrote to India to ask a man to observe the 
flowers and catch the moths at work, and he sent me 20 to 
30 Sphinx-moths, but so badly packed that they all arrived in 
fragments ; and I could make out nothing. . . . 

Yours sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[The following extract from a letter (Feb. 25, 1864), to 
Dr. Gray refers to another prediction fulfilled : — 

" I have of course seen no one, and except good dear 
Hooker, I hear from no one. He, like a good and true friend, 
though so overworked, often writes to me. 

" I have had one letter which has interested me greatly, 
with a paper, which will appear in the Linnean Journal, by 
Dr. Criiger of Trinidad, which shows that I am all right about 
Catasetum, even to the spot where the pollinia adhere to the 
bees, which visit the flower, as I said, to gnaw the labellum. 
Cruger's account of Coryanthes and the use of the bucket-like 
labellum full of water beats everything : I suspect that the 
bees being well wetted flattens their hairs, and allows the 
viscid disc to adhere."] 

C. Darwin to the Margins de Saporta. 

Down, December 24, 1877. 

My DEAR Sir, — I thank you sincerely for your long and 
most interesting letter, which I should have answered sooner 
had it not been delayed in London. I had not heard before 
that I was to be proposed as a Corresponding Member of 
the Institute. Living so retired a life as I do, such honours 

1 877.] OF FLOWERS. 285 

affect me very little, and I can say with entire truth that your 
kind expression of sympathy has given and will give me 
much more pleasure than the election itself, should I be 

Your idea that dicotyledonous plants were not developed 
in force until sucking insects had been evolved seems to me a 
splendid one. I am surprised that the idea never occurred 
to me, but this is always the case when one first hears a new 
and simple explanation of some mysterious phenomenon .... 
I formerly showed that we might fairly assume that the 
beauty of flowers, their sweet odour and copious nectar, may 
be attributed to the existence of flower-haunting insects, but 
your idea, which I hope you will publish, goes much further 
and is much more important. With respect to the great 
development of mammifers in the later Geological periods 
following from the development of dicotyledons, I think it 
ought to be proved that such animals as deer, cows, horses, 
&c. could not flourish if fed exclusively on the gramineae and 
other anemophilous monocotyledons ; and I do not suppose 
that any evidence on this head exists. 

Your suggestion of studying the manner of fertilisation of 
the surviving members of the most ancient forms of the 
dicotyledons is a very good one, and I hope that you will 
keep it in mind yourself, for I have turned my attention to 
other subjects. Delpino I think says that Magnolia is fertil- 
ised by insects which gnaw the petals, and I should not be 
surprised if the same fact holds good with Nymphaea. 
Whenever I have looked at the flowers of these latter plants 
I have felt inclined to admit the view that petals are modified 
stamens, and not modified leaves ; though Poinsettia seems 
to show that true leaves might be converted into coloured 
petals. I grieve to say that I have never been properly 
grounded in Botany and have studied only special points — 
therefore I cannot pretend to express any opinion on your 
remarks on the origin of the flowers of the Coniferae, Gneta- 


ceae, &c ; but I have been delighted with what you say on the 
conversion of a monoecious species into a hermaphrodite one 
by the condensations of the verticils on a branch bearing 
female flowers near the summit, and male flowers below. 

I expect Hooker to come here before long, and I will then 
show him your drawing, and if he makes any important re- 
marks I will communicate with you. He is very busy at 
present in clearing off arrears after his American Expedition, 
so that I do not like to trouble him, even with the briefest 
note. I am at present working with my son at some Physio- 
logical subjects, and we are arriving at very curious results, 
but they are not as yet sufficiently certain to be worth com- 
municating to you. . . . 

[In 1877 a second edition of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids' was 
published, the first edition having been for some time out of 
print. The new edition was remodelled and almost rewritten, 
and a large amount of new matter added, much of which the 
author owed to his friend Fritz Miiller. 

With regard to this edition he wrote to Dr. Gray : — 

" I do not suppose I shall ever again touch the book. 
After much doubt I have resolved to act in this way with all 
my books for the future ; that is to correct them once and 
never touch them again, so as to use the small quantity of 
work left in me for new matter." 

He may have felt a diminution of his power of reviewing 
large bodies of facts, such as would be needed in the prepa- 
ration of new editions, but his powers of observation were 
certainly not diminished. He wrote to Mr. Dyer on July 14, 
1878 :— ] 

My dear Dyer, — Thalia dealbata was sent me from Kew : 
it has flowered and after looking casually at the flowers, they 
have driven me almost mad, and I have worked at them for 
a week : it is as grand a case as that of Catasetum. 

i8yS.] of flowers. 287 

Pistil vigorously motile (so that whole flower shakes when 
pistil suddenly coils up) ; when excited by a touch the two 
filaments [are] produced laterally and transversely across the 
flower (just over the nectar) from one of the petals or modi- 
fied stamens. It is splendid to watch the phenomenon under 
a weak power when a bristle is inserted into a young flower 
which no insect has visited, As far as I know Stylidium is the 
sole case of sensitive pistil and here it is the pistil -f stamens. 
In Thalia * cross-fertilisation is ensured by the wonderful 
movement, if bees visit several flowers. 

I have now relieved my mind and will tell the purport of 
this note — viz. if any other species of Thalia besides T. deal- 
bata should flower with you, for the love of heaven and all 
the saints, send me a few in tin box with damp moss. 

Your insane friend, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[In 1878 Dr. Ogle's translation of Kerner's interesting 
book, ' Flowers and their Unbidden Guests,' was published. 
My father, who felt much interest in the translation (as 
appears in the following letter), contributed some prefatory 
words of approval :] 

C. Darwin to W. Ogle. 

Down, December 16 [1878]. 

.... I have now read Kerner's book, which is better 
even than I anticipated. The translation seems to me as 
clear as daylight, and written in forcible and good familiar 
English. I am rather afraid that it is too good for the 
English public, which seems to like very washy food, unless 
it be administered by some one whose name is well known, 
and then I suspect a good deal of the unintelligible is very 
pleasing to them. I hope to heaven that I may be wrong. 

* Hildebrand has described an the Maranteae — the tribe to which 
explosive arrangement in some of Thalia belongs. 


Anyhow, you and Mrs. Ogle have done a right good service 
for Botanical Science. 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. — You have done me much honour in your prefatory 

[One of the latest references to his Orchid-work occurs in 
a letter to Mr. Bentham, February 16, 1880. It shows the 
amount of pleasure which this subject gave to my father, and 
(what is characteristic of him) that his reminiscence of the 
work was one of delight in the observations which preceded 
its publication, not to the applause which followed it : — 

" They are wonderful creatures, these Orchids, and I some- 
times think with a glow of pleasure, when I remember making 
out some little point in their method of fertilisation."] 

( 289 ) 



[THIS book, as pointed out in the ' Autobiography,' is a 
complement to the ' Fertilisation of Orchids/ because it shows 
how important are the results of cross-fertilisation which are 
ensured by the mechanisms described in that book. By 
proving that the offspring of cross-fertilisation are more 
vigorous than the offspring of self-fertilisation, he showed that 
one circumstance which influences the fate of young plants in 
the struggle for life is the degree to which their parents are 
fitted for cross-fertilisation. He thus convinced himself that 
the intensity of the struggle (which he had elsewhere shown 
to exist among young plants) is a measure of the strength 
of a selective agency perpetually sifting out every modification 
in the structure of flowers which can affect its capabilities 
for cross-fertilisation. 

The book is also valuable in another respect, because it 
throws light on the difficult problems of the origin of sexuality. 
The increased vigour resulting from cross-fertilisation is allied 
in the closest manner to the advantage gained by change 
of conditions. So strongly is this the case, that in some 
instances cross-fertilisation gives no advantage to the off- 
spring, unless the parents have lived under slightly different 
conditions. So that the really important thing is not that two 
individuals of different blood shall unite, but two individuals 



which have been subjected to different conditions. We are 
thus led to believe that sexuality is a means for infusing 
vigour into the offspring by the coalescence of differentiated 
elements, an advantage which could not follow if reproductions 
were entirely asexual. 

It is remarkable that this book, the result of eleven years 
of experimental work, owed its origin to a chance observation. 
My father had raised two beds of Linaria vulgaris — one set 
being the offspring of cross- and the other of self-fertilisation. 
These plants were grown for the sake of some observations 
on inheritance, and not with any view to cross-breeding, and he 
was astonished to observe that the offspring of self-fertilisa- 
tion were clearly less vigorous than the others. It seemed 
incredible to him that this result could be due to a single act 
of self-fertilisation, and it was only in the following year, 
when precisely the same result occurred in the case of a 
similar experiment on inheritance in Carnations, that his 
attention was " thoroughly aroused," and that he determined 
to make a series of experiments specially directed to the 
question. The following letters give some account of the 
work in question :] 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

September 10, [1866?] 

.... I have just begun a large course of experiments on 
the germination of the seed, and on the growth of the young 
plants when raised from a pistil fertilised by pollen from the 
same flower, and from pollen from a distinct plant of the 
same, or of some other variety. I have not made sufficient 
experiments to judge certainly, but in some cases the differ- 
ence in the growth of the young plants is highly remarkable. 
I have taken every kind of precaution in getting seed from the 
same plant, in germinating the seed on my own chimney- 
piece, in planting the seedlings in the same flower-pot, and 
under this similar treatment I have seen the young seedlings 


from the crossed seed exactly twice as tall as the seedlings 
from the self-fertilised seed ; both seeds having germinated 
on same day. If I can establish this fact (but perhaps it will 
all go to the dogs), in some fifty cases, with plants of different 
orders, I think it will be very important, for then we shall 
positively know why the structure of every flower permits, or 
favours, or necessitates an occasional cross with a distinct 
individual. But all this is rather cooking my hare before I 
have caught it. But somehow it is a great pleasure to me to 
tell you what I am about. 

Believe me, my dear Gray, 
Ever yours most truly, and with cordial thanks, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to G. Bentham. 

April 22, 1868. 

.... I am experimenting on a very large scale on the 
difference in power of growth between plants raised from 
self-fertilised and crossed seeds ; and it is no exaggeration to 
say that the difference in growth and vigour is sometimes 
truly wonderful. Lyell, Huxley and Hooker have seen 
some of my plants, and been astonished ; and I should much 
like to show them to you. I always supposed until lately 
that no evil effects would be visible until after several genera- 
tions of self-fertilisation ; but now I see that one generation 
sometimes suffices ; and the existence of dimorphic plants 
and all the wonderful contrivances of orchids are quite 
intelligible to me. 

With cordial thanks for your letter, which has pleased me 


Yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

[An extract from a letter to Dr. Gray (March 11, 1873) 
mentions the progress of the work : — 

U 2 

292 THE 'EFFECTS OF CROSS- [1876. 

"I worked last summer hard at Drosera, but could not 
finish till I got fresh plants, and consequently took up the 
effects of crossing and self-fertilising plants, and am got so 
interested that Drosera must go to the dogs till I finish with 
this, and get it published ; but then I will resume my beloved 
Drosera, and I heartily apologise for having sent the precious 
little things even for a moment to the dogs." 

The following letters give the author's impression of his 
own book.] 

C. Darwin to J. Murray. 

Down, September 16, 1876. 

My dear Sir, — I have just received proofs in sheet of 
five sheets, so you will have to decide soon how many copies 
will have to be struck off. I do not know what to advise. 
The greater part of the book is extremely dry, and the whole 
on a special subject. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the 
book is of value, and I am convinced that for many years 
copies will be occasionally sold. Judging from the sale of 
my former books, and from supposing that some persons will 
purchase it to complete the set of my works, I would suggest 
1500. But you must be guided by your larger experience. 
I will only repeat that I am convinced the book is of some 
permanent value. . . . 

C. Darwin to Victor Cams. 

Down, September 27, 1876. 

My DEAR Sir, — I sent by this morning's post the four 
first perfect sheets of my new book, the title of which you 
will see on the first page, and which will be published early 
in November. 

I am sorry to say that it is only shorter by a few pages 
than my ' Insectivorous Plants.' The whole is now in type, 
though I have corrected finally only half the volume. You 
will, therefore, rapidly receive the remainder. The book is 


very dull. Chapters II. to VI., inclusive, are simply a record 
of experiments. Nevertheless, I believe (though a man can 
never judge his own books) that the book is valuable. You 
will have to decide whether it is worth translating. I hope 
so. It has cost me very great labour, and the results seem 
to me remarkable and well established. 

If you translate it, you could easily get aid for Chapters 
II. to VI., as there is here endless, but, I have thought, 
necessary repetition. I shall be anxious to hear what you 

I most sincerely hope that your health has been fairly 
good this summer. 

My dear Sir, yours very truly, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

Down, October 28, 1876. 

My dear Gray, — I send by this post all the clean sheets 
as yet printed, and I hope to send the remainder within a 
fortnight. Please observe that the first six chapters are not 
readable, and the six last very dull. Still I believe that the 
results are valuable. If you review the book, I shall be very 
curious to see what you think of it, for I care more for your 
judgment than for that of almost any one else. I know also 
that you will speak the truth, whether you approve or dis- 
approve. Very few will take the trouble to read the book, 
and I do not expect you to read the whole, but I hope you 
will read the latter chapters. 

... I am so sick of correcting the press and licking my 
horrid bad style into intelligible English. 

[The ' Effects of Cross and Self- Fertilisation ' was published 

on November 10, 1876, and 1500 copies were sold before the 

end of the year. The following letter refers to a review in 

• Nature :' *] 

* February 15, 1877. 


C. Darwin to W, Thiselton Dyer, 

Down, February 16, 1877. 

Dear Dyer, — I must tell you how greatly I am pleased 
and honoured by your article in ' Nature/ which I have just 
read. You are an adept in saying what will please an author, 
not that I suppose you wrote with this express intention. 
I should be very well contented to deserve a fraction of your 
praise. I have also been much interested, and this is better 
than mere pleasure, by your argument about the separation 
of the sexes. I dare say that I am wrong, and will hereafter 
consider what you say more carefully : but at present I can- 
not drive out of my head that the sexes must have originated 
from two individuals, slightly different, which conjugated. 
But I am aware that some cases of conjugation are opposed 
to any such views. 

With hearty thanks, 

Yours sincerely, 
Charles Darwin. 

( 295 ) 



SAME SPECIES.' 1 877. 

[The volume bearing the above title was published in 1877, 
and was dedicated by the author to Professor Asa Gray, " as 
a small tribute of respect and affection." It consists of 
certain earlier papers re-edited, with the addition of a 
quantity of new matter. The subjects treated in the book 
are : — 

(i.) Heterostyled Plants. 

(iL) Polygamous, Dioecious, and Gynodioecious Plants. 

(iii.) Cleistogamic Flowers. 

The nature of heterostyled plants may be illustrated in the 
primrose, one of the best known examples of the class. If a 
number of primroses be gathered, it will be found that some 
plants yield nothing but " pin-eyed " flowers, in which the 
style (or organ for the transmission of the pollen to the ovule) 
is long, while the others yield only " thrum-eyed " flowers with 
short styles. Thus primroses are divided into two sets or 
castes differing structurally from each other. My father 
showed that they also differ sexually, and that in fact the bond 
between the two castes more nearly resembles that between 
separate sexes than any other known relationship. Thus for 
example a long-styled primrose, though it can be fertilised by 
its own pollen, is not fully fertile unless it is impregnated by 
the pollen of a short-styled flower. Heterostyled plants are 
comparable to hermaphrodite animals, such as snails, which 
require the concourse of two individuals, although each pos- 


sesses both the sexual elements. The difference is that in 
the case of the primrose it is perfect fertility, and not simply 
fertility, that depends on the mutual action of the two sets of 

The work on heterostyled plants has a special bearing, to 
which the author attached much importance, on the problem 
of origin of species.* 

He found that a wonderfully close parallelism exists 
between hybridisation and certain forms of fertilisation 
among heterostyled plants. So that it is hardly an exag- 
geration to say that the " illegitimately " reared seedlings are 
hybrids, although both their parents belong to identically the 
same species. In a letter to Professor Huxley, given in the 
second volume (p. 384), my father writes as if his researches 
on heterostyled plants tended to make him believe that 
sterility is a selected or acquired quality. But in his later 
publications, e.g. in the sixth edition of the ' Origin,' he 
adheres to the belief that sterility is an incidental rather than 
a selected quality. The result of his work on heterostyled 
plants is of importance as showing that sterility is no test 
of specific distinctness, and that it depends on differentiation 
of the sexual elements which is independent of any racial 
difference. I imagine that it was his instinctive love of 
making out a difficulty which to a great extent kept him 
at work so patiently on the heterostyled plants. But it 
was the fact that general conclusions of the above character 
could be drawn from his results which made him think his 
results worthy of publication.! 

The papers which on this subject preceded and contributed 
to ' Forms of Flowers ' were the following : — 

" On the two Forms or Dimorphic Condition in the Species 
of Primula, and on their remarkable Sexual Relations." Linn. 
Soc. Journal, 1862. 

* See ■ Autobiography,' vol. i. f See ' Forms of Flowers,' p. 243. 


i860.] on plants of the same species.' 297 

" On the Existence of Two Forms, and on their Reciprocal 
Sexual Relations, in several Species of the Genus Linum." 
Linn. Soc. Journal, 1863. 

" On the Sexual Relations of the Three Forms of Lythrum 
salicaria" Ibid. 1864. 

" On the Character and Hybrid-like Nature of the Offspring 
from the Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic 
Plants." Ibid. 1869. 

On the Specific Differences between Primula veris, Brit. FL. 
(var officinalis, Linn.), P. vulgaris, Brit. Fl. (var. acaulis, Linn.), 
and P. elatior, Jacq.; and on the Hybrid Nature of the Common 
Oxlip. With Supplementary Remarks on Naturally Produced 
Hybrids in the Genus Verbascum." Ibid. 1869. 

The following letter shows that he began the work on 
heterostyled plants with an erroneous view as to the meaning 
of the facts.] 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, May 7 [i860]. 

.... I have this morning been looking at my experi- 
mental cowslips, and I find some plants have all flowers with 
long stamens and short pistils, which I will call " male plants," 
others with short stamens and long pistils, which I will call 
"female plants." This I have somewhere seen noticed, I 
think by Henslow ; but I find (after looking at my two sets 
of [plants) that the stigmas of the male and female are of 
slightly different shape, and certainly different degree of 
roughness, and what has astonished me, the pollen of the 
so-called female plant, though very abundant, is more trans- 
parent, and each granule is exactly only § of the size of the 
pollen of the so-called male plants. Has this been observed ? 
I cannot help suspecting [that] the cowslip is in fact dioecious, 
but it may turn out all a blunder, but anyhow I will mark with 
sticks the so-called male and female plants and watch their 


seeding. It would be a fine case of gradation between an 
hermaphrodite and unisexual condition. Likewise a sort of 
case of balancement of long and short pistils and stamens. 
Likewise perhaps throws light on oxlips. ... I 

I have now examined primroses and find exactly the same 
difference in the size of the pollen, correlated with the same 
difference in the length of the style and roughness of the 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray, 

June 8 [i860]. 

.... I have been making some little trifling observations 
which have interested and perplexed me much. I find with 
primroses and cowslips, that about an equal number of plants 
are thus characterised. 

So-called (by me) male plant. Pistil much shorter than 
stamens ; stigma rather smooth, — -pollen grains large, throat 
of corolla short. 

So-called female plant. Pistil much longer than stamens, 
stigma rougher, pollen-grains smaller, — throat of corolla long. 

I have marked a lot of plants, and expected to find the so- 
called male plant barren ; but judging from the feel of the 
capsules, this is not the case, and I am very much surprised at 
the difference in the size of the pollen. ... If it should 
prove that the so-called male plants produce less seed than 
the so-called females, what a beautiful case of gradation from 
hermaphrodite to unisexual condition it will be ! If they pro- 
duce about equal number of seed, how perplexing it will be. 

C. Darwin to J, D. Hooker. 

Down, December 17, [i860?] H 

.... I have just been ordering a photograph of myself for a 
friend ; and have ordered one for you, and for heaven's sake 
oblige me, and burn that now hanging up in your room. — It 
makes me look atrociously wicked. 

i860.] on plants of the same species.' 299 

.... In the spring I must get you to look for long pistils and 
short pistils in the rarer species of Primula and in some allied 
Genera. It holds with P. Sinensis. You remember all the 
fuss I made on this subject last spring ; well, the other day 
at last I had time to weigh the seeds, and by Jove the plants 
of primrose and cowslip with short pistils and large grained 
pollen * are rather more fertile than those with long pistils, 
and small-grained pollen. I find that they require the action 
of insects to set them, and I never will believe that these 
differences are without some meaning. 

Some of my experiments lead me to suspect that the large- 
grained pollen suits the long pistils and the small-grained 
pollen suits the short pistils ; but I am determined to see if I 
cannot make out the mystery next spring. 

How does your book on plants brew in your mind ? Have 
you begun it ? . . . 

Remember me most kindly to Oliver. He must be 
astonished at not having a string of questions, I fear he will 
get out of practice ! 

[The Primula- work was finished in the autumn of 1 861, and 
on Nov. 8th he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : — 

" I have sent my paper on dimorphism in Primula to the 
Linn. Soc. I shall go up and read it whenever it comes on ; 
I hope you may be able to attend, for I do not suppose many 
will care a penny for the subject." 

With regard to the reading of the paper (on Nov. 21st), he 
wrote to the same friend : — 

" I by no means thought that I produced a " tremendous 
effect " in the Linn. Soc, but by Jove the Linn. Soc, pro- 
duced a tremendous effect on me, for I could not get out of 
bed till late next evening, so that I just crawled home. I 
fear I must give up trying to read any paper or speak ; it is 
a horrid bore, I can do nothing like other people. 

* Thus the plants which he male condition were more produc- 
imagined to be tending towards a tive than the supposed females. 


To Dr. Gray he wrote, (Dec. 1861) : — 

" You may rely on it, I will send you a copy of my Primula 
paper as soon as I can get one ; but I believe it will not be 
printed till April 1st, and therefore after my Orchid Book. I 
care more for your and Hooker's opinion than for that of all 
the rest of the world, and for Lyell's on geological points. 
Bentham and Hooker thought well of my paper when read ; 
but no one can judge of evidence by merely hearing a 

The work on Primula was the means of bringing my 
father in contact with the late Mr. John Scott, then working 
as a gardener in the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh, — an 
employment which he seems to have chosen in order to 
gratify his passion for natural history. He wrote one or two 
excellent botanical papers, and ultimately obtained a post in 
India.* He died in 1880. 

A few phrases may be quoted from letters to Sir J. D. 
Hooker, showing my father's estimate of Scott : — 

" If you know, do please tell me who is John Scott of the 
Botanical Gardens of Edinburgh ; I have been corresponding 
largely with him ; he is no common man." 

" If he had leisure he would make a wonderful observer ; to 
my judgment I have come across no one like him." 

" He has interested me strangely, and I have formed a very 
high opinion of his intellect. I hope he will accept pecuniary 
assistance from me ; but he has hitherto refused." (He 
ultimately succeeded in being allowed to pay for Mr. Scott's 
passage to India.) 

" I know nothing of him excepting from his letters ; these 
show remarkable talent, astonishing perseverance, much 
modesty, and what I admire, determined difference from me 
on many points." 

So highly did he estimate Scott's abilities that he formed 

* While in India he made some admirable observations on expression 
for my father. 

1 862.] 



a plan (which however never went beyond an early stage of 
discussion) of employing him to work out certain problems 
connected with intercrossing. 

The following letter refers to my father's investigations 
on Lythrum,* a plant which reveals even a more wonderful 
condition of sexual complexity than that of Primula. For 
in Lythrum there are not merely two, but three castes, 
differing structurally and physiologically from each other :] 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray, 

Down, August 9 [1862]. 

My dear Gray, — It is late at night, and I am going to 
write briefly, and of course to beg a favour. 

The Mitchella very good, but pollen apparently equal- 
sized. I have just examined Hottonia, grand difference in 
pollen. Echium vulgare, a humbug, merely a case like 
Thymus. But I am almost stark staring mad over Lythrum ;f 
if I can prove what I fully believe ; it is a grand case of 
TRIMORPHISM, with three different pollens and three stigmas ; 
I have castrated and fertilised above ninety flowers, trying all 
the eighteen distinct crosses which are possible within the 
limits of this one species ! I cannot explain, but I feel sure 
you would think it a grand case. I have been writing to 
Botanists to see if I can possibly get L. hyssopi '.folia, and it has 
just flashed on me that you might have Lythrum in North 
America, and I have looked to your Manual. For the love 

* He was led to this, his first 
case of trimorphism, by Lecoq's 
' Geographie Botanique,' and this 
must have consoled him for the 
trick this work played him in turn- 
ing out to be so much larger than 
he expected. He wrote to Sir J. 
D. Hooker : " Here is a good joke : 
I saw an extract from Lecoq, ' Gdo- 

graph. Bot.,' and ordered it and 
hoped that it was a good sized 
pamphlet, and nine thick volumes 
have arrived ! " 

t On another occasion he wrote 
(to Dr. Gray) with; regard to Lyth- 
rum : " I must hold hard, other- 
wise I shall spend my life over 




of heaven have a look at some of your species, and if you 
can get me seed, do ; I want much to try species with few 
stamens, if they are dimorphic ; Nescea verticillata I should 
expect to be trimorphic. Seed ! Seed ! Seed ! I should rather 
like seed of Mitchella. But oh, Lythrum ! 

Your utterly mad friend, 

C. Darwin. 

P.S. — There is reason in my madness, for I can see that to 
those who already believe in change of species, these facts 
will modify to a certain extent the whole view of Hybridity.* 

[On the same subject he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker in 
August 1862 : — 

"Is Oliver at Kew? When I am established at Bourne- 
mouth I am completely mad to examine any fresh flowers of 
any Lythraceous plant, and I would write and ask him if any 
are in bloom." 

Again he wrote to the same friend in October : — 

" If you ask Oliver, I think he will tell you I have got a 
real odd case in Lythrum, it interests me extremely, and 
seems to me the strangest case of propagation recorded 
amongst plants or animals, viz. a necessary triple alliance 
between three hermaphrodites. I feel sure I can now prove 
the truth of the case from a multitude of crosses made this 


* A letter to Dr." Gray (July, 
1862) bears on this point : " A few- 
days ago I made an observation 
which has surprised me more than 
it ought to do— it will have to be 
repeated several times, but I have 
scarcely a doubt of its accuracy. I 
stated in my Primula paper that 
the long-styled form of Linum 
grandiflorum was utterly sterile 
with its own pollen ; I have lately 
been putting the pollen of the two 
forms on the division of the stigma 
of the same flower ; and it strikes 

me as truly wonderful, that the 
stigma distinguishes the pollen ; 
and is penetrated by the tubes of 
the one and not by those of the 
other ; nor are the tubes exserted. 
Or (which is the same thing) the 
stigma of the one form acts on and 
is acted on by pollen, which produces 
not the least effect on the stigma of 
the other form. Taking sexual 
power as the criterion of difference, 
the two forms of this one species 
may be said to be generically 


In an article, * Dimorphism in the Genitalia of Plants ' 
(' Silliman's Journal/ 1862, vol. xxxiv. p. 419), Dr. Gray points 
out that the structural difference between the two forms of 
Primula had already been defined in the ' Flora of N. America/ 
as dioecio- dimorphism. The use of this term called forth the 
following remarks from my father. The letter also alludes 
to a review of the ' Fertilisation of Orchids' in the same 
volume of ' Silliman's Journal.'] 

C. Danvin to Asa Gray. 

Down, November 26 [1862]. 

My dear Gray, — The very day after my last letter, 
yours of November 10th, and the review in ' Silliman/ which 
I feared might have been lost, reached me. We were all very 
much interested by the political part of your letter ; and in 
some odd way one never feels that information and opinions 
printed in a newspaper come from a living source ; they seem 
dead, whereas all that you write is full of life. The reviews 
interested me profoundly ; you rashly ask for my opinion, 
and you must consequently endure a long letter. First for 
Dimorphism ; I do not at present like the term " Dicecio- 
dimorphism ;" for I think it gives quite a false notion, that 
the phenomena are connected with a separation of the sexes. 
Certainly in Primula there is unequal fertility in the two 
forms, and I suspect this is the case with Linum ; and, 
therefore, I felt bound in the Primula paper to state that it 
might be a step towards a dioecious condition ; though I 
believe there are no dioecious forms in Primulaceae or Linaceae. 
But the three forms in Lythrum convince me that the 
phenomenon is in no way necessarily connected with any 
tendency to separation of sexes. The case seems to me in 
result or function to be almost identical with what old 
C. K. Sprengel called " dichogamy," and which is so frequent 
in truly hermaphrodite groups ; namely, the pollen and stigma 


of each flower being mature at different periods. If I am right, 
it is very advisable not to use the term " dioecious," as this 
at once brings notions of separation of sexes. 

... I was much perplexed by Oliver's remarks in the 
1 Natural History Review ' on the Primula case, on the lower 
plants having sexes more often of the separated than in the 
higher plants, — so exactly the reverse of what takes place 
in animals. Hooker in his review of the ' Orchids ' repeats 
this remark. There seems to be much truth in what you 
say,* and it did not occur to me, about no improbability of 
specialisation in certain lines in lowly organised beings. I 
could hardly doubt that the hermaphrodite state is the 
aboriginal one. But how is it in the conjugation of Con- 
fervas — is not one of the two individuals here in fact male, 
and the other female? I have been much puzzled by this 
contrast in sexual arrangements between plants and animals. 
Can there be anything in the following consideration : By 
roughest calculation about one-third of the British genera of 
aquatic plants belong to the Linnean classes of Mono and 
Dicecia ; whilst of terrestrial plants (the aquatic genera being 
subtracted) only one-thirteenth of the genera belong to these 
two classes. Is there any truth in this fact generally ? Can 
aquatic plants, being confined to a small area or small com- 
munity of individuals, require more free crossing, and there- 
fore have separate sexes ? But to return to one point, does 
not Alph. de Candolle say that aquatic plants taken as a 
whole are lowly organised, compared with terrestrial ; and 
may not Oliver's remark on the separation of the sexes in 
lowly organised plants stand in some relation to their being 
frequently aquatic ? Or is this all rubbish ? 

.... What a magnificent compliment you end your review 
with ! You and Hooker seem determined to turn my head 

* " Forms which are low in the scale of rank founded on specialisa- 
scale as respects morphological tion of structure and function." — 
completeness may be high in the Dr. Gray, in ' Silliman's Journal.' 


with conceit and vanity (if not already turned), and make me 
an unbearable wretch. 


With most cordial thanks, my good and kind friend, 


C. Darwin. 

[The following passage from a letter (July 28, 1863), to 
Prof. Hildebrand, contains a reference to the reception of the 
dimorphic work in France : — 

" I am extremely much pleased to hear that you have been 
looking at the manner of fertilisation of your native Orchids, 
and still more pleased to hear that you have been experi- 
menting on Linum. I much hope that you may publish the 
result of these experiments ; because I was told that the most 
eminent French botanists of Paris said that my paper on 
Primula was the work of imagination, and that the case was 
so improbable they did not believe in my results."] 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

April 19 [1864]. 
, . . . I received a little time ago a paper with a good 
account of your Herbarium and Library, and a long time 
previously your excellent review of Scott's ' Primulaceae,' and I 
forwarded it to him in India, as it would much please him. I 
was very glad to see in it a new case of Dimorphism (I forget 
just now the name of the plant) ; I shall be grateful to hear 
of any other cases, as I still feel an interest in the subject. 
I should be very glad to get some seed of your dimorphic 
Plantagos ; for I cannot banish the suspicion that they must 
belong to a very different class like that of the common 
Thyme.* How could the wind, which is the agent of fertilisa- 
tion, with Plantago, fertilise " reciprocally dimorphic " flowers 
like Primula ? Theory says this cannot be, and in such cases 

* In this prediction he was right. See ' Forms of Flowers,' p. 307. 


of one's own theories I follow Agassiz and declare, " that nature 
never lies." I should even be very glad to examine the two 
dried forms of Plantago. Indeed, any dried dimorphic plants 
would be gratefully received. . . . 

Did my Lythrum paper interest you ? I crawl on at the 
rate of two hours per diem, with ' Variation under Domestic- 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, November 26 [1864]. 

.... You do not know how pleased I am that you have 
read my Lythrum paper ; I thought you would not have time, 
and I have for long years looked at you as my Public, and care 
more for your opinion than that of all the rest of the world. 
I have done nothing which has interested me so much as 
Lythrum, since making out the complemental males of Cirri- 
pedes. I fear that I have dragged in too much miscellaneous 
matter into the paper. 

... I get letters occasionally, which show me that Natural 
Selection is making great progress in Germany, and some 
amongst the young in France. I have just received a pamphlet 
from Germany, with the complimentary title of " Darwinische 
Arten-Enstehung-Humbug " ! 

Farewell, my best of old friends, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

September 10, [1S67 ?] 

.... The only point which I have made out this summer, 
which could possibly interest you, is that the common Oxlip 
found everywhere, more or less commonly in England, is cer- 
tainly a hybrid between the primrose and cowslip ; whilst the 
P. elatior (Jacq.), found only in the Eastern Counties, is a 
perfectly distinct and good species ; hardly distinguishable 


from the common oxlip, except by the length of the seed- 
capsule relatively to the calyx. This seems to me rather a 
horrid fact for all systematic botanists 

C. Darwin to F. Hildebrand. 

Down, November 16, 1868. 

My DEAR Sir, — I wrote my last note in such a hurry from 
London, that I quite forgot what I chiefly wished to say, 
namely to thank you for your excellent notices in the ' Bot. 
Zeitung ' of my paper on the offspring of dimorphic plants. 
The subject is so obscure that I did not expect that any one 
would have noticed my paper, and I am accordingly very 
much pleased that you should have brought the subject 
before the many excellent naturalists of Germany. 

Of all the German authors (but they are not many) whose 
works I have read, you write by far the clearest style, but 
whether this is a compliment to a German writer I do not 

[The two following letters refer to the small bud-like 
" Cleistogamic " flowers found in the violet and many other 
plants. They do not open and are necessarily self-fertilised :] 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, May 30 [1862]. 

.... What will become of my book on Variation ? I am 
involved in a multiplicity of experiments. I have been 
amusing myself by looking at the small flowers of Viola. If 
Oliver * has had time to study them, he will have seen the 
curious case (as it seems to me) which I have just made 
clearly out, viz. that in these flowers, the few pollen grains are 

* Shortly afterwards he wrote : with most accurate description of 
" Oliver, the omniscient, has sent all that I saw in Viola." 
me a paper in the ' Bot. Zeitung,' 

X 2 


never shed, or never leave the anther-cells, but emit long 
pollen tubes, which penetrate the stigma. To-day I got the 
anther with the included pollen grain (now empty) at one 
end, and a bundle of tubes penetrating the stigmatic tissue at 
the other end ; I got the whole under a microscope without 
breaking the tubes ; I wonder whether the stigma pours some 
fluid into the anther so as to excite the included grains. It is 
a rather odd case of correlation, that in the double sweet 
violet the little flowers are double ; i.e., have a multitude of 
minute scales representing the petals. What queer little 
flowers they are. 

Have you had time to read poor dear Henslow's life? 
it has interested me for the man's sake, and, what I did 
not think possible, has even exalted his character in my 

[The following is an extract from the letter given in part 
at p. 303, and refers to Dr. Gray's article on the sexual 
differences of plants :] 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

November 26 [1862]. 

.... You will think that I am in the most unpleasant, con- 
tradictory, fractious humour, when I tell you that I do not like 
your term of " precocious fertilisation " for your second class 
of dimorphism [i.e. for cleistogamic fertilisation]. If I can 
trust my memory, the state of the corolla, of the stigma, and 
the pollen-grains is different from the state of the parts in the 
bud ; that they are in a condition of special modification. 
But upon my life I am ashamed of myself to differ so much 
from my betters on this head. The temporary theory* which 
I have formed on this class of dimorphism, just to guide 
experiment, is that the perfect flowers can only be perfectly 

* This view is now generally accepted. 


fertilised by insects, and are in this case abundantly crossed ; 
but that the flowers are not always, especially in early spring, 
visited enough by insects, and therefore the little imperfect 
self-fertilising flowers are developed to ensure a sufficiency of 
seed for present generations. Viola canina is sterile, when 
not visited by insects, but when so visited forms plenty of 
seed. I infer from the structure of three or four forms of Bal- 
saminecz, that these require insects ; at least there is almost 
as plain adaptation to insects as in Orchids. I have Oxalis 
acetosella ready in pots for experiment next spring ; and I 
fear this will upset my little theory. . . . Campaiiula carpa- 
thica, as I found this summer, is absolutely sterile if insects 
are excluded. Specularia speculum is fairly fertile when 
enclosed ; and this seemed to me to be partially effected by 
the frequent closing of the flower ; the inward angular folds 
of the corolla corresponding with the clefts of the open 
stigma, and in this action pushing pollen from the outside of 
the stigma on to its surface. Now can you tell me, does S. 
perfoliata close its flower like >S. speculum, with angular inward 
folds ? if so, I am smashed without some fearful " wriggling." 
Are the imperfect flowers of your Specularia the early or the 
later ones ? very early or very late ? It is rather pretty to 
see the importance of the closing of flowers of ^. speculum. 

['Forms of Flowers' was published in July 1877; in 
June he wrote to Professor Carus with regard to the 
translation : — 

" My new book is not a long one, viz. 350 pages, chiefly of 
the larger type, with fifteen simple woodcuts. All the proofs 
are corrected except the Index, so that it will soon be 

" . . . . I do not suppose that I shall publish any more 
books, though perhaps a few more papers. I cannot endure 
being idle, but heaven knows whether I am capable of any 
more good work." 



The review alluded to in the next letter is at p. 445 of the 
volume of ' Nature ' for 1878 :] 

C. Darwin to W. Thiselton Dyer. 

Down, April 5, 1878. 

My DEAR Dyer, — I have just read in ' Nature' the review 
of ' Forms of Flowers,' and I am sure that it is by you. I wish 
with all my heart that it deserved one quarter of the praises 
which you give it. Some of your remarks have interested me 
greatly. . . . Hearty thanks for your generous and most kind 
sympathy, which does a man real good, when he is as dog-tired 
as I am at this minute with working all day, so good-bye. 

C. Darwin. 

( 3H ) 



[MY father mentions in his ' Autobiography ' (vol. i. p. 92) 
that he was led to take up the subject of climbing plants 
by reading Dr. Gray's paper, "Note on the Coiling of the 
Tendrils of Plants." * This essay seems to have been read 
in 1862, but I am only able to guess at the date of the letter 
in which he asks for a reference to it, so that the precise 
date of his beginning this work cannot be determined. 

In June 1863 he was certainly at work, and wrote to Sir J. 
D. Hooker for information as to previous publications on the 
subject, being then in ignorance of Palm's and H. v. Mohl's 
works on climbing plants, both of which were published in 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down [June] 25 [1863]. 

My dear Hooker, — I have been observing pretty care- 
fully a little fact which has surprised me ; and I want to know 
from you and Oliver whether it seems new or odd to you, so 
just tell me whenever you write ; it is a very trifling fact, so do 
not answer on purpose. 

I have got a plant of Echinocystis lobata to observe the 
irritability of the tendrils described by Asa Gray, and which 
of course, is plain enough. Having the plant in my study, 
I have been surprised to find that the uppermost part of each 

* ' Proc. Amer. Acad, of Arts and Sciences,' 1858. 

312 CLIMBING AND [1863. 

branch (i.e. the stem between the two uppermost leaves ex- 
cluding the growing tip) is constantly 'and slowly twisting round 
making a circle in from one and a half to two hours ; it will 
sometimes go round two or three times, and then at the same 
rate untwists and twists in opposite directions. It generally 
rests half an hour before it retrogrades. The stem does not 
become permanently twisted. The stem beneath the twisting 
portion does not move in the least, though not tied. The move- 
ment goes on all day and all early night. It has no relation to 
light, for the plant stands in my window and twists from the 
light just as quickly as towards it. This may be a common 
phenomenon for what I know, but it confounded me quite, 
when I began to observe the irritability of the tendrils. I do 
not say it is the final cause, but the result is pretty, for the plant 
every one and a half or two hours sweeps a circle (according 
to the length of the bending shoot and the length of the 
tendril) of from one foot to twenty inches in diameter, and 
immediately that the tendril touches any object its sensitive- 
ness causes it immediately to seize it ; a clever gardener, my 
neighbour, who saw the plant on my table last night, said : 
" I believe, Sir, the tendrils can see, for wherever I put a 
plant it finds out any stick near enough." I believe the 
above is the explanation, viz. that it sweeps slowly round and 
round. The tendrils have some sense, for they do not grasp 
each other when young. 

Yours affectionately, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, July 14 [1863]. 

My DEAR HOOKER, — I am getting very much amused by 
my tendrils, it is just the sort of niggling work which suits 
me, and takes up no time and rather rests me whilst writing. 
So will you just think whether you know any plant, which 


you could give or lend me, or I could buy, with tendrils, re- 
markable in any way for development, for odd or peculiar 
structure, or even for an odd place in natural arrangement. I 
have seen or can see Cucurbitaceae, Passion-flower, Virginian- 
creeper, Cissus discolor. Common-pea and Everlasting-pea. It 
is really curious the diversification of irritability (I do not 
mean the spontaneous movement, about which I wrote before 
and correctly, as further observation shows) ; for instance, I find 
a slight pinch between the thumb and finger at the end of the 
tendril of the Cucurbitaceae causes prompt movement, but a 
pinch excites no movement in Cissus. The cause is that one 
side alone (the concave) is irritable in the former ; whereas both 
sides are irritable in Cissus, so if you excite at the same time 
both opposite sides there is no movement, but by touching 
with a pencil the two branches of the tendril, in any part 
whatever, you cause movement towards that point ; so that 
I can mould, by a mere touch, the two branches into any 
shape I like. . . . 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

Down, August 4 [1863]. 

My present hobby-horse I owe to you, viz. the tendrils : 
their irritability is beautiful, as beautiful in all its modifica- 
tions as anything in Orchids. About the spontaneous move- 
ment (independent of touch) of the tendrils and upper inter- 
nodes, I am rather taken aback by your saying, " is it not well 
known ? " I can find nothing in any book which I have. . . . 
The spontaneous movement of the tendrils is independent of 
the movement of the upper internodes, but both work har- 
moniously together in sweeping a circle for the tendrils to 
grasp a stick. So with all climbing plants (without tendrils) 
as yet examined, the upper internodes go on night and day 
sweeping a circle in one fixed direction. It is surprising to 
watch the Apocyneae with shoots 18 inches long (beyond the 
supporting stick), steadily searching for something to climb 

314 CLIMBING AND [1864. 

up. When the shoot meets a stick, the motion at that point 
is arrested, but in the upper part is continued ; so that the 
climbing of all plants yet examined is the simple result of the 
spontaneous circulatory movement of the upper internodes. 
Pray tell me whether anything has been published on this 
subject ? I hate publishing what is old ; but I shall hardly 
regret my work if it is old, as it has much amused me. . . . 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

May 28, 1864. 

.... An Irish nobleman on his death-bed declared that he 
could conscientiously say that he had never throughout life 
denied himself any pleasure ; and I can conscientiously say 
that I have never scrupled to trouble you ; so here goes. — 
Have you travelled South, and can you tell me whether the 
trees, which Bignonia capreolata climbs, are covered with 
moss or filamentous lichen or Tillandsia?* I ask because its 
tendrils abhor a simple stick, do not much relish rough bark, 
but delight in wool or moss. They adhere in a curious 
manner by making little disks, like the Ampelopsis. . . . By 
the way, I will enclose some specimens, and if you think it 
worth while, you can put them under the simple microscope. 
It is remarkable how specially adapted some tendrils are ; 
those of Eccremocarpus scaber do not like a stick, will have 
nothing to say to wool ; but give them a bundle of culms of 
grass, or a bundle of bristles and they seize them well. 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, June 10 [1864]. 

... I have now read two German books, and all I believe 
that has been written on climbers, and it has stirred me up to 

* He subsequently learned from where this species of Bignonia 
Dr. Gray that Polypodium incanum grows. See ' Climbing Plants,' p. 
abounds on the trees in the districts 103. 


find that I have a good deal of new matter. It is strange, 
but I really think no one has explained simple twining 
plants. These books have stirred me up, and made me 
wish for plants specified in them. I shall be very glad of 
those you mention. I have written to Veitch for young 
Nepenthes and Vanilla (which I believe will turn out a grand 
case, though a root creeper), and if I cannot buy young 
Vanilla I will ask you. I have ordered a leaf-climbing fern, 
Lygodium. All this work about climbers would hurt my 
conscience, did I think I could do harder work.* 

[He continued his observations on climbing plants during 
the prolonged illness from which he suffered in the autumn 
of 1863, and in the following spring. He wrote to Sir J. D. 
Hooker, apparently in March 1864 : — 

" For several days I have been decidedly better, and what 
I lay much stress on (whatever doctors say), my brain feels 
far stronger, and I have lost many dreadful sensations. The 
hot-house is such an amusement to me, and my amusement 
I owe to you, as my delight is to look at the many odd 
leaves and plants from Kew. . . . The only approach to 
work which I can do is to look at tendrils and climbers, 
this does not distress my weakened brain. Ask Oliver to 
look over the enclosed queries (and do you look) and amuse 
a broken-down brother naturalist by answering any which 
he can. If you ever lounge through your houses, remember 
me and climbing plants." 

On October 29, 1864, he wrote to Dr. Gray : — 

" I have not been able to resist doing a little more at your 
godchild, my climbing paper, or rather in size little book, 
which by Jove I will have copied out, else I shall never stop. 
This has been new sort of work for me, and I have been 
pleased to find what a capital guide for observations a full 
conviction of the change of species is." 

On Jan. 19, 1865, he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : — 

* He was much out of health at this time. 

3l6 CLIMBING AND [1865. 

"It is working hours, but I am trying to take a day's 
holiday, for I finished and despatched yesterday my climbing 
paper. For the last ten days I have done nothing but correct 
refractory sentences, and I loathe the whole subject." 

A letter to Dr. Gray, April 9, 1865, has a word or two on 
the subject. — 

" I have begun correcting proofs of my paper on ' Climbing 
Plants.' I suppose I shall be able to send you a copy in four 
or five weeks. I think it contains a good deal new and some 
curious points, but it is so fearfully long, that no one will ever 
read it. If, however, you do not skim through it, you will be 
an unnatural parent, for it is your child." 

Dr. Gray not only read it but approved of it, to my father's 
great satisfaction, as the following extracts show : — 

" I was much pleased to get your letter of July 24th. Now 
that I can do nothing, I maunder over old subjects, and your 
approbation of my climbing paper gives me very great satis- 
faction. I made my observations when I could do nothing 
else and much enjoyed it, but always doubted whether they 
were worth publishing. I demur to its not being necessary 
to explain in detail about the spires in caught tendrils run- 
ning in opposite directions ; for the fact for a long time con- 
founded me, and I have found it difficult enough to explain 
the cause to two or three persons." (Aug. 15, 1865.) 

" I received yesterday your article * on climbers, and it has 
pleased me in an extraordinary and even silly manner. You 
pay me a superb compliment, and as I have just said to my 
wife, I think my friends must perceive that I like praise, 
they give me such hearty doses. I always admire your skill 
in reviews or abstracts, and you have done this article ex- 
cellently and given the whole essence of my paper I 

have had a letter from a good Zoologist in S. Brazil, F. 
Miiller, who has been stirred up to observe climbers and 

* In the September number of ' Silliman's Journal,' concluded in the 
January number, 1866. 


gives me some curious cases of bra/ic/i-climbers, in which 
branches are converted into tendrils, and then continue to 
grow and throw out leaves and new branches, and then lose 
their tendril character." (October 1865.) 

The paper on Climbing Plants was republished in 1875, as 
a separate book. The author had been unable to give his 
customary amount of care to the style of the original essay, 
owing to the fact that it was written during a period of 
continued ill-health, and it was now found to require a great 
deal of alteration. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (March 3, 
I ^7S) '• "It is lucky for authors in general that they do not 
require such dreadful work in merely licking what they write 
into shape." And to Mr. Murray in September he wrote : 
" The corrections are heavy in ' Climbing Plants,' and yet 
I deliberately went over the MS. and old sheets three times." 
The book was published in September 1875, an edition of 
1500 copies was struck off; the edition sold fairly well, and 
500 additional copies were printed in June of the following 


[In the summer of i860 he was staying at the house of his 
sister-in-law, Miss Wedgwood, in Ashdown Forest, whence 
he wrote (July 29, i860), to Sir Joseph Hooker : — 

" Latterly I have done nothing here ; but at first I amused 
myself with a few observations on the insect-catching power 
of Drosera ; and I must consult you some time whether my 
' twaddle ' is worth communicating to the Linnean Society." 

In August he wrote to the same friend : — 

" I will gratefully send my notes on Drosera when copied 
by my copier : the subject amused me when I had nothing 
to do." 

He has described in the 'Autobiography' (vol. i. p. 95), the 
general nature of these early experiments. He noticed insects 
sticking to the leaves, and finding that flies, &c, placed on 


1 8 CLIMBING AND [i860. 

the adhesive glands were held fast and embraced, he sus- 
pected that the leaves were adapted to supply nitrogenous 
food to the plant. He therefore tried the effect on the leaves 
of various nitrogenous fluids — with results which, as far as 
they went, verified his surmise. In September, i860, he wrote 
to Dr. Gray : — 

" I have been infinitely amused by working at Drosera : 
the movements are really curious ; and the manner in which 
the leaves detect certain nitrogenous compounds is mar- 
vellous. You will laugh ; but it is, at present, my full belief 
(after endless experiments) that they detect (and move in 
consequence of) the 2sVo P ai *t °f a sm gle grain of nitrate of 
ammonia ; but the muriate and sulphate of ammonia bother 
their chemical skill, and they cannot make anything of the 
nitrogen in these salts ! I began this work on Drosera in 
relation to gradation as throwing light on Dionaea." 

Later in the autumn he was again obliged to leave home 
for Eastbourne, where he continued his work on Drosera. 
The work was so new to him that he found himself in diffi- 
culties in the preparation of solutions, and became puzzled 
over fluid and solid ounces, &c. &c. To a friend, the late 
Mr. E. Cresy, who came to his help in the matter of weights 
and measures, he wrote giving an account of the experiments. 
The extract (November 2, i860) which follows illustrates 
the almost superstitious precautions he often applied to his 
researches : — 

" Generally I have scrutinised every gland and hair on the 
leaf before experimenting ; but it occurred to me that I might 
in some way affect the leaf ; though this is almost impossible, 
as I scrutinised with equal care those that I put into distilled 
water (the same water being used for dissolving the carbonate 
of ammonia). I then cut off four leaves (not touching them 
with my fingers), and put them in plain water, and four other 
leaves into the weak solution, and after leaving them for an 
hour and a half, I examined every hair on all eight leaves ; 

i860.] insectivorous plants. 319 

no change on the four in water ; every gland and hair affected 
in those in ammonia. 

" I had measured the quantity of weak solution, and I 
counted the glands which had absorbed the ammonia, and 
were plainly affected ; the result convinced me that each 
gland could not have absorbed more than e4 ^ 60 or q^^qq of 
a grain. I have tried numbers of other experiments all 
pointing to the same result. Some experiments lead me to 
believe that very sensitive leaves are acted on by much 
smaller doses. Reflect how little ammonia a plant can get 
growing on poor soil — yet it is nourished. The really sur- 
prising part seems to me that the effect should be visible, 
and not under very high power ; for after trying a high power, 
I thought it would be safer not to consider any effect which 
was not plainly visible under a two-thirds object glass and 
middle eye-piece. The effect which the carbonate of ammonia 
produces is the segregation of the homogeneous fluid in the 
cells into a cloud of granules and colourless fluid ; and 
subsequently the granules coalesce into larger masses, and for 
hours have the oddest movements — coalescing, dividing, 
coalescing ad infinitum. I do not know whether you will 
care for these ill-written details ; but, as you asked, I am sure 
I am bound to comply, after all the very kind and great 
trouble which you have taken." 

On his return home he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker 
(November 21, i860) : — 

" I have been working like a madman at Drosera. Here 
is a fact for you which is certain as you stand where you 
are, though you won't believe it, that a bit of hair 7- g-Joo" °f 
one grain in weight placed on gland, will cause one of the 
gland-bearing hairs of Drosera to curve inwards, and will alter 
the condition of the contents of every cell in the foot-stalk of 
the gland." 

And a few days later to Lyell : — 

" I will and must finish my Drosera MS., which will take 

320 CLIMBING AND [1862. 

me a week, for, at the present moment, I care more about 
Drosera than the origin of all the species in the world. But 
I will not publish on Drosera till next year, for I am frightened 
and astounded at my results. I declare it is a certain fact, 
that one organ is so sensitive to touch, that a weight seventy- 
eight-times less than that, viz., y^qq of a grain, which will 
move the best chemical balance, suffices to cause a conspicu- 
ous movement. Is it not curious that a plant should be 
far more sensitive to the touch than any nerve in the human 
body ? Yet I am perfectly sure that this is true. When I 
am on my hobby-horse, I never can resist telling my friends 
how well my hobby goes, so you must forgive the rider." 

The work was continued, as a holiday task, at Bourne- 
mouth, where he stayed during the autumn of 1862. The dis- 
cussion in the following letter on " nervous matter " in Drosera 
is of interest in relation to recent researches on the continuity 
of protoplasm from cell to cell :] 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth. 
September 26 [1862]. 

MY DEAR HOOKER, — Do not read this till you have leisure. 
If that blessed moment ever comes, I should be very glad to 
have your opinion on the subject of this letter. I am led to 
the opinion that Drosera must have diffused matter in organic 
connection, closely analogous to the nervous matter of animals. 
When the glands of one of the papillae or tentacles, in its 
natural position is supplied with nitrogenised fluid and 
certain other stimulants, or when loaded with an extremely 
slight weight, or when struck several times with a needle, the 
pedicel bends near its base in under one minute. These 
varied stimulants are conveyed down the pedicel by some 
means ; it cannot be vibration, for drops of fluid put on quite 
quietly cause the movement ; it cannot be absorption of the 


fluid from cell to cell, for I can see the rate of absorption, 
which though quick, is far slower, and in Dionsea the trans- 
mission is instantaneous ; analogy from animals would point 
to transmission through nervous matter. Reflecting on 
the rapid power of absorption in the glands, the extreme 
sensibility of the whole organ, and the conspicuous move- 
ment caused by varied stimulants, I have tried a number of 

substances which are not caustic or corrosive, 

but most of which are known to have a remarkable action 
on the nervous matter of animals. You will see the results 
in the enclosed paper. As the nervous matter of different 
animals are differently acted on by the same poisons, one 
would not expect the same action on plants and animals ; 
only, if plants have diffused nervous matter, some degree of 
analogous action. And this is partially the case. Consider- 
ing these experiments, together with the previously made 
remarks on the functions of the parts, I cannot avoid the 
conclusion, that Drosera possesses matter at least in some 
degree analogous in constitution and function to nervous 
matter. Now do tell me what you think, as far as you can 
judge from my abstract ; of course many more experiments 
would have to be tried ; but in former years I tried on 
the whole leaf, instead of on separate glands, a number of 
innocuous * substances, such as sugar, gum, starch, &c, and 
they produced no effect. Your opinion will aid me in decid- 
ing some future year in going on with this subject. I should 
not have thought it worth attempting, but I had nothing on 
earth to do. 

My dear Hooker, yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

P.S. — We return home on Monday 28th. Thank Heaven ! 

* This line of investigation made Professor Oliver, and in reference 

him wish for information on the to the result wrote to Hooker : 

action of poisons on plants ; as in " Pray thank Oliver heartily for his 

many other cases he applied to heap of references on poisons." 


322 CLIMBING AND [l8?2. 

[A long break now ensued in his work on insectivorous 
plants, and it was not till 1872 that the subject seriously 
occupied him again. A passage in a letter to Dr. Asa Gray, 
written in 1863 or 1864, shows, however, that the question 
was not altogether absent from his mind in the interim : — 

" Depend on it you are unjust on the merits of my beloved 
Drosera ; it is a wonderful plant, or rather a most sagacious 
animal. I will stick up for Drosera to the day of my death. 
Heaven knows whether I shall ever publish my pile of experi- 
ments on it" 

He notes in his diary that the last proof of the ' Expression 
■of the Emotions' was finished on August 22, 1872, and that 
he began to work on Drosera on the following day.] 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

[Sevenoaks], October 22 [1872]. 
... I have worked pretty hard for four or five weeks on 
Drosera, and then broke down ; so that we took a house near 
Sevenoaks for three weeks (where I now am) to get complete 
rest. I have very little power of working now, and must put off 
the rest of the work on Drosera till next spring, as my plants 
are dying. It is an endless subject, and I must cut it short, 
and for this reason shall not do much on Dionaea. The 
point which has interested me most is tracing the nerves! 
which follow the vascular bundles. By a prick with a sharp 
lancet at a certain point, I can paralyse one-half the leaf, so 
that a stimulus to the other half causes no movement. It is 
just like dividing the spinal marrow of a frog : — no stimulus 
can be sent from the brain or anterior part of the spine to the 
hind legs ; but if these latter are stimulated, they move by 
reflex action. I find my old results about the astonishing 
sensitiveness of the nervous system (! ?) of Drosera to various 
stimulants fully confirmed and extended. . . . 

[His work on digestion in Drosera and on other points in 


the physiology of the plant soon led him into regions 
where his knowledge was defective, and here the advice and 
assistance which he received from Dr. Burdon Sanderson was 
of much value :] 

C. Darwin to J. Burdon Sanderson. 

Down, July 25, 1873. 

My dear Dr. Sanderson, — I should like to tell you a 
little about my recent work with Drosera, to show that I 
have profited by your suggestions, and to ask a question or 

1. It is really beautiful how quickly and well Drosera and 
Dionaea dissolve little cubes of albumen and gelatine. I kept 
the same sized cubes on wet moss for comparison. When 
you were here I forgot that I had tried gelatine, but albumen 
is far better for watching its dissolution and absorption. 
Frankland has told me how to test in a rough way for 
pepsine ; and in the autumn he will discover what acid the 
digestive juice contains. 

2. A decoction of cabbage-leaves and green peas causes 
as much inflection as an infusion of raw meat ; a decoction of 
grass is less powerful. Though I hear that the chemists try 
to precipitate all albumen from the extract of belladonna, I 
think they must fail, as the extract causes inflection, whereas 
a new lot of atropine, as well as the valerianate [of atropine], 
produce no effect. 

3. I have been trying a good many experiments with 
heated water. . . . Should you not call the following case one 
of heat rigor ? Two leaves were heated to 130 , and had every 
tentacle closely inflected ; one was taken out and placed in 
cold water, and it re-expanded ; the other was heated to* 145 , 
and had not the least power of re-expansion. Is not this 
latter case heat rigor ? If you can inform me, I should very 
much like to hear at what temperature cold-blooded and 
invertebrate animals are killed. 

Y 2 

324 CLIMBING AND [^73- 

4. I must tell you my final result, of which I am sure, 
[as to] the sensitiveness of Drosera. I made a solution of 
one part of phosphate of ammonia by weight to 218,750 
of water ; of this solution I gave so much that a leaf 
got -gooo °f a grain of the phosphate. I then counted the 
glands, and each could have got only X55200U °f a g ram '■> 
this being absorbed by the glands, sufficed to cause the 
tentacles bearing these glands to bend through an angle of 
180 . Such sensitiveness requires hot weather, and carefully 
selected young yet mature leaves. It strikes me as a 
wonderful fact. I must add that I took every precaution, by 
trying numerous leaves at the same time in the solution and 
in the same water which was used for making the solution. 

5. If you can persuade your friend to try the effects of 
carbonate of ammonia on the aggregation of the white blood 
corpuscles, I should very much like to hear the result. 

I hope this letter will not have wearied you. 

Believe me, yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

C. Darwin to W. Thiselton Dyer. 

Down, 24 [December 1873 ?]• 
My dear Mr. Dyer, — I fear that you will think me a 
great bore, but I cannot resist telling you that I have just 
found out that the leaves of Pinguicula possess a beautifully 
adapted power of movement. Last night I put on a row of 
little flies near one edge of two youngish leaves ; and after 14 
hours these edges are beautifully folded over so as to clasp 
the flies, thus bringing the glands into contact with the upper 
surfaces of the flies, and they are now secreting copiously 
above and below the flies and no doubt absorbing. The acid 
secretion has run down the channelled edge and has collected 
in the spoon-shaped extremity, where no doubt the glands 
are absorbing the delicious soup. The leaf on one side looks 


just like the helix of a human ear, if you were to stuff flies 
within the fold. 

Yours most sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darivin to Asa Gray. 

Down, June 3 [1874]. 

.... I am now hard at work getting my book on Drosera 
& Co. ready for the printers, but it will take some time, for I 
am always finding out new points to observe. I think you 
will be interested by my observations on the digestive process 
in Drosera ; the secretion contains an acid of the acetic series, 
and some ferment closely analogous to, but not identical 
with, pepsine ; for I have been making a long series of 
comparative trials. No human being will believe what I 
shall publish about the smallness of the doses of phosphate 
of ammonia which act. 

.... I began reading the Madagascar squib * quite gravely, 
and when I found it stated that Felis and Bos inhabited 
Madagascar, I thought it was a false story, and did not 
perceive it was a hoax till I came to the woman. . . . 

C. Darwin to F. C. Donders.\ 

Down, July 7, 1874. 

My dear Professor Donders, — My son George writes 
to me that he has seen you, and that you have been very kind 
to him, for which I return to you my cordial thanks. He 
tells me on your authority, of a fact which interests me in 
the highest degree, and which I much wish to be allowed to 
quote. It relates to the action of one millionth of a grain of 
atropine on the eye. Now will you be so kind, whenever you 
can find a little leisure, to tell me whether you yourself have 

* A description of a carnivo- t Professor Donders, the well- 

rous plant supposed to subsist on known physiologist of Utrecht, 
human beings. 

326 CLIMBING AND [l374- 

observed this fact, or believe it on good authority. I also 
wish to know what proportion by weight the atropine bore 
to the water of solution, and how much of the solution was 
applied to the eye. The reason why I am so anxious on this 
head is that it gives some support to certain facts repeatedly 
observed by me with respect to the action of phosphate of 
ammonia on Drosera. The 4000000 °f a g ra i n absorbed by 
a gland clearly makes the tentacle which bears this gland 
become inflected ; and I am fully convinced that ^oooVooo" °f 
a grain of the crystallised salt (i.e. containing about one-third 
of its weight of water of crystallisation) does the same. Now 
I am quite unhappy at the thought of having to publish such 
a statement. It will be of great value to me to be able to 
give any analogous facts in support. The case of Drosera is 
all the more interesting as the absorption of the salt or any 
other stimulant applied to the gland causes it to transmit a 
motor influence to the base of the tentacle which bears the 

Pray forgive me for troubling you, and do not trouble your- 
self to answer this until your health is fully re-established. 

Pray believe me, 

Yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

[During the summer of 1874 he was at work on the genus 
Utricularia, and he wrote (July 16th) to "Sir J. D. Hooker 
giving some account of the progress of his work : — 

" I am rather glad you have not been able to send Utricu- 
laria, for the common species has driven F. and me almost 
mad. The structure is most complex. The bladders catch 
a multitude of Entomostraca, and larvae of insects. The 
mechanism for capture is excellent. But there is much that 
we cannot understand. From what I have seen to-day, 
strongly suspect that it is necrophagous, i.e. that it cannot 
digest, but absorbs decaying matter." 


He was indebted to Lady Dorothy Nevill for specimens of 
the curious Utricidaria mo?itana, which is not aquatic like the 
European species, but grows among the moss and debris on 
the branches of trees. To this species the following letter 
refers :] 

C. Darwin to Lady Dorothy Nevill. 

Down, September 18 [1874]. 

Dear Lady Dorothy Nevill, — I am so much obliged 
to you. I was so convinced that the bladders were with the 
leaves that I never thought of removing the moss, and this 
was very stupid of me. The great solid bladder-like swellings 
almost on the surface are wonderful objects, but are not the 
true bladders. These I found on the roots near the surface, 
and down to a depth of two inches in the sand. They are 
as transparent as glass, from 2V to you °f an ^ ncn in s ^ ze ' an< ^ 
hollow. They have all the important points of structure of 
the bladders of the floating English species, and I felt con- 
fident I should find captured prey. And so I have to my 
delight in two bladders, with clear proof that they had absorbed 
food from the decaying mass. For Utricularia is a carrion- 
feeder, and not strictly carnivorous like Drosera. 

The great solid bladder-like bodies, I believe, are reservoirs 
of water like a camel's stomach. As soon as I have made 
a few more observations, I mean to be so cruel as to give 
your plant no water, and observe whether the great bladders 
shrink and contain air instead of water ; I shall then also 
wash all earth from all roots, and see whether there are true 
bladders for capturing subterranean insects down to the very 
bottom of the pot. Now shall you think me very greedy, if 
I say that supposing the species is not very precious, and 
you have several, will you give me one more plant, and if 
so, please to send it to " Orpington Station, S. E. R., to be 
forwarded by foot messenger." 

I have hardly ever enjoyed a day more in my life than I 


have this day's work ; and this I owe to your Ladyship's 
great kindness. 

The seeds are very curious monsters ; I fancy of some 
plant allied to Medicago, but I will show them to Dr. Hooker. 

Your Ladyship's very gratefully, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker. 

Down, September 30, 1874. 
My DEAR H., — Your magnificent present of Aldrovanda 
has arrived quite safe. I have enjoyed greatly a good look 
at the shut leaves, one of which I cut open. It is an aquatic 
Dionaea, which has acquired some structures identical with 
those of Utricularia ! 

If the leaves open, and I can transfer them open under 
the microscope, I will try some experiments, for mortal man 
cannot resist the temptation. If I cannot transfer, I will do 
nothing, for otherwise it would require hundreds of leaves. 
You are a good man to give me such pleasure. 

Yours affectionately, 

C. Darwin. 

[The manuscript of ' Insectivorous Plants ' was finished in 
March 1875. He seems to have been more than usually 
oppressed by the writing of this book, thus he wrote to Sir 
J. D. Hooker in February : — 

" You ask about my book, and all that I can say is that 
I am ready to commit suicide ; I thought it was decently 
written, but find so much wants rewriting, that it will not be 
ready to go to printers for two months, and will then make 
a confoundedly big book. Murray will say that it is no use 
publishing in the middle of summer, so I do not know what 
will be the upshot ; but I begin to think that every one who 
publishes a book is a fool." 

The book was published on July 2nd, 1875, and 2700 copies 
were sold out of the edition of 3000.] 

( 3^9 ) 



[THE few sentences in the autobiographical chapter give with 
sufficient clearness the connection between the 'Power of 
Movement/ and one of the author's earlier books, that on 
1 Climbing Plants.' The central idea of the book is that the 
movements of plants in relation to light, gravitation, &c, 
are modifications of a spontaneous tendency to revolve or 
circumnutate, which is widely inherent in the growing parts 
of plants. This conception has not been generally adopted, 
and has not taken a place among the canons of orthodox 
physiology. The book has been treated by Professor Sachs 
with a few words of professorial contempt ; and by Professor 
Wiesner it has been honoured by careful and generously 
expressed criticism. 

Mr. Thiselton Dyer * has well said : " Whether this masterly 
conception of the unity of what has hitherto seemed a chaos of 
unrelated phenomena will be sustained, time alone will show. 
But no one can doubt the importance of what Mr. Darwin 
has done, in showing that for the future the phenomena of 
plant movement can and indeed must be studied from a 
single point of view." 

The work was begun in the summer of 1877, after the 
publication of ' Different Forms of Flowers,' and by the 
autumn his enthusiasm for the subject was thoroughly estab- 
lished, and he wrote to Mr. Dyer : "I am all on fire at the 

* ' Charles Darwin ' (' Nature' Series), p. 41. 

330 'POWER OF MOVEMENT [1878. 

work." At this time he was studying the movements of 
cotyledons, in which the sleep of plants is to be observed in 
its simplest form ; in the following spring he was trying to 
discover what useful purpose these sleep-movements could 
serve, and wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (March 25th, 1878) : — 

" I think we have proved that the sleep of plants is to lessen 
the injury to the leaves from radiation. This has interested 
me much, and has cost us great labour, as it has been a 
problem since the time of Linnaeus. But we have killed or 
badly injured a multitude of plants : N.B. — Oxalis camosa 
was most valuable, but last night was killed." 

His letters of this period do not give any connected account 
of the progress of the work. The two following seem worth 
giving as being characteristic of the author :] 

C. Danvin to W. Thiselton Dyer, 

Down, June 2, 1878. 

My DEAR Dyer, — I remember saying that I should die a 
disgraced man if I did not observe a seedling Cactus and 
Cycas, and you have saved me from this horrible fate, as they 
move splendidly and normally. But I have two questions to 
ask : the Cycas observed was a huge seed in a broad and 
very shallow pot with cocoa-nut fibre as I suppose. It was 
named only Cycas. Was it Cycas pectinata ? I suppose that 
I cannot be wrong in believing that what first appears above 
ground is a true leaf, for I can see no stem or axis. Lastly, 
you may remember that I said that we could not raise 
Opuntia nigricans ; now I must confess to a piece of stupidity ; 
one did come up, but my gardener and self stared at it, and 
concluded that it could not be a seedling Opuntia, but now that 
I have seen one of O. basilaris, I am sure it was ; I observed 
it only casually, and saw movements, which makes me wish 

1878.] in plants/ 33 1 

to observe carefully another. If you have any fruit, will Mr. 
Lynch * be so kind as to send one more ? 

I am working away like a slave at radicles [roots] and at 
movements of true leaves, for I have pretty well done with 
cotyledons. . . . 

That was an excellent letter about the Gardens : f I had 
hoped that the agitation was over. Politicians are a poor 
truckling lot, for [they] must see the wretched effects of 
keeping the gardens open all day long. 

Your ever troublesome friend, 

Ch. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to W. Thiselton Dyer. 

4 Bryanston St., Portman Square, 

November 21 [1878]. 

My dear Dyer, — I must thank you for all the wonderful 
trouble which you have taken about the seeds of Impatiens 
and on scores of other occasions. It in truth makes me feel 
ashamed of myself, and I cannot help thinking: " Oh Lord, 
when he sees our book he will cry out, is this all for which I 
have helped so much ! " In seriousness, I hope that we have 
made out some points, but I fear that we have done very little 
for the labour which we have expended on our work. We are 
here for a week for a little rest, which I needed. 

If I remember right, November 30th, is the anniversary at 
the Royal, and I fear Sir Joseph must be almost at the last 
gasp. I shall be glad when he is no longer President. 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

[In the spring of the following year, 1879, when he was 
engaged in putting his results together, he wrote somewhat 

* Mr. R. I. Lynch, now Curator f This refers to an attempt to 

of the Botanic Garden at Cam- induce the Government to open 

bridge, was at this time in the Royal the Royal Gardens at Kew in the 

Gardens, Kew. morning. 

332 'POWER OF MOVEMENT [l88o. 

despondingly to Mr. Dyer : " I am overwhelmed with my 
notes, and almost too old to undertake the job which I have 
in hand — i.e. t movements of all kinds. Yet it is worse to be 


Later on in the year, when the work was approaching com- 
pletion, he wrote to Prof. Cams (July 17, 1879), with respect 
to a translation : — 

" Together with my son Francis, I am preparing a rather 
large volume on the general movements of Plants, and I think 
that we have made out a good many new points and views. 

" I fear that our views will meet a good deal of opposition 
in Germany ; but we have been working very hard for some 
years at the subject. 

" I shall be much pleased if you think the book worth trans- 
lating, and proof-sheets shall be sent you, whenever they are 

In the autumn he was hard at work on the manuscript, and 
wrote to Dr. Gray (October 24, 1879) : — 

" I have written a rather big book — more is the pity — on 
the movements of plants, and I am now just beginning to go 
over the MS. for the second time, which is a horrid bore." 

Only the concluding part of the next letter refers to the 
1 Power of Movement ' :] 

C. Danvin to A , De Candolle. 

May 28, 1880. 
My DEAR Sir, — I am particularly obliged to you for having 
so kindly sent me your ' Phytographie ;' * for if I had merely 
seen it advertised, I should not have supposed that it could 
have concerned me. As it is, I have read with very great 
interest about a quarter, but will not delay longer thanking 
you. All that you say seems to me very clear and con- 
vincing, and as in all your writings I find a large number of 

* A book on the methods of botanical research, more especially of 
systematic work. 

i88o.] IN PLANTS.' 333 

philosophical remarks new to me, and no doubt shall find 
many more. They have recalled many a puzzle through 
which I passed when monographing the Cirripedia ; and your 
book in those days would have been quite invaluable to me. 
It has pleased me to find that I have always followed your 
plan of making notes on separate pieces of paper ; I keep 
several scores of large portfolios, arranged on very thin shelves 
about two inches apart, fastened to the walls of my study, 
and each shelf has its proper name or title ; and I can thus 
put at once every memorandum into its proper place. Your 
book will, I am sure, be very useful to many young students, 
and I shall beg my son Francis (who intends to devote himself 
to the physiology of plants) to read it carefully. 

As for myself I am taking a fortnight's rest, after sending 
a pile of MS. to the printers, and it was a piece of good 
fortune that your book arrived as I was getting into my 
carriage, for I wanted something to read whilst away from 
home. My MS. relates to the movements of plants, and I 
think that I have succeeded in showing that all the more 
important great classes of movements are due to the modifi- 
cation of a kind of movement common to all parts of all 
plants from their earliest youth. 

Pray give my kind remembrances to your son, and with my 
highest respect and best thanks, 

Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

P.S. — It always pleases me to exalt plants in the organic 
scale, and if you will take the trouble to read my last chapter 
when my book (which will be sadly too big) is published and 
sent to you, I hope and think that you also will admire some 
of the beautiful adaptations by which seedling plants are 
enabled to perform their proper functions. 

[The book was published on November 6, 1880, and 1500 

334 'POWER OF MOVEMENT [l88o. 

copies were disposed of at Mr. Murray's sale. With regard to 
it he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (November 23) : — 

"Your note has pleased me much — for I did not expect 
that you would have had time to read any of it. Read the 
last chapter, and you will know the whole result, but without 
the evidence. The case, however, of radicles bending after 
exposure for an hour to geotropism, with their tips (or brains) 
cut off is, I think, worth your reading (bottom of p. 525) ; it 
astounded me. The next most remarkable fact, as it ap- 
peared to me (p. 148), is the discrimination of the tip of the 
radicle between a slightly harder and softer object affixed 
on opposite sides of tip. But I will bother you no more 
about my book. The sensitiveness of seedlings to light is 

To another friend, Mr. Thiselton Dyer, he wrote (Novem- 
ber 28, 1880):— 

"Very many thanks for your most kind note, but you 
think too highly of our work, not but what this is very 
pleasant Many of the Germans are very contemp- 
tuous about making out the use of organs ; but they may 
sneer the souls out of their bodies, and I for one shall think 
it the most interesting part of Natural History. Indeed you 
are greatly mistaken if you doubt for one moment on the very 
great value of your constant and most kind assistance to us." 

The book was widely reviewed, and excited much interest 
among the general public. The following letter refers to a 
leading article in the Times, November 20, 1880 :] 

C. Darwin to Mrs. Halibtirton* 

Down, November 22, 1880. 

My dear Sarah, — You see how audaciously I begin ; but 
I have always loved and shall ever love this name. Your 

* Mrs. Haliburton is a daughter of my father's early friend, the late 
Mr. Owen, of Woodhouse. 

i88o.] in plants.' 335 

letter has done more than please me, for its kindness has 
touched my heart. I often think of old days and of the 
delight of my visits to Woodhouse, and of the deep debt of 
gratitude which I owe to your father. It was very good of 
you to write. I had quite forgotten my old ambition about 
the Shrewsbury newspaper ; * but I remember the pride 
which I felt when I saw in a book about beetles the impressive 
words " captured by C. Darwin." Captured sounded so grand 
compared with caught. This seemed to me glory enough for 
any man ! I do not know in the least what made the Times 
glorify me,f for it has sometimes pitched into me ferociously. 
I should very much like to see you again, but you would 
find a visit here very dull, for we feel very old and have no 
amusement, and lead a solitary life. But we intend in a few 
weeks to spend a few days in London, and then if you have 
anything else to do in London, you would perhaps come and 
lunch with us.J 

Believe me, my dear Sarah, 

Yours gratefully and affectionately, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The following letter was called forth by the publication 
of a volume devoted to the criticism of the ' Power of 
Movement in Plants ' by an accomplished botanist, Dr. Julius 
Wiesner, Professor of Botany in the University of Vienna :] 

* Mrs. Haliburton had reminded " Of all our living men of science 

him of his saying as a boy that if none have laboured longer and to 

Eddowes' newspaper ever alluded more splendid purpose than Mr. 

to him as " our deserving fellow- Darwin." 

townsman," his ambition would be % My father had the pleasure of 

amply gratified. seeing Mrs. Haliburton at his 

f The following is the opening brother's house in Queen Anne 

sentence of the leading article : — Street. 

336 'POWER OF MOVEMENT [l88l. 

C. Darwin to Julius Wiesner. 

Down, October 25th, 1881. 

My DEAR Sir, — I have now finished your book,* and have 
understood the whole except a very few passages. In the 
first place, let me thank you cordially for the manner in which 
you have everywhere treated me. You have shown how a 
man may differ from another in the most decided manner, 
and yet express his difference with the most perfect courtesy. 
Not a few English and German naturalists might learn a 
useful lesson from your example ; for the coarse language 
often used by scientific men towards each other does no good, 
and only degrades science. 

I have been profoundly interested by your book, and some 
of your experiments are so beautiful, that I actually felt 
pleasure while being vivisected. It would take up too much 
space to discuss all the important topics in your book. I fear 
that you have quite upset the interpretation which I have 
given of the effects of cutting off the tips of horizontally 
extended roots, and of those laterally exposed to moisture ; 
but I cannot persuade myself that the horizontal position of 
lateral branches and roots is due simply to their lessened 
power of growth. Nor when I think of my experiments with 
the cotyledons of Phalaris, can I give up the belief of the 
transmission of some stimulus due to light from the upper 
to the lower part. At p. 60 you have misunderstood my 
meaning, when you say that I believe that the effects from 
light are transmitted to a part which is not itself heliotropic. 
I never considered whether or not the short part beneath the 
ground was heliotropic ; but I believe that with young seed- 
lings the part which bends near, but above the ground is 
heliotropic, and I believe so from this part bending only 
moderately when the light is oblique, and bending rectan- 
gularly when the light is horizontal. Nevertheless the bending 

* i 

Das Bewegungsvermogen der Pflanzen.' Vienna, 1881. 

1 88 1.] IN PLANTS. 337 

of this lower part, as I conclude from my experiments with 
opaque caps, is influenced by the action of light on the upper 
part. My opinion, however, on the above and many other 
points, signifies very little, for I have no doubt that your book 
will convince most botanists that I am wrong in all the points 
on which we differ. 

Independently of the question of transmission, my mind is 
so full of facts leading me to believe that light, gravity, &c, 
act not in a direct manner on growth, but as stimuli, that I 
am quite unable to modify my judgment on this head. I 
could not understand the passage at p. 78, until I consulted 
my son George, who is a mathematician. He supposes that 
your objection is founded on the diffused light from the lamp 
illuminating both sides of the object, and not being reduced, 
with increasing distance in the same ratio as the direct light ; 
but he doubts whether this necessary correction will account 
for the very little difference in the heliotropic curvature of the 
plants in the successive pots. 

With respect to the sensitiveness of the tips of roots to 
contact, I cannot admit your view until it is proved that I am 
in error about bits of card attached by liquid gum causing 
movement ; whereas no movement was caused if the card 
remained separated from the tip by a layer of the liquid gum. 
The fact also of thicker and thinner bits of card attached on 
opposite sides of the same root by shellac, causing movement 
in one direction, has to be explained. You often speak of the 
tip having been injured ; but externally there was no sign of 
injury : and when the tip was plainly injured, the extreme 
part became curved towards the injured side. I can no more 
believe that the tip was injured by the bits of card, at least 
when attached by gum-water, than that the glands of Drosera 
are injured by a particle of thread or hair placed on it, or that 
the human tongue is so when it feels any such object. 

About the most important subject in my book, namely 
circumnutation, I can only say that I feel utterly bewildered 



at the difference in our conclusions ; but I could not fully 
understand some parts which my son Francis will be able to 
translate to me when he returns home. The greater part of 
your book is beautifully clear. 

Finally, I wish that I had enough strength and spirit to 
commence a fresh set of experiments, and publish the results, 
with a full recantation of my errors when convinced of them ; 
but I am too old for such an undertaking, nor do I suppose 
that I shall be able to do much, or any more, original work. 
I imagine that I see one possible source of error in your 
beautiful experiment of a plant rotating and exposed to a 
lateral light. 

With high respect and with sincere thanks for the kind 
manner in which you have treated me and my mistakes, I 

My dear Sir, yours sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

339 ) 




[The present chapter contains a series of miscellaneous 
letters on botanical subjects. Some of them show my father's 
varied interests in botanical science, and others give account 
of researches which never reached completion.] 


[His researches into the meaning of the " bloom," or waxy 
coating found on many leaves, was one of those inquiries 
which remained unfinished at the time of his death. He 
amassed a quantity of notes on the subject, part of which I 
hope to publish at no distant date.* 

One of his earliest letters on this subject was addressed in 
August, 1873, to Sir Joseph Hooker: — 

" I want a little information from you, and if you do not 
yourself know, please to enquire of some of the wise men of 

" Why are the leaves and fruit of so many plants protected 
by a thin layer of waxy matter (like the common cabbage), 

* A small instalment, on the lished results identical with some 

relation between bloom and the which my father and myself ob- 

distribution of the stomata on tained, viz. that bloom diminishes 

leaves, has appeared in the 'Jour- transpiration. The same fact was 

nal of the Linnean Society,' 1886. previously published by Garreau, 

Tschirsch (Lznncsa, 188 1) has pub- in 1850, 

Z 2 

340 MISCELLANEOUS. [1873. 

or with fine hair, so that when such leaves or fruit are immersed 
in water they appear as if encased in thin glass ? It is really 
a pretty sight to put a pod of the common pea, or a raspberry 
into water. I find several leaves are thus protected on the 
under surface and not on the upper. 

" How can water injure the leaves if indeed this is at all 
the case ? " 

On this latter point he wrote to Sir Thomas Farrer : — 

" I am now become mad about drops of water injuring 
leaves. Please ask Mr. Paine * whether he believes, from his 
own experience, that drops of water injure leaves or fruit in his 
conservatories. It is said that the drops act as burning-glasses ; 
if this is true, they would not be at all injurious on cloudy 
days. As he is so acute a man, I should very much like to 
hear his opinion. I remember when I grew hot-house orchids 
I was cautioned not to wet their leaves ; but I never then 
thought on the subject. 

" I enjoyed my visit greatly with you, and I am very sure 
that all England could not afford a kinder and pleasanter 

Some years later he took up the subject again, and wrote to 
Sir Joseph Hooker (May 25, 1877): — 

" I have been looking over my old notes about the " bloom " 
on plants, and I think that the subject is well worth pursuing, 
though I am very doubtful of any success. Are you inclined 
to aid me on the mere chance of success, for without your aid 
I could do hardly anything ? "] 

C. Darwin to Asa Gray. 

Down, June 4 [1877]. 

.... I am now trying to make out the use or function of 
"bloom," or the waxy secretion on the leaves and fruit of 
plants, but am very doubtful whether I shall succeed. Can 

* Sir Thomas Farrer's gardener. 


you give me any light ? Are such plants commoner in warm 
than in colder climates ? I ask because I often walk out in 
heavy rain, and the leaves of very few wild dicotyledons can 
be here seen with drops of water rolling off them like quick- 
silver. Whereas in my flower garden, greenhouse, and hot- 
houses there are several. Again, are bloom-protected plants 
common on your dry western plains ? Hooker thinks that they 
are common at the Cape of Good Hope. It is a puzzle to me 
if they are common under very dry climates, and I find bloom 
very common on the Acacias and Eucalypti of Australia. 
Some of the Eucalypti which do not appear to be covered with 
bloom have the epidermis protected by a layer of some 
substance which is dissolved in boiling alcohol. Are there 
any bloom-protected leaves or fruit in the Arctic regions ? 
If you can illuminate me, as you so often have done, pray do 
so ; but otherwise do not bother yourself by answering. 

Yours affectionately, 

C. Darwin. 

C. Darwin to W. Thiselton Dyer. 

Down, September 5 [1877]. 

My DEAR Dyer, — One word to thank you. I declare had 
it not been for your kindness, we should have broken down. 
As it is we have made out clearly that with some plants (chiefly 
succulent) the bloom checks evaporation — with some certainly 
prevents attacks of insects ; with some sea-shore plants 
prevents injury from salt-water, and, I believe, with a few 
prevents injury from pure water resting on the leaves. This 
latter is as yet the most doubtful and the most interesting 
point in relation to the movements of plants. 

342 MISCELLANEOUS. [l88l. 

C. Darwin to F. Midler. 

Down, July 4 [1881]. 

My DEAR Sir, — Your kindness is unbounded, and I cannot 
tell you how much your last letter (May 31) has interested 
me. I have piles of notes about the effect of water resting on 
leaves, and their movements (as I supposed) to shake off the 
drops. But I have not looked over these notes for a long 
time, and had come to think that perhaps my notion was mere 
fancy, but I had intended to begin experimenting as soon as 
I returned home ; and now with your invaluable letter about 
the position of the leaves of various plants during rain (I have 
one analogous case with Acacia from South Africa), I shall 
be stimulated to work in earnest. 


[The following letter refers to a subject on which my father 
felt the strongest interest : — the experimental investigation of 
the causes of variability. The experiments alluded to were 
to some extent planned out, and some preliminary work was 
begun in the direction indicated below, but the research was 
ultimately abandoned.] 

C. Darwin to J. H. Gilbert* 

Down, February 16, 1876. 

My DEAR Sir, — When I met you at the Linnean Society, 
you were so kind as to say that you would aid me with advice, 
and this will be of the utmost value to me and my son. I will 
first state my object, and hope that you will excuse a long 
letter. It is admitted by all naturalists that no problem is so 
perplexing as what causes almost every cultivated plant to 

* Dr. Gilbert, F.R.S., joint author long series of valuable researches 
with Sir John Bennett Lawes of a in Scientific Agriculture. 


vary, and no experiments as yet tried have thrown any light 
on the subject. Now for the last ten years I have been 
experimenting in crossing and self-fertilising plants ; and one 
indirect result has surprised me much ; namely, that by taking 
pains to cultivate plants in pots under glass during several 
successive generations, under nearly similar conditions, and by 
self-fertilising them in each generation, the colour of the 
flowers often changes, and, what is very remarkable, they 
became in some of the most variable species, such as Mimulus, 
Carnation, &c, quite constant, like those of a wild species. 

This fact and several others have led me to the suspicion 
that the cause of variation must be in different substances 
absorbed from the soil by these plants when their powers of 
absorption are not interfered with by other plants with which 
they grow mingled in a state of nature. Therefore my son 
and I wish to grow plants in pots in soil entirely, or as nearly 
entirely as is possible, destitute of all matter which plants 
absorb, and then to give during several successive generations 
to several plants of the same species as different solutions as 
may be compatible with their life and health. And now, can 
you advise me how to make soil approximately free of all the 
substances which plants naturally absorb ? I suppose white 
silver sand, sold for cleaning harness, &c, is nearly pure silica, 
but what am I to do for alumina ? Without some alumina I 
imagine that it would be impossible to keep the soil damp 
and fit for the growth of plants. I presume that clay washed 
over and over again in water would still yield mineral matter 
to the carbonic acid secreted by the roots. I should want a 
good deal of soil, for it would be useless to experimentise 
unless we could fill from twenty to thirty moderately sized 
flower-pots every year. Can you suggest any plan ? for unless 
you can it would, I fear, be useless for us to commence an 
attempt to discover whether variability depends at all on 
matter absorbed from the soil. After obtaining the requisite 
kind of soil, my notion is to water one set of plants with 

344 MISCELLANEOUS. [l88l. 

nitrate of potassium, another set with nitrate of sodium, and 
another with nitrate of lime, giving all as much phosphate of 
ammonia as they seemed to support, for I wish the plants to 
grow as luxuriantly as possible. The plants watered with 
nitrate of Na and of Ca would require, I suppose, some K ; but 
perhaps they would get what is absolutely necessary from such 
soil as I should be forced to employ, and from the rain-water 
collected in tanks. I could use hard water from a deep well 
in the chalk, but then all the plants would get lime. If the 
plants to which I give Nitrate of Na and of Ca would not 
grow I might give them a little alum. 

I am well aware how very ignorant I am, and how crude 
my notions are ; and if you could suggest any other solutions 
by which plants would be likely to be affected it would be a 
very great kindness. I suppose that there are no organic 
fluids which plants would absorb, and which I could procure ? 

I must trust to your kindness to excuse me for troubling 
you at such length, and, 

I remain, dear Sir, yours sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

[The next letter to Professor Semper bears on the same 
subject :] 

From C. Darwin to K. Semper* 

Down, July 19, 188 1. 

My dear Professor Semper, — I have been much 
pleased to receive your letter, but I did not expect you to 

answer my former one I cannot remember what I 

wrote to you, but I am sure that it must have expressed the 
interest which I felt in reading your book.f I thought that 
you attributed too much weight to the direct action of the 

* Professor of Zoology at Wiirz- title, ' The Natural Conditions ot 

burg. Existence as they affect Animal 

t Published in the ' International Life.' 
Scientific Series/ in 1881, under the 

1 88 1.] BOTANICAL LETTERS. 345 

environment ; but whether I said so I know not, for without 
being asked I should have thought it presumptuous to have 
criticised your book, nor should I now say so had I not during 
the last few days been struck with Professor Hoffmann's 
review of his own work in the ' Botanische Zeitung,' on the 
variability of plants ; and it is really surprising how little effect 
he produced by cultivating certain plants under unnatural 
conditions, as the presence of salt, lime, zinc, &c, &c, during 
several generations. Plants, moreover, were selected which 
were the most likely to vary under such conditions, judging 
from the existence of closely-allied forms adapted for these 
conditions. No doubt I originally attributed too little weight 
to the direct action of conditions, but Hoffmann's paper has 
staggered me. Perhaps hundreds of generations of exposure 
are necessary. It is a most perplexing subject. I wish 
I was not so old, and had more strength, for I see lines 
of research to follow. Hoffmann even doubts whether 
plants vary more under cultivation than in their native home 
and under their natural conditions. If so, the astonishing 
variations of almost all cultivated plants must be due to 
selection and breeding from the varying individuals. This 
idea crossed my mind many years ago, but I was afraid to 
publish it, as I thought that people would say, " how he does 
exaggerate the importance of selection." 

I still must believe that changed conditions give the impulse 
to variability, but that they act in most cases in a very 
indirect manner. But, as I said, it is a most perplexing pro- 
blem. Pray forgive me for writing at such length ; I had no 
intention of doing so when I sat down to write. 

I am extremely sorry to hear, for your own sake and for 
that of Science, that you are so hard worked, and that so much 
of your time is consumed in official labour. 

Pray believe me, dear Professor Semper, 

Yours sincerely, 
Charles Darwin. 

346 MISCELLANEOUS. [l88l. 


[Shortly before his death, my father began to experimentise 
on the possibility of producing galls artificially. A letter to 
Sir J. D. Hooker (Nov. 3, 1880) shows the interest which he 
felt in the question : — 

" I was delighted with Paget's Essay ; * I hear that he has 
occasionally attended to this subject from his youth .... 
I am very glad he has called attention to galls : this has 
always seemed to me a profoundly interesting subject ; and if 
I had been younger would take it up." 

His interest in this subject was connected with his ever- 
present wish to learn something of the causes of variation. 
He imagined to himself wonderful galls caused to appear on 
the ovaries of plants, and by these means he thought it possible 
that the seed might be influenced, and thus new varieties 
arise. He made a considerable number of experiments by 
injecting various reagents into the tissues of leaves, and with 
some slight indications of success.] 


[The following letter gives an idea of the subject of the 
last of his published papers.f The appearances which he 
observed in leaves and roots attracted him, on account of 
their relation to the phenomena of aggregation which had so 
deeply interested him when he was at work on Drosera :] 

C. Darwin to S. H. Vines. % 

Down, November 1, 1881. 
My DEAR Mr. Vines, — As I know how busy you are, it 
is a great shame to trouble you. But you are so rich in 

* 'Disease in Plants,' by Sir ciety.' Vol. xix., 1882, pp. 239 

James Paget. — See Gardeners' and 262. 

Chronicle, 1880. % Reader in Botany in the Uni- 

f ' Journal of the Linnean So- versity of Cambridge. 

1 88 1.] BOTANICAL LETTERS. 347 

chemical knowledge about plants, and I am so poor, that I 
appeal to your chanty as a pauper. My question is — Do 
you know of any solid substance in the cells of plants which 
glycerine and water dissolves ? But you will understand my 
perplexity better if I give you the facts : I mentioned to you 
that if a plant of Euphorbia peplus is gently dug up and the 
roots placed for a short time in a weak solution (i to 10,000 
of water suffices in 24 hours) of carbonate of ammonia the 
(generally) alternate longitudinal rows of cells in every 
rootlet, from the root-cap up to the very top of the root (but 
not as far as I have yet seen in the green stem) become 
filled with translucent, brownish grains of matter. These 
rounded grains often cohere and even become confluent. 
Pure phosphate and nitrate of ammonia produce (though more 
slowly) the same effect, as does pure carbonate of soda. 

Now, if slices of root under a cover-glass are irrigated 
with glycerine and water, every one of the innumerable 
grains in the cells disappear after some hours. What am I 
to think of this ? . . . . 

Forgive me for bothering you to such an extent ; but I 
must mention that if the roots are dipped in boiling water 
there is no deposition of matter, and carbonate of ammonia 
afterwards produces no effect. I should state that I now find 
that the granular matter is formed in the cells immediately 
beneath the thin epidermis, and a few other cells near the 
vascular tissue. If the granules consisted of living protoplasm 
(but I can see no traces of movement in them), then I should 
infer that the glycerine killed them and aggregation ceased 
with the diffusion of invisibly minute particles, for I have 
seen an analogous phenomenon in Drosera. 

If you can aid me, pray do so, and anyhow forgive me. 

Yours very sincerely, 

Ch. Darwin. 

34§ miscellaneous. [1878. 

Mr. Torbitt's Experiments on the Potato-Disease. 

[Mr. James Torbitt, of Belfast, has been engaged for the 
last twelve years in the difficult undertaking, in which he has 
been to a large extent successful, of raising fungus-proof 
varieties of the potato. My father felt great interest in Mr. 
Torbitt's work, and corresponded with him from 1876 on- 
wards. The following letter, giving a clear account of Mr. 
Torbitt's method and of my father's opinion of the probability 
of its success, was written with the idea that Government 
aid for the work might possibly be obtainable :] 

C. Darwin to T. H. Farrer. 

Down, March 2, 1878. 

My DEAR Farrer, — Mr. Torbitt's plan of overcoming the 
potato-disease seems to me by far the best which has ever 
been suggested. It consists, as you know from his printed 
letter, of rearing a vast number of seedlings from cross-fertil- 
ised parents, exposing them to infection, ruthlessly destroying 
all that suffer, saving those which resist best, and repeating 
the process in successive seminal generations. My belief in 
the probability of good results from this process rests on the 
fact of all characters whatever occasionally varying. It is 
known, for instance, that certain species and varieties of the 
vine resist phylloxera better than others. Andrew Knight 
found one variety or species of the apple which was not in 
the least attacked by coccus, and another variety has been 
observed in South Australia. Certain varieties of the peach 
resist mildew, and several other such cases could be given. 
Therefore there is no great improbability in a new variety of 
potato arising which would resist the fungus completely, or 
at least much better than any existing variety. With respect 
to the cross-fertilisation of two distinct seedling plants, it has 
been ascertained that the offspring thus raised inherit much 


more vigorous constitutions and generally are more prolific 
than seedlings from self-fertilised parents. It is also probable 
that cross-fertilisation would be especially valuable in the 
case of the potato, as there is reason to believe that the 
flowers are seldom crossed by our native insects ; and some 
varieties are absolutely sterile unless fertilised with pollen 
from a distinct variety. There is some evidence that the good 
effects from a cross are transmitted for several generations ; 
it would not, therefore be necessary to cross-fertilise the 
seedlings in each generation, though this would be desirable, 
as it is almost certain that a greater number of seeds would 
thus be obtained. It should be remembered that a cross 
between plants raised from the tubers of the same plant, 
though growing on distinct roots, does no more good than a 
cross between flowers on the 'same individual. Considering 
the whole subject, it appears to me that it would be a national 
misfortune if the cross-fertilised seeds in Mr. Torbitt's posses- 
sion produced by parents which have already shown some 
power of resisting the disease, are not utilised by the Govern- 
ment, or some public body, and the process of selection 
continued during several more generations. 

Should the Agricultural Society undertake the work, Mr. 
Torbitt's knowledge gained by experience would be especially 
valuable ; and an outline of the plan is given in his printed 
letter. It would be necessary that all the tubers produced by 
each plant should be collected separately, and carefully 
examined in each succeeding generation. 

It would be advisable that some kind of potato eminently 
liable to the disease should be planted in considerable numbers 
near the seedlings so as to infect them. 

Altogether the trial would be one requiring much care and 
extreme patience, as I know from experience with analogous 
work, and it may be feared that it would be difficult to find 
any one who would pursue the experiment with sufficient 
energy. It seems, therefore, to me highly desirable that 

350 MISCELLANEOUS. [1878. 

Mr. Torbitt should be aided with some small grant so as to 
continue the work himself. 

Judging from his reports, his efforts have already been 
crowned in so short a time with more success than could 
have been anticipated ; and I think you will agree with me, 
that any one who raises a fungus-proof potato will be a public 
benefactor of no common kind. 

My dear Farrer, yours sincerely, 

Charles Darwin. 

[After further consultation with Sir Thomas Farrer and 
with Mr. Caird, my father became convinced that it was 
hopeless to attempt to obtain Government aid. He wrote to 
Mr. Torbitt to this effect, adding, " it would be less trouble to 
get up a subscription from a few rich leading agriculturists 
than from Government. This plan I think you cannot object 
to, as you have asked nothing, and will have nothing whatever 
to do with the subscription. In fact, the affair is, in my 
opinion, a compliment to you." The idea thus broached was 
carried out, and Mr. Torbitt was enabled to continue his work 
by the aid of a sum to which Sir T. Farrer, Mr. Caird, my 
father, and a few friends, subscribed. 

My father's sympathy and encouragement were highly 
valued by Mr. Torbitt, who tells me that without them he 
should long ago have given up his attempt. A few extracts 
will illustrate his fellow-feeling with Mr. Torbitt's energy and 
perseverance : — 

" I admire your indomitable spirit. If any one ever 
deserved success, you do so, and I keep to my original 
opinion that you have a very good chance of raising a fungus- 
proof variety of the potato. 

"A pioneer in a new undertaking is sure to meet with 
many disappointments, so I hope that you will keep up your 
courage, though we have done so very little for you." 

1 88 1-2.] BOTANICAL LETTERS. 351 

Mr. Torbitt tells me that he still (1887) succeeds in raising 
varieties possessing well-marked powers of resisting disease ; 
but this immunity is not permanent, and, after some years, the 
varieties become liable to the attacks of the fungus.] 

The Kew Index of Plant-Names, or ' Nomenclator 

botanicus darwinianus '. 

[Some account of my father's connection with the Index of 
Plant-names now (1887) in course of preparation at Kew will 
be found in Mr. B. Daydon Jackson's paper in the ' Journal of 
Botany,' 1887, p. 151. Mr. Jackson quotes the following state- 
ment by Sir J. D. Hooker : — 

"Shortly before his death, Mr. Charles Darwin informed 
Sir Joseph Hooker that it was his intention to devote 
a considerable sum of money annually for some years in 
aid or furtherance of some work or works of practical 
utility to biological science, and to make provisions in his 
will in the event of these not being completed during his 

" Amongst other objects connected with botanical science, 
Mr. Darwin regarded with especial interest the importance of 
a complete index to the names and authors of the genera and 
species of plants known to botanists, together with their 
native countries. Steudel's ' Nomenclator' is the only existing 
work of this nature, and although now nearly half a century 
old, Mr. Darwin had found it of great aid in his own re- 
searches. It has been indispensable to every botanical insti- 
tution, whether as a list of all known flowering plants, as an 
indication of their authors, or as a digest of botanical 

Since 1840, when the 'Nomenclator' was published, the 
number of described plants may be said to have doubled, so 

352 MISCELLANEOUS. [i 88 1-2. 

that the ' Nomenclator ' is now seriously below the require- 
ments of botanical work. To remedy this want, the * Nomen- 
clator' has been from time to time posted up in an inter- 
leaved copy in the Herbarium at Kew, by the help of " funds 
supplied by private liberality." * 

My father, like other botanists, had as Sir Joseph Hooker 
points out, experienced the value of Steudel's work. He 
obtained plants from all sorts of sources, which were often 
incorrectly named, and he felt the necessity of adhering to 
the accepted nomenclature, so that he might convey to other 
workers precise indications as to the plants which he had 
studied. It was also frequently a matter of importance to 
him to know the native country of his experimental plants. 
Thus it was natural that he should recognize the desirability of 
completing and publishing the interleaved volume at Kew. 
The wish to help in this object was heightened by the admira- 
tion he felt for the results for which the world has to thank 
the Royal Gardens at Kew, and by his gratitude for the in- 
valuable aid which for so many years he received from its 
Director and his staff. He expressly stated that it was his 
wish " to aid in some way the scientific work carried on at 
the Royal Gardens " f — which induced him to offer to supply 
funds for the completion of the Kew ' Nomenclator.' 

The following passage, for which I am indebted to Pro- 
fessor Judd, is of interest, as illustrating the motives that 
actuated my father in this matter. Professor Judd writes : — 

" On the occasion of my last visit to him, he told me that 
his income having recently greatly increased, while his wants 
remained the same, he was most anxious to devote what he 
could spare to the advancement of Geology or Biology. He 
dwelt in the most touching manner on the fact that he owed 
so much happiness and fame to the natural-history sciences 

* Kew Gardens Report, 1881, f See 'Nature,' January 5, 1882. 

p. 62. 

1 88 1-2.] BOTANICAL LETTERS. 353 

which had been the solace of what might have been a painful 
existence ; — and he begged me, if I knew of any research 
which could be aided by a grant of a few hundreds of pounds, 
to let him know, as it would be a delight to him to feel that 
he was helping in promoting the progress of science. He 
informed me at the same time that he was making the same 
suggestion to Sir Joseph Hooker and Professor Huxley with 
respect to Botany and Zoology respectively. I was much 
impressed by the earnestness, and, indeed, deep emotion, with 
which he spoke of his indebtedness to Science, and his desire 
to promote its interests." 

Sir Joseph Hooker was asked by my father " to take into 
consideration, with the aid of the botanical staff at Kew and 
the late Mr. Bentham, the extent and scope of the proposed 
work, and to suggest the best means of having it executed. 
In doing this, Sir Joseph had further the advantage of the 
great knowledge and experience of Professor Asa Gray, of 
Cambridge, U.S.A., and of Mr. John Ball, F.R.S." * 

The plan of the proposed work having been carefully 
considered, Sir Joseph Hooker was able to confide its elabo- 
ration in detail to Mr. B. Daydon Jackson, Secretary of the 
Linnean Society, whose extensive knowledge of botanical 
literature qualifies him for the task. My father's original idea 
of producing a modern edition of Steudel's ' Nomenclator ' 
has been practically abandoned, the aim now kept in view is 
rather to construct a list of genera and species (with references) 
founded on Bentham and Hooker's ' Genera Plantarum.' The 
colossal nature of the work in progress at Kew may be esti- 
mated by the fact that the manuscript of the ' Index ' is at 
the present time (1887) believed to weigh more than a ton. 
Under Sir Joseph Hooker's supervision the work goes steadily 
forward, being carried out with admirable zeal by Mr. Jackson, 
who devotes himself unsparingly to the enterprise, in which, 

* ' Journal of Botany,' loc. cit. 
VOL. III. 2 A 

354 BOTANICAL LETTERS. [i 88 1-2. 

too, he has the advantage of the interest in the work felt by 
Professor Oliver and Mr. Thiselton Dyer. 

The Kew ' Index,' which will, in all probability, be ready 
to go to press in four or five years, will be a fitting memorial 
of my father : and his share in its completion illustrates a 
part of his character — his ready sympathy with work outside 
his own lines of investigation — and his respect for minute 
and patient labour in all branches of science.] 




SOME idea of the general course of my father's health may 
have been gathered from the letters given in the preceding 
pages. The subject of health appears more prominently 
than is often necessary in a Biography, because it was, 
unfortunately, so real an element in determining the outward 
form of his life. 

During the last ten years of his life the state of his health 
was a cause of satisfaction and hope to his family. His con- 
dition showed signs of amendment in several particulars. 
He suffered less distress and discomfort, and was able to 
work more steadily. Something has been already said of 
Dr. Bence Jones's treatment, from which my father certainly 
derived benefit. In later years he became a patient of 
Sir Andrew Clark, under whose care he improved greatly 
in general health. It was not only for his generously ren- 
dered service that my father felt a debt of gratitude towards 
Sir Andrew Clark. He owed to his cheering personal 
influence an often-repeated encouragement, which latterly 
added something real to his happiness, and he found sincere 
pleasure in Sir Andrew's friendship and kindness towards 
himself and his children. 

Scattered through the past pages are one or two references 
to pain or uneasiness felt in the region of the heart. How 
far these indicate that the heart was affected early in life, 
I cannot pretend to say ; in any case it is certain that he 
had no serious or permanent trouble of this nature until 

2 A 2 

356 conclusion. [i38i. 

shortly before his death. In spite of the general improve- 
ment in his health, which has been above alluded to, there 
was a certain loss of physical vigour occasionally apparent 
during the last few years of his life. This is illustrated by 
a sentence in a letter to his old friend Sir James Sulivan, 
written on January 10, 1879: "My scientific work tires me 
more than it used to do, but I have nothing else to do, and 
whether one is worn out a year or two sooner or later signi- 
fies but little." 

A similar feeling is shown in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker 
of June 15, 1881. My father was staying at Patterdale, and 
wrote : " I am rather despondent about myself .... I have 
not the heart or strength to begin any investigation lasting 
years, which is the only thing which I enjoy, and I have no 
little jobs which I can do." 

In July, 1881, he wrote to Mr. Wallace, " We have just 
returned home after spending five weeks on Ullswater ; the 
scenery is quite charming, but I cannot walk, and everything 
tires me, even seeing scenery .... What I shall do with my 
few remaining years of life I can hardly tell. I have every- 
thing to make me happy and contented, but life has become 
very wearisome to me." He was, however, able to do a good 
deal of work, and that of a trying sort,* during the autumn 
of 1 88 1, but towards the end of the year he was clearly in 
need of rest ; and during the winter was in a lower condition 
than was usual with him. 

On December 13, he went for a week to his daughter's 
house in Bryanston Street. During his stay in London he 
went to call on Mr. Romanes, and was seized when on the 
door-step with an attack apparently of the same kind as those 
which afterwards became so frequent. The rest of the in- 
cident, which I give in Mr. Romanes' words, is interesting too 
from a different point of view, as giving one more illustration 
of my father's scrupulous consideration for others : — 

* On the action of carbonate of ammonia on roots and leaves. 

i882.] conclusion. 357 

" I happened to be out, but my butler, observing that Mr. 
Darwin was ill, asked him to come in. He said he would 
prefer going home, and although the butler urged him to 
wait at least until a cab could be fetched, he said he would 
rather not give so much trouble. For the same reason he 
refused to allow the butler to accompany him. Accordingly 
he watched him walking with difficulty towards the direction 
in which cabs were to be met with, and saw that, when he 
had got about three hundred yards from the house, he stag- 
gered and caught hold of the park-railings as if to prevent 
himself from falling. The butler therefore hastened to his 
assistance, but after a few seconds saw him turn round with 
the evident purpose of retracing his steps to my house. How- 
ever, after he had returned part of the way he seems to 
have felt better, for he again changed his mind, and proceeded 
to find a cab." 

During the last week of February and in the beginning of 
March, attacks of pain in the region of the heart, with irre- 
gularity of the pulse, became frequent, coming on indeed 
nearly every afternoon. A seizure of this sort occurred about 
March 7, when he was walking alone at a short distance from 
the house ; he got home with difficulty, and this was the 
last time that he was able to reach his favourite ' Sand- 
walk.' Shortly after this, his illness became obviously more 
serious and alarming, and he was seen by Sir Andrew Clark, 
whose treatment was continued by Dr. Norman Moore, of St. 
Bartholomew's Hospital, and Mr. Allfrey, of St. Mary Cray. 
He suffered from distressing sensations of exhaustion and 
faintness, and seemed to recognise with deep depression the 
fact that his working days were over. He gradually recovered 
from this condition, and became more cheerful and hopeful, as 
is shown in the following letter to Mr. Huxley, who was 
anxious that my father should have closer medical supervision 
than the existing arrangements allowed : — 

358 CONCLUSION. [l882> 

Down, March 27, 1882. 

" My dear Huxley, — Your most kind letter has been a real 

cordial to me. I have felt better to-day than for three weeks, 

and have felt as yet no pain. Your plan seems an excellent 

one, and I will probably act upon it, unless I get very much 

better. Dr. Clark's kindness is unbounded to me, but he is 

too busy to come here. Once again, accept my cordial 

thanks, my dear old friend. I wish to God there were more 

automata * in the world like you. 

Ever yours, 

Ch. Darwin." 

The allusion to Sir Andrew Clark requires a word of ex- 
planation. Sir Andrew Clark himself was ever ready to 
devote himself to my father, who, however, could not endure 
the thought of sending for him, knowing how severely his 
great practice taxed his strength. 

No especial change occurred during the beginning of April, 
but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while 
sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to 
reach his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my 
temporary absence recorded for me the progress of an ex- 
periment in which I was engaged. During the night of April 
1 8th, about a quarter to twelve, he had a severe attack and 
passed into a faint, from which he was brought back to 
consciousness with great difficulty. He seemed to recognise 
the approach of death, and said, " I am not the least afraid 
to die." All the next morning he suffered from terrible 
nausea and faintness, and hardly rallied before the end 

He died at about four o'clock on Wednesday, April 19th,, 

* The allusion is to Mr. Huxley's tory," given at the Belfast Meeting 
address, " On the hypothesis that of the British Association, 1874, and 
animals are automata, and its his- republished in 'Science and Culture-'' 

1 882.] conclusion. 359 

I close the record of my father's life with a few words of 
retrospect added to the manuscript of his ' Autobiography ' 
in 1879 : — 

" As for myself, I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily 
following and devoting my life to Science. I feel no remorse 
from having committed any great sin, but have often and 
often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my 
fellow creatures." 





The Funeral in Westminster Abbey. 

On the Friday succeeding my father's death, the following letter, 
signed by twenty Members of Parliament, was addressed to Dr. 
Bradley, Dean of Westminster : — 

House of Commons, April 21, 1882. 

Very Rev. Sir, — We hope you will not think we are taking a 
liberty if we venture to suggest that it would be acceptable to a very 
large number of our fellow-countrymen of all classes and opinions 
that our illustrious countryman, Mr. Darwin, should be buried in 
Westminster Abbey. 

We remain your obedient servants, 

John Lubbock, 
Nevil Storey Maskelyne, 
A. J. Mundella, 
G. O. Trevelyan, 
Lyon Playfair, 
Charles W. Dilke, 
David Wedderburn, 
Arthur Russell, 
Horace Davey, 
Benjamin Armitage, 

Richard B. Martin, 
Francis W. Buxton, 
E. L. Stanley, 
Henry Broadhurst, 
John Barran, 
J. F. Cheetham, 
H. S. Holland, 
H. Campbell-Bannerman, 
Charles Bruce, 
Richard Fort. 

The Dean was abroad at the time, and telegraphed his cordial 

The family had desired that my father should be buried at Down : 
with regard to their wishes, Sir John Lubbock wrote : — 


House of Commons, April 25, 1882. 
My dear Darwin, — I quite sympathise with your feeling, and 
personally I should greatly have preferred that your father should 
have rested in Down amongst us all. It is, I am sure, quite under- 
stood that the initiative was not taken by you. Still, from a national 
point of view, it is clearly right that he should be buried in the Abbey. 
I esteem it a great privilege to be allowed to accompany my dear 
master to the grave. 

Believe me, yours most sincerely, 

John Lubbock. 

W. E. Darwin, Esq. 

The family gave up their first-formed plans, and the funeral took 
place in Westminster Abbey on April 26th. The pall-bearers 
were : — 

Sir John Lubbock, Canon Farrar, 

Mr. Huxley, Sir Joseph Hooker, 

Mr. James Russell Lowell Mr. Wm. Spottiswoode 
(American Minister), (President of the Royal 


Mr. A. R. Wallace, The Earl of Derby, 

The Duke of Devonshire, The Duke of Argyll. 

The funeral was attended by the representatives of France, 
Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, and by those of the Universities and 
learned Societies, as well as by large numbers of personal friends 
and distinguished men. 

The grave is in the north aisle of the Nave, close to the angle of 
the choir-screen, and a few feet from the grave of Sir Isaac Newton. 
The stone bears the inscription — 


Born 12 February, 1809. 
Died 19 April, 1882. 





I. — List of Works by C. Darwin. 

Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of Her Majesty's Ships ' Adven- 
ture' and 'Beagle' between the years 1826 and 1836, describing 
their examination of the Southern shores of South America, and 
the ' Beagle's ' circumnavigation of the globe. Vol. iii. Journal 
and Remarks, 1 832-1 836. By Charles Darwin. 8vo. London, 

Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the 
countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. ' Beagle' round the 
world, under the command of Capt Fitz-Roy, R.N. 2nd edition, 
corrected, with additions. 8vo. London, 1845. (Colonial and 
Home Library.) 

A Naturalist's Voyage. Journal of Researches, &c. 8vo. London, 
i860. [Contains a postscript dated Feb. 1, i860.] 

Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle.' Edited and superin- 
tended by Charles Darwin. Part I. Fossil Mammalia, by Richard 
Owen. With a Geological Introduction, by Charles Darwin. 
4to. London, 1840. 

Part II. Mammalia, by George R. Waterhouse. With a notice 

of their habits and ranges, by Charles Darwin. 4to. London, 

Part III. Birds, by John Gould. An " Advertisement " (2 pp.) 

states that in consequence of Mr. Gould's having left England for 
Australia, many descriptions were supplied by Mr. G. R. Gray of 
the British Museum. 4to. London, 1841., 

— Part IV. Fish, by Rev. Leonard Jenyns. 4to. London, 1842. 
Part V. Reptiles, by Thomas Bell. 4to. London, 1843. 

The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. Being the First 



Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the ' Beagle.' 8vo. London, 

The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. 2nd edition. 8vo. 

London, 1874. 
1 Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, visited during the 

Voyage of H.M.S. ' Beagle.' Being the Second Part of the 

Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle.' 8vo. London, 1844. 
Geological Observations on South America. Being the Third Part 

of the Geology of the Voyage of the ' Beagle.' 8vo. London, 

Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands and parts of South 

America visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. ' Beagle.' 2nd 

edition. 8vo. London, 1876. 
A Monograph of the Fossil Lepadidae ; or, Pedunculated Cirri- 

pedes of Great Britain. 4to. London, 1851.- (Palaeontographical 

A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the 

Species. The Lepadidse ; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes. 8vo. 

London, 185 1. (Ray Society.) 

The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes) ; the Verrucidae, &c. 

8vo. London, 1854. (Ray Society.) 

A Monograph of the Fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae of Great 
Britain. 4to. London, 1854. (Palaeontographical Society.) 

On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the 
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 8vo. 
London, 1859. (Dated Oct. 1st, 1859, published Nov. 24, 1859.) 

Fifth thousand. 8vo. London, i860. 

Third edition, with additions and corrections. (Seventh thou- 
sand.) 8vo. London, 1861. (Dated March, 1861.) 

Fourth edition, with additions and corrections. (Eighth 

thousand.) 8vo. London, 1866. (Dated June, 1866.) 

Fifth edition, with additions and corrections. (Tenth thou- 
sand.) 8vo. London, 1869. (Dated May, 1869.) 

Sixth edition, with additions and corrections to 1872. 

(Twenty-fourth thousand.) 8vo. London, 1882. (Dated Jan., 

On the various contrivances by which Orchids are fertilised by 

Insects. 8vo. London, 1862. 
Second edition. 8vo. London, 1877. [In the second edition 

the word " On " is omitted from the title.] 


The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants. Second edition. 

8vo. London, 1875. [First appeared in the ninth volume of the 

' Journal of the Linnean Society.'] 
The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. 2 vols. 

8vo. London, 1868. 

Second edition, revised. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1875. 

The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2 vols. 

8vo. London, 187 1. 

Second edition. 8vo. London, 1874. (In 1 vol.) 

The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. 8vo. 

London, 1872. 
The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom. 

8vo. London, 1876. 

Second edition. 8vo. London, 1878. 

The different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the same Species. 

8vo. London, 1877. 

Second edition. 8vo. London, 1880. 

The Power of Movement in Plants. By Charles Darwin, assisted 

by Francis Darwin. 8vo. London, 1880. 
The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms, 

with Observations on their Habits. 8vo. London, 1881. 

II. — List of Books containing Contributions by C. Darwin. 

A manual of scientific enquiry ; prepared for the use of Her 

Majesty's Navy : and adapted for travellers in general. Ed. by 

Sir John F. W. Herschel, Bart. 8vo. London, 1849. (Section VI. 

Geology. By Charles Darwin.) 
Memoir of the Rev. John Stevens Henslow. By the Rev. Leonard 

Jenyns. 8vo. London, 1862. [In Chapter III., Recollections by 

C. Darwin.] 
A letter (1876) on the 'Drift' near Southampton, published in 

Prof. J. Geikie's ' Prehistoric Europe.' 
Flowers and their unbidden guests. By A. Kerner. With a 

Prefatory Letter by Charles Darwin. The translation revised and 

edited by W. Ogle. 8vo. London, 1878. 
Erasmus Darwin. By Ernst Krause. Translated from the German 

by W. S. Dallas. With a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin. 

8vo. London, 1879. 
Studies in the Theory of Descent. By Aug. Weismann. Translated 


and edited by Raphael Meldola. With a Prefatory Notice by 
Charles Darwin. 8vo. London, 1880 — . 

The Fertilisation of Flowers. By Hermann Miiller. Translated and 
edited by D'Arcy W. Thompson. With a Preface by Charles 
Darwin. 8vo. London, 1883. 

Mental Evolution in Animals. By G. J. Romanes. With a pos- 
thumous essay on instinct by Charles Darwin, 1883. [Also 
published in the Journal of the Linnean Society.] 

Some Notes on a curious habit of male humble bees were sent to 
Prof. Hermann Miiller, of Lippstadt, who had permission from 
Mr. Danvin to make what use he pleased of them. After Miiller's 
death the Notes were given by his son to Dr. E. Krause, who 
published them under the title, " Ueber die Wege der Hummel- 
Mannchen " in his book, ' Gesammelte kleinere Schriften von 
Charles Darwin' (1887). 

III. — List of Scientific Papers, including a selection of 
Letters and Short Communications to Scientific Journals. 

Letters to Professor Henslow, read by him at the meeting of the 
Cambridge Philosophical Society, held Nov. 16, 1835. 3 1 PP- 
8vo. Privately printed for distribution among the members of the 

Geological Notes made during a survey of the East and West 
Coasts of South America in the years 1832, 1833, 1834, and 1835 ■> 
with an account of a transverse section of the Cordilleras of the 
Andes between Valparaiso and Mendoza. [Read Nov. 18, 1835.] 
Geol. Soc. Proc. ii. 1838, pp. 210-212. [This Paper is incorrectly 
described in Geol. Soc. Proc. ii., p. 210 as follows: — "Geological 
notes, &c, by F. Darwin, Esq., of St. John's College, Cambridge : 
communicated by Prof. Sedgwick." It is Indexed under C. Darwin.] 

Notes upon the Rhea Americana. Zool. Soc. Proc, Part v. 1837, 

PP- 35-36. 

Observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili, 
made during the survey of H.M.S. " Beagle," commanded by Capt. 
FitzRoy. [1837.] Geol. Soc. Proc. ii. 1838, pp. 446-449. 

A sketch of the deposits containing extinct Mammalia in the neigh- 
bourhood of the Plata. [1837.] Geol. Soc. Proc. ii. 1838, 

PP- 542-544. 
On certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and 


Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations. 
[1837.] Geol. Soc. Proc. ii. 1838, pp. 552-554. 

On the Formation of Mould. [Read Nov. 1, 1837.] Geol. Soc. 
Proc. ii. 1838, pp. 574-576 ; Geol. Soc. Trans, v. 1840, pp. 505- 

On the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena and on the 
formation of mountain-chains and the effects of continental 
elevations. [Read March 7, 1838.] Geol. Soc. Proc. ii. 1838, 
pp. 654-660; Geol. Soc. Trans, v. 1840, pp. 601-632. [In the 
Society's Transactions the wording of the title is slightly different.] 

Origin of saliferous deposits. Salt Lakes of Patagonia and La Plata. 
Geol. Soc. Journ. ii. (Part ii.), 1838, pp. 127-128. 

Note on a Rock seen on an Iceberg in 16 South Latitude. 
Geogr. Soc. Journ. ix. 1839, PP- 528-529. 

Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of other 
parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an attempt to prove that they 
are of marine origin. Phil. Trans. 1839, pp. 39-82. 

On a remarkable Bar of Sandstone oft Pernambuco, on the Coast 
of Brazil. Phil. Mag. xix. 1841, pp. 257-260. 

On the Distribution of the Erratic Boulders and on the Contem- 
poraneous Unstratified Deposits of South America. [1841.] 
Geol. Soc. Proc. iii. 1842, pp. 425-430; Geol. Soc. Trans. [1841.] 
vi. 1842, pp. 415-432. 

Notes on the Effects produced by the Ancient Glaciers of Caer- 
narvonshire, and on the Boulders transported by Floating Ice. 
London Philosoph. Mag. vol. xxi. p. 180. 1842. 

Remarks on the preceding paper, in a Letter from Charles Darwin, 
Esq., to Mr. Maclaren. Edinb. New Phil. Journ. xxxiv. 1843, 
pp. 47-50. [The "preceding" paper is: "On Coral Islands and 
Reefs as described by Mr. Darwin. By Charles Maclaren, Esq., 

Observations on the Structure and Propagation of the genus Sagitta. 
Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. xiii. 1844, pp. 1-6. 

Brief Descriptions of several Terrestrial Planarics, and of some 
remarkable Marine Species, with an Account of their Habits. 
Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. xiv. 1844, pp. 241-251. 

An account of the Fine Dust which often falls on Vessels in the 
Atlantic Ocean. Geol. Soc. Journ. ii. 1846, pp. 26-30. 

On the Geology of the Falkland Islands. Geol. Soc. Journ. ii. 1846, 
pp. 267-274. 


A review of Waterhouse's ' Natural History of the Mammalia.' [Not 

signed.] Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. 1847. Vol. xix. p. 53. 
On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a lower to a higher 

level. Geol. Soc. Journ. iv. 1848, pp. 315-323. 
On British fossil Lepadidae. Geol. Soc. Journ. vi. 1850, pp. 439-440. 
[The G. S. J. says, " This paper was withdrawn by the author with 
the permission of the Council."] 
Analogy of the Structure of some Volcanic Rocks with that of 

Glaciers. Edinb. Roy. Soc. Proc. ii. 185 1, pp. 17-18. 
On the power of Icebergs to make rectilinear, uniformly-directed 
Grooves across a Submarine Undulatory Surface. Phil. Mag. x. 
1855, pp. 96-98. 
Vitality of Seeds. Gardeners' Chronicle, Nov. 17, 1855, p. 758. 
On the action of Sea-water on the Germination of Seeds. [1856.] 

Linn. Soc. Journ. i. 1857 {Botany), pp. 130-140. 
On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous 

Flowers. Gardener? Chrofiicle, p. 725, 1857. 
On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Per- 
petuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. 
By Charles Darwin, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S., and F.G.S., and Alfred 
Wallace, Esq. [Read July 1st, 1858.] Journ. Linn. Soc. 1859, 
vol. iii. (Zoology), p. 45. 

Special titles of C. Darwin's contributions to the foregoing : — 

(i) Extract from an unpublished work on Species by C. 

Darwin, Esq., consisting of a portion of a chapter entitled, 

" On the Variation of Organic Beings in a State of Nature ; 

on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of 

Domestic Races and true Species." (ii) Abstract of a Letter 

from C. Darwin, Esq., to Professor Asa Gray, of Boston, U.S., 

dated Sept. 5, 1857. 

On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilization of Papilionaceous Flowers, 

and on the Crossing of Kidney Beans. Gardeners' Chronicle, 

1858, p. 828 and Ann. Nat. Hist. 3rd series ii. 1858, pp. 459-465. 

Do the Tineina or other small Moths suck Flowers, and if so what 

Flowers? Entom. Weekly Intell. vol. viii. i860, p. 103. 
Note on the achenia of Pumilio Argyrolepis. Gardeners' Chronicle, 

Jan. 5, 1861, p. 4. 
Fertilisation of Vincas. Gardeners' 1 Chronicle, pp. 552, 831, 832. 

On the Two Forms, or Dimorphic Condition, in the species of 


Primula, and on their remarkable Sexual Relations. Linn. Soa 

Journ. vi. 1862 {Botany), pp. 77-96. 
On the Three remarkable Sexual Forms of Catasetum tridentatum, 

an Orchid in the possession of the Linnean Society. Linn. Soc. 

Journ. vi. 1862 {Botany), pp. 151-157. 
Yellow Rain. Gardeners' Chronicle, July 18, 1863, p. 675. 
On the thickness of the Pampean formation near Buenos Ayres. 

Geol. Soc. Journ. xix. 1863, pp. 68-71. 
On the so-called " Auditory-sac " of Cirripedes. Nat. Hist. Review, 

1863, pp. 115-116. 
A review of Mr. Bates' paper on ' Mimetic Butterflies.' Nat. Hist. 

Review, 1863, p. 221 — . [Not signed.] 
On the existence of two forms, and on their reciprocal sexual rela- 
tion, in several species of the genus Linum. Linn. Soc. Journ. vii. 

1864 {Botany), pp. 69-83. 
On the Sexual Relations of the Three Forms of Lythrum salicaria. 

[1864.] Linn. Soc. Journ. viii. 1865 {Botany), pp. 169-196. 
On the Movement and Habits of Climbing Plants. [1865.] Linn. 

Soc. Journ. ix. 1867 {Botany), pp. 1-118. 
Note on the Common Broom {Cytisus scoparius). [1866.] Linn. 

Soc. Journ. ix. 1867 {Botany), p. 358. 
Notes on the Fertilization of Orchids. Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. 

4th series, iv. 1869, pp. 141-159. 
On the Character and Hybrid-like Nature of the Offspring from the 

Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants. [1868.] 

Linn. Soc. Jour. x. 1869 {Botany), pp. 393-437. 
On the Specific Difference between Primula veris, Brit. Fl. (var. 

officinalis, of Linn.), P. vulgaris, Brit. Fl. (var. acaulis, Linn.), and 

P. elatior, Jacq. ; and on the Hybrid Nature of the common 

Oxlip. With Supplementary Remarks on naturally-produced 

Hybrids in the genus Verbascum. [1868.] Linn. Soc. Journ. x. 

1869 {Botany), pp. 437-454. 
Note on the Habits of the Pampas Woodpecker {Colaptes campes- 

tris). Zool. Soc. Proc. Nov. 1, 1870, pp. 705-706. 
Fertilisation of Leschenaultia. Gardeners' Chronicle,^. 116 6, 187 1. 
The Fertilisation of Winter-flowering Plants. 'Nature,' Nov. 18, 

1869, vol. i. p. 85. 
Pangenesis. ' Nature,' April 27, 187 1, vol. iii. p. 502. 
A new view of Darwinism. ' Nature,' July 6, 187 1, vol. iv. p. 180. 
Bree on Darwinism. ' Nature,' Aug. 8, 1872, vol. vi. p. 279. 


Inherited Instinct. ' Nature,' Feb. 13, 1873, vol. vii. p. 281. 
Perception in the Lower Animals. ' Nature,' March 13, 1873, 

vol. vii. p. 360. 
Origin of certain instincts. 'Nature,' April 3, 1873, vol. vii. p. 417. 
Habits of Ants. ' Nature,' July 24, 1873, vol. viii. p. 244. 
On the "Males and Gomplemental Males of Certain Cirripedes, and 

on Rudimentary Structures. 'Nature,' Sept. 25, 1873, vol. viii. 

P. 43i- 
Recent researches on Termites and Honey-bees. ' Nature,' Feb. 19, 

1874, vol. ix. p. 308. 
Fertilisation of the Fumariaceae. 'Nature,' April 16, 1874, vol. ix. 

p. 460. 
Flowers of the Primrose destroyed by Birds. 'Nature,' April 23, 

1874, vol. ix. p. 482 ; May 14, 1874, vol. x. p. 24. 
Cherry Blossoms. 'Nature,' May n, 1876, vol. xiv. p. 28. 
Sexual Selection in relation to Monkeys. 'Nature,' Nov. 2, 1876, 

vol. xv. p. 18. 
Fritz Miiller on Flowers and Insects. 'Nature,' Nov. 29, 1877, 

vol. xvii. p. 78. 
The Scarcity of Holly Berries and Bees. Gardeners' Chronicle, 

Jan. 20, 1877, p. 83. 
Note on Fertilisation of Plants. Gardeners 7 C/ironide, vol. vii. p. 246, 

A biographical sketch of an infant. 'Mind,' No. 7, July, 1877. 

Transplantation of Shells. 'Nature,' May 30, 1878, vol. xviii. p. 120. 

Fritz Miiller on a Frog having Eggs on its back — on the abortion 

of the hairs on the legs of certain Caddis-Flies, &c. ' Nature,' 

March 20, 1879, vol. xix. p. 462. 
Rats and Water-Casks. 'Nature,' March 27, 1879, vol. xix. 

p. 481. 
Fertility of Hybrids from the common and Chinese Goose. ' Nature,' 

Jan. 1, 1880, vol. xxi. p. 207. 
The Sexual Colours of certain Butterflies. ' Nature,' Jan. 8, 1880, 

vol. xxi. p. 237. 
The Omori Shell Mounds. 'Nature,' April 15, 1880, vol. xxi. 

p. 561. 
Sir Wyville Thomson and Natural Selection. 'Nature,' Nov. n, 

1880, vol. xxiii. p. 32. 
Black Sheep. ' Nature,' Dec. 30, 1880, vol. xxiii. p. 193. 
Movements of Plants. 'Nature,' .March 3, 1881, vol. xxiii. p. 409. 

VOL. III. 2 B 


The Movements of Leaves. * Nature/ April 28, 1881, vol. xxiii. 

p. 603. 
Inheritance. ' Nature/ July 21, 1881, vol. xxiv. p. 257. 
Leaves injured at Night by Free Radiation. ' Nature/ Sept. 15, 

1 88 1, vol. xxiv. p. 459. 

The Parasitic Habits of Molothrus. 'Nature/ Nov. 17, 1881, 

vol. xxv. p. 51. 
On the Dispersal of Freshwater Bivalves. 'Nature/ April 6, 1882, 

vol. xxv. p. 529. 
The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on the Roots of certain 

Plants. [Read March 16, 1882.] Linn. Soc. Journ. {Botany), 

vol. xix. 1882, pp. 239-261. 
The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll-bodies. 

[Read March 6, 1882.] Linn. Soc. Journ. (Botany), vol. xix. 

1882, pp. 262-284. 

On the Modification of a Race of Syrian Street-Dogs by means of 
Sexual Selection. By W. Van Dyck. With a preliminary notice 
by Charles Darwin. [Read April 18, 1882.] Proc. Zoolog. Soc. 
.1882, pp. 367-370. 

( 37i ) 







In the Possession of 



G, Richmond . 

The Family. 


Lithograph . 

Ipswich British 
Assn. Series. 


Chalk Drawing . 

Samuel Lawrence 

The Family. 


Chalk Drawing * 

Samuel Lawrence 

Prof. Hughes, 


Bust, marble 

T. Woolner, R.A. 

The Family. 


Oil Painting j , 

W. Ouless, R.A. 

The Family. 

Etched by- 

P. Raj on. 


Oil Painting 

W. B. Richmond 

The University of 


Oil Painting J . 

Hon. John Collier 

The Linnean 

Etched by- 

Leopold Flameng 

Chief Portraits and Memorials not taken from Life 



Deep Medallion 

Joseph Boehm, 

Chr. Lehr, Junr. 
T. Woollier, R.A., 

and Josiah 

Wedgwood and 

J. Boehm, R.A. 

Museum, South 

Christ's College, in 
Charles Darwin's 

To be placed in 

* Probably a sketch made at one of 
the sittings for the last-mentioned. 

t A replica by the artist is in the 
possession of Christ's College, Cam- 


% A replica by the artist is in the 
possession of W. E. Darwin, Esq., 

2 B 2 


Chief Engravings from Photographs. 

*i854? By Messrs. Maull and Fox, engraved on wood for ' Harper's 

Magazine' (Oct. 1884). Frontispiece, vol. i. 
*i87o? By O. J. Rejlander, engraved on steel by C. H. Jeens for 

'Nature' (June 4, 1874). 
*i874? By Capt. Darwin, R.E., engraved on wood for the 'Century 

Magazine' (Jan. 1883). Frontispiece, vol. ii. 
1 88 1 By Messrs. Elliott and Fry, engraved on wood by G. Kruells, 

for vol. iii. of the present work. 

* The dates of these photographs lander died some years ago, and his 

must, from various causes, remain un- business was broken up. My brother, 

certain. Owing to a loss of books by Captain Darwin, has no record of the 

fire, Messrs. Maull and Fox can give date at which his photograph was 

only an approximate date. Mr. Rej- taken. 

( 373 ) 



Order. — Prussian Order, ' Pour le Me'rite.' 1867. 
Office. — County Magistrate. 1857. 

Decrees. — Cambridge \ ' 3 L 3 J-l 

6 ° \ M.A. 1837. 

Hon. LL.D. 1877. 
Bonn . . Hon. Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. 1868. 
Breslau . Hon. Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. 1862. 
Leyden . Hon. M.D. 1875. 
Societies. — London . Zoological. Corresp. Member. 18314 

Entomological. 1833, Orig. Member. 

Geological. 1836. Wollaston Medal, 1859. 

Royal Geographical. 1838. 

Royal. 1839. Royal Society's Medal, 1853 
Copley Medal, 1864. 

Linnean. 1854. 

Ethnological. 1861. 

Medico-Chirurgical. Hon. Member. 1868. 

Baly Medal of the Royal College of Physi- 
cians, 1879. 

Societies. — Provincial, Colonial and Indian. 

Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1865. 

Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh, 1826. Hon. Member, 1861. 

Royal Irish Academy. Hon. Member, 1866. 

* The list has been compiled from United States) is given in English, it 

the diplomas and letters in my father's is a translation of the Latin (or in one 

possession, and is no doubt incomplete, case Russian) of the original Diploma, 

as he seems to have lost or mislaid | See vol. i. p. 163. 

-some of the papers received from J He afterwards became a Fellow 

foreign Societies. Where the name of of the Society, 
a foreign Society (excluding those in the 


Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester. Hon. Member, 

Watford Nat. Hist. Society. Hon. Member, 1877. 
Asiatic Society of Bengal. Hon. Member, 187 1. 
Royal Society of New South Wales. Hon. Member, 1879. 
Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, New Zealand. Hon. Member, 

New Zealand Institute. Hon. Member, 1872. 

Foreign Societies. 


Sociedad Cientifica Argentina. Hon. Member, 1877. 

Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Argentine Republic. Hon. Member, 

Sociedad Zoolojica Arjentma. Hon. Member, 1874. 
Boston Society of Natural History. Hon. Member, 1873. 
American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Boston). Foreign Hon* 

Member, 1874. 
California Academy of Sciences. Hon. Member, 1872. 
California State Geological Society. Corresp. Member, 1877. 
Franklin Literary Society, Indiana. Hon. Member, 1878. 
Sociedad de Naturalistas Neo-Granadinos. Hon. Member, i860. 
New York Academy of Sciences. Hon. Member, 1879. 
Gabinete Portuguez de Leitura em Pernambuco. Corresp. Member, 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Correspondent, i860.. 
American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Member, 1869. 


Imperial Academy of Sciences of Vienna. Foreign Corresponding 

Member, 187 1 ; Hon. Foreign Member, 1875. 
Anthropologische Gesellschaft in Wien. Hon. Member, 1872. 
K. k. Zoologische botanische Gesellschaft in Wien. Member, 1867. 
Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, Pest, 1872. 


Societe Royale des Sciences Me'dicales et Naturelles de Bruxelles* 

Hon. Member, 1878. 
Societe Royale de Botanique de Belgique. ' Membre Associe/ 1881 


Acade'mie Royale des Sciences, &c, de Belgique. 'Associe de la 
Classe des Sciences/ 1870. 

Royal Society of Copenhagen. Fellow, 1879. 


Socie'te d' Anthropologic de Paris. Foreign Member, 187 1. 
Societe Entomologique de France. Hon. Member, 1874. 
Societe Geologique de France. Life Member, 1837. 
Institut de France. ' Correspondant ' Section of Botany, 1878. 


Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences (Berlin). Corresponding 

Member, 1863; Fellow, 1878. 
Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologic, &c. Corresponding 

Member, 1877. 
Schlesische Gesellschaft fur Vaterlandische Cultur (Breslau). Hon. 

Member, 1878. 
Csesarea Leopoldino-Carolina Academia Naturae Curiosorum (Dres- 
den).* 1857. 
Senkenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft zu Frankfurt am Main. 

Corresponding Member, 1873. 
Naturforschende Gesellschaft zu Halle. Member, 1879. 
Siebenburgische Verein fur Naturwissenschaften (Hermannstadt). 

Hon. Member, 1877. 
Medicinisch - naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft zu Jena. Hon. 

Member, 1878. 
Royal Bavarian Academy of Literature and Science (Munich). 

Foreign Member, 1878. 


Koninklijke Natuurkundige Vereeniging in Nederlandsch - Indie 
(Batavia). Corresponding Member, 1880. 

* The diploma contains the words branch of science to which he belonged. 

" accipe ... ex antiqua nostra consue- Thus a physician might be christened 

tudine cognomen Forster." It was Boerhaave, or an astronomer, Kepler, 

formerly the custom in the Cccsarea Leo- My father seems to have been named 

poldino-Carolina Academic, that each after the traveller John Reinhold 

new member should receive as a ' cog- Forster. 
nomen,' a name celebrated in that 


Societe Hollandaise des Sciences a. Harlem. Foreign Member, 1877. 
Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetenschappen te Middelburg. Foreign 
Member, 1877. 


Societa Geografica Italiana (Florence). 1870. 

Societa Italiana di Antropologia e di Etnologia (Florence). Hon. 

Member, 1872. 
Societa dei Naturalisti in Modena. Hon. Member, 1875. 
Academia de' Lincei di Roma. Foreign Member, 1875. 
La Scuola Italica, Academia Pitagorica, Reale ed Imp. Societa 

(Rome). ' Presidente Onorario degli Anziani Pitagorici,' 1880. 
Royal Academy of Turin. 1873. Bressa Prize, 1879. 


Sociedade de Geographia de Lisboa (Lisbon). Corresponding 
Member, 1877. 


Society of Naturalists of the Imperial Kazan University. Hon. 

Member, 1875. 
Societas Csesarea Naturae Curiosorum (Moscow). Hon. Member, 

Imperial Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg). Corresponding 

Member, 1867. 

Institucion Libre de Ensefianza (Madrid). Hon. Professor, 1877. 


Royal Swedish Acad, of Sciences (Stockholm). Foreign Member, 

Royal Society of Sciences (Upsala). Fellow, i860. 


Socie'te des Sciences Naturelles du Neufchatel. Corresponding 
Member, 1863. 

( 377 ) 



Abbott, F. E., letters to, on religious 

opinions, i. 305. 
Aberdeen, British Association Meeting 

at, 1859, ii. 166. 
Absences from home, between 1842 and 

1854, i. 330. 
Abstract (' Origin of Species'), ii. 131, 

132, 133, 137, i3 8 > U9, 140, 143, 

145, 147. 
Abyssal fauna, Sir Wyville Thomson on 

the character of the, as bearing on 

the Darwinian theory, iii. 242. 

Acacias, Australian, "bloom" on the, 
iii. 341. 

Acacia, South African, iii. 342. 

* Academy,' review of the ' Descent of 
Man' in the, iii. 137. 

, review, by A. R. Wallace, of 

Mivart's ' Lessons from Nature,' in 
the, iii. 184. 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila- 
delphia election of C. Darwin as a 
correspondent of the, ii. 307. 

— of Sciences at Berlin, election 

as a corresponding member of the, 
iii. 224. 

Acceleration and retardation of develop- 
ment, views of Profs. Hyatt and 
Cope upon, iii. 154, 233. 

Acclimatisation, ii., 212. 

Adaptation, power of, ii. 176. 

Adherents and adversaries, ii. 310. 

./Esthetic tastes, loss of, i. 101. 

Africa, mountains of, ii. 75 ; perma- 
nence of, ii. 75. 

Agassiz, Louis, Professor, influence of, 
ii. 43 ; opposition to Darwin's views, 

ii. 184, 310, 314; letter to, sending 
him the ' Origin of Species,' ii. 215 ; 
note on, and extract from letter to, ii. 
215 note', opinion of the book, ii. 
268 ; attack on the ' Origin ' in 
i Silliman's Journal,' ii. 330, 331; 
criticism of article by, ii. 333 ; Asa 
Gray on the opinions of, ii. 359 ; letter 
to, on Amazonian fishes, iii. 99. 

Agassiz, Alexander, Professor, letters 
to: — on coral reefs, iii. 183 ; on his 
address to the American Association, 
iii. 245 ; on the reappearance of 
ancestral characters, iii. 246. 

Agnosticism, i. 304, 313, 317. 

Ainsworth, William, i. 37. 

Albumen, dissolution of, by leaves of 
Drosera and Dioncca, iii. 323. 

Albums of photographs received from 
Germany and Holland, iii. 225. 

Alca impcnnis. Professor W. Preyer on, 
iii. 16 note. 

Aldrovanda, observations on, iii. 328. 

Algebra, distaste for the study of, i. 46. 

Allen, J. A., on the existence of geo- 
graphical races of birds and mammals, 
iii. 233. 

'All the Year Round,' notice of the 
1 Origin' in, ii. 319. 

Allfrey, Mr., treatment by, iii. 357. 

Almond Tumbler, J. Eaton on the, ii. 


Alpine plants, American, ii. 61 ; Euro- 
pean and American, connexion of, 
through Greenland, ii. 89 ; hairiness 
of, ii. 91, 92, 96, 98; flowers of, ii. 

9 2 , 97- 




Alps, butterflies of, tamer than those 
of lowlands, iii. 170. 

Amazons, fishes of, iii. 99. 

Amblyopsis, ii. 265. 

Amblyrhynchus, origin of, ii. 336. 

Amblystoma, Professor Weismann on, 
iii. 198. 

America, mountains of, ii. 76. 

, permanence of, ii. 75. 

, progress of opinion in, ii. 314. 

, North, toothed birds in the 

Cretaceous of, iii. 242, note. 

American Academy of Sciences, dis- 
cussion at the, ii. 326, 327. 

, hostile review by Professor 

Bowen in the memoirs of the, ii. 349, 

American edition of the 'Origin,' ii. 

245, 270. 
of the * Variation of Animals 

and Plants,' iii. 84. 
'American Journal of Science and Arts,' 

review of the ' Origin ' in the, by 

Asa Gray, ii. 286 ; review of the 

1 Fertilisation of Orchids,' in the, 

iii. 272. 
American type in the Galapagos, ii. 

Civil War, the, ii. 374, 377, 

381, 385, 386 ; iii. 272. 
1 Amixie,' Prof. A. Weismann's view 

of the origin of local races through, 

iii. 155- 
Ammonia, salts of, behaviour of the 

leaves of Drosera, towards, iii. 31 8, 

319, 324, 325, 326. 
Amsterdam island, ii. 94. 
Ancestral characters, reappearance of, 

iii. 246. 
Andes, excursion across the, i. 259, 

260 ; Lyell on the slow rise of the, 

i- 325- 
Anclasma, iii. 38. 

Anergates, iii. 191. 

Angiospermous plants in Cretaceous 

beds of the United States, iii. 248. 
Angnvattn, A. R. Wallace on the 

structure of, iii. 274. 
Angulus Woolnerianus, iii. 140. 
Animals, crossing of, i. 299, 301 ; 

dispersion of, iii. 182. 
, fresh water, antiquity of, ii. 


340 ; terrestrial hermaphrodite, not 

fitted for self-impregnation, iii. 260. 
Animism, iii. 157. 
' Anaes-section,' iii. 202. 
1 Annals and Magazine of Natural 

History,' review of the ' Origin ' in 

the, ii. 284 ; reprint of article by 

Asa Gray in the, ii. 353. 
Antarctic Continent, possible former, 

iii. 24S ; Tertiary, iii. 231. 
fossil plants, ignorance of, iii. 

Anti-Jacobin, ii. 324 note, 325, 331. 
Anti-theism, ii. 202. 
Ants, habits of, ii. 365 ; size of the 

brain in the sexes of, iii. 191 ; 

battles of, iii. 191 ; interbreeding of 

brothers and sisters of, iii. 191 ; 

recognition by, of those of the same 

community, iii. 19 1 ; slave-making, 

ii. 129. 
Apocyneas, twisting of shoots of, iii. 

Apparatus, i. 145-148 ; purchase of, 

for the Zoological Station at Naples, 

iii. 225. 
Appletons' American reprints of the 

4 Origin,' ii. 270, 310. 
Apple-trees, not attacked by Coccus, 

iii. 348. 
Aquatic and terrestrial plants, sexual 

characteristics of British, iii. 304. 
Aralo-Caspian basin, antiquity of the, 

"• 75; 

Archebiosis, iii. 16S. 

Archipelagoes, oceanic, ii. 77» 

Arctic fossil plants, importance of, iii. 

Areas, large, perfection of forms inha- 
biting, ii. 142. 

of elevation and subsidence in 

the Pacific and Indian oceans, as 
deduced from the study of coral for- 
mations, i. 279. 

Argyll, Duke of, Address to the Royal 
Society of Edinburgh, iii. 31, ^ ; 
review of the ' Fertilisation of 
Orchids,' in the ' Edinburgh Re- 
view,' iii. 274 ; ' The Reign of Law ' 
by the, iii. 61, 65. 

Aristocracy, influence of selection upon 
the, ii. 385 ; iii. 91. 



Art-criticism, opinion of, i. 125. 
Arthur's Seat, boulders on, i. 328 note. 
Aru islands, ii. 108, 109. 
Ascension, i. 66, 265. 
Asia, mountains of, ii. 75. 
Atheism, charge of, ii. 230. 
* Athenaeum,' attack of, 

Joseph Hooker, iii. 101 . 

the, iii. 19 ; article in the, iii. 21 ; 

reply to the article, iii. 22 ; reviews 

in the, i. 375, 376. 
review of the ' Origin ' in 

upon Sir 
letter to 

the, ii. 224, 228 ; reviews in the, 
of Lyell's ' Antiquity of Man,' and 
Huxley's ' Man's place in Nature,' 
iii. 14 ; review of the ' Variation of 
Animals and Plants,' in the, iii. 77, 
79 ; review of the fifth edition of the 
* Origin ' in the, iii. 108 ; review 
of the ' Fertilisation of Orchids,' in 
the, iii. 270. 

Athenceum Club, i. 294. 

Atlantic ocean, account of the fine 
dust which often falls on vessels in 
the, i. 328. 

continent, ii. 72, 73, 74 ; iii. 

' Atlantic Monthly,' Asa Gray's articles 

in the, ii. 338, 359, 370, 371. 
* Atlantis,' of Edward Forbes, ii. 46, 

78, 306. 
Atolls, ii. 325 ; formation of, iii. 184. 
Atropine, indifference of leaves of 

Drosera and Dioncea to, iii. 323 ; 

action of minute quantities of, on the 

human eye, iii. 325. 
Auckland island, ii. 74. 
Audubon, i. 40. 

Australia, permanence of, ii. 75 ; moun- 
tains of, ii. 76 ; flora of, ii. 143, 

144, 257-259; naturalized plants in, 

ii. 144 ; naturalized organisms in, ii. 

173 ; persistence of Marsupials in, ii. 

340; "bloom" common on the 

Acacias and Eucalypti of, iii. 341. 
, South Western, relations of 

plants in, to those of the Cape of 

Good Hope, ii. 162. 
Australian fossil and recent forms of 

plants, iii. 248. 
Savages, Sir G. Grey's account 

of their battles, iii. 90. 

Autobiography, i. 26-107. 
' Automata,' iii. 358. 
Automatism, iii. 251. 
Aveling, Dr., on C. Darwin's religious 

views, i. 317 note. 
Avicularium of a Polyzoon, i. 249. 
Axolotl, Professor Weismann on the, 

iii. 19S. 
Azores, ii. 74, 77 ; Boulders on the, 

ii. H2, 113. 

Babbage and Carlyle, i. 77. 
Bachelor of Arts, degree taken, i, 


Backgammon-playing, i. 1 23. 

Bar, Karl Ernst von, ii. 231 ; assent 
of, to evolutionist views, ii. 186 
note ; opinion of the theory, ii. 329, 

Bahia, forest scenery at, i. 231 ; letter 

to R. W. Darwin from, i. 226 ; letter 

to Miss S. Darwin from, i. 265. 

Bain, Alexander, letter to, on the 
* Expression of the Emotions,' iii. 

Balanus annatus, iii. 97. 

Baly medal, award of the, by the Royal 
College of Physicians, iii. 224. 

Balfour, Professor F. M., on the prac- 
tice of vivisection under Anaesthetics, 
iii. 203 ; notice of, iii. 250. 

Balsamineae, insect agency requisite 
for the fertilisation of some, iii. 


Barmouth, visit to, i. 168, 178. 

Bastian's ' Beginnings of Life,' iii. 

Bates, H. W., on the Glacial period irt 
the tropics, ii. 361 ; paper on mi- 
metic butterflies, ii. 378 ; Darwin's 
opinion of, ii. 380 note ; ' Naturalist 
on the Amazons,' opinion of, ii. 381 ;. 
letters to : — on his book on the Ama- 
zons, ii. 378, 379, 381 ; on his ' In- 
sect-Fauna of the Amazons Valley,' 
ii. 391. 

Batrachians, absence of, on islands, ii. 

Bats in New Zealand, ii. 336 ; Indian,, 
killing frogs, ii. 336 ; on Oceanic 
islands, iii. 20. 





' Beagle,' correspondence relating to 
the appointment to the, i. 185-216. 

, equipment of the, i. 217, 218 ; 

accommodation on board the, i. 218, 
219; officers and crew of the, i. 
221, 222, 229 ; manner of life on 
board the, i. 220, 223. 

, voyage of the, i. 58-67. 

-, Zoology of the voyage of the, 

publication of the, i. 71. 
Beans, stated to have grown on the 

wrong side of the pod, i. 104. 
Bear, Polar, ii. 336. 
Beautiful, sense of the, iii. 54. 
Bedtime, i. 124. 
Bee Orchis, observations on the, iii. 

263 ; self-fertilisation of the, iii. 276 ; 

possible identity of the Spider-Orchis 

with the, iii. 276. 
Bees, visits of, necessary for the impreg- 
nation of the Scarlet Bean, iii. 

Bees' cells, ii. 305, 350 ; angles of, ii. 

Ill ; Sedgwick on, ii. 249. 

combs, ii. 146. 

Beetles, collecting, at Cambridge, &c, 

i., 50, 56, 168, 169, 172; ii. 140, 

, Lamellicorn, stridulating or- 
gans of, iii. 97. 
Begnis, J. de, i. 180. 
Begonia /rigida, ii. 275, 290. 
Behrens, W., letter to, on fertilisation, 

iii. 282. 
, ' Geschichte der Bestaubungs- 

Theorie,' iii. 282. 
Belfast, British Association meeting at, 

1874, iii- l &9- 
Bell, Professor Thomas, i. 274, 275 ; 

ii- 3 6 3- 
Bell's ' Anatomy of Expression,' iii. 96. 

Belloc, Madame, proposal to translate 

the ' Origin ' into French, ii. 235. 
' Bell-stone,' Shrewsbury, an- erratic 

boulder, i. 41. 
Belt, T., on the Glacial period in the 

tropics, ii. 361. 
Belt's ' Naturalist in Nicaragua,' iii. 

Bemmelen, A. van, letter to, on receipt 

of an album of Dutch men of science, 

iii. 226. 

Bence- Jones, Dr., iii. 31. 
Beneficence, Evidence of, ii. 312. 
Bentham, G., ii. 292. 

, 'British Flora,' ii. 131, 132. 

, approval of the work on the 

fertilisation of orchids, iii. 271. 

1 On the Species and Genera of 

Plants,' ii. 363 ; reference to the 
* Variation of Animals and Plants,' 
in his Address to the Linnean Society 
(1868), iii. 85. 
, letter from, to F. Darwin, ii. 


-, letters to : — iii. 24, 25 ; on his 
Address to the Linnean Society 
(1868), iii. 85 ; letter to, on the 
adaptation of flowers to cross-fertilisa- 
tion, iii. 279 ; letter to, on cross and 
self- fertilisation in plants, iii. 291. 

Bentham, G. and J. D. Hooker, the 
'Genera Plantarum' of, ii. 306. 

Berkeley, Rev. M. J., review of the 
' Fertilisation of Orchids ' by, iii. 

Berlin, Academy of Sciences at, iii. 
34; Academy of Sciences at, election 
as a corresponding member of the, 
iii. 224. 

Bermuda, Birds of, ii. 209 ; visited by 
Bats from mainland, ii. 336. 

Bet as to height of Christ's College 
combination-room, i. 279. 

Beyrout, mongrelisation of street dogs 
in, iii. 252. 

' Bibliotheque Universelle de Geneve,' 
review of the ' Origin ' in the, ii. 

' : 297 ' 

Biddenham gravel-pits, Lyell's visit to 

the, ii. 364. 
Bignonia caprcolata^ questions as to 

conditions of climbing of, iii. 314. 
Billiards, ii. 151. 
' Biographical sketch of an Infant,' iii. 

Birds, bastard wing of, ii. 214; song 

of, iii. 97 ; wingless, Sir R. Owen 

on their loss of wings by disuse, ii. 

388 ; toothed, in the North American 

Cretaceous, iii. 242 note. 

Birds' nests, ii. 146. 

Birmingham, Meeting of British Asso- 
ciation at (1849), i. 378. 



Birmingham, Music Meeting at, i. 180. 
Philosophical Society, address 

from the, iii. 227. 
Blackbird, sexual differences of the, 

iii. 124. 
Black Grouse, female, coloration of the, 

iii. 124. 
Blasis, Madame, i. 180. 
Blocks, erratic, Mr. D. Mackintosh's 

work on, iii. 235. 
Blomefield, Rev. L., j«jENYNS; Rev. 

Blood, experiments of intertransfusion 

of, to test the theory of pangenesis, 

iii. 195. 
' Bloom ' on leaves and fruit, iii. 339- 

342 ; a check to evaporation, a pro- 
tection from insects and from salt 

water, iii. 341. 
Bloom-protected plants, distribution of, 

iii. 341. 
Blyth, Edward, ii. 315 ; notice of, ii. 

315 note. 
Blytt, Axel, " On the Immigration of 

the Norwegian Flora," iii. 215 ; on 

the evidence from the peat-beds of 

former changes in the climate of 

Scandinavia, iii. 249. 
" Bob," the retriever, i. 113. 
Body-snatchers, arrest of, in Cambridge, 

i- 53- 
Books, treatment of, i. 150-152 ; advo- 
cacy of cutting the edges of, iii. 36 ; 

containing contributions by C. 

Darwin, Lists of, iii. 364, 365. 
Boole, Mrs., letter from, on Evolution 

and Religion, iii. 63 ; letter to, iii. 

Boott, Dr. Francis, i. 294 ; ii. 292 ; 

opinion of American affairs, ii. 382. 
Boston dinner, ii. 385. 
Botanical work, collecting, ii. 58, 59 ; 

scope and influence of C. Darwin's, 

iii. 255, 256. 
Botofogo Bay, letter to W. D. Fox 

from, i. 233 ; letter to J. M. Herbert 

from, i. 238. 
Boucher de Perthes, iii. 13, 15, 16 note, 

Boulders, erratic, of South America, 

paper on the, i. 70 ; paper on the 

transportal of, i. 328. 


Boulders on the Azores, ii. 112, 113. 

transported by floating ice, 

paper on, i. 302. 

Bournemouth, residence at, ii. 383. 

Bowen, Prof. F., hostile review by, in 
the ' Memoirs of the American 
Academy of Sciences,' ii. 349, 354 ; 
Asa Gray on the opinions of, ii. 359 ; 
on heredity, ii. 372. 

Brace, Mr. and Mrs. C. L., visit to 
Down, iii. 165. 

Brachiopoda, evidence from, of descent 
with modification, ii. 366. 

Brain, size of the, in the sexes of ants, 
iii. 191. 

Branch-climbers, iii. 317. 

Brazil, first sight of, i. 241 ; second 
sight of, i. 266 ; sublimity of the 
forests of, iii. 54 ; Emperor of, his 
desire to meet C. Darwin, iii. 227. 

Breathing, influence of, on hearing, iii. 
141 ; influence of surprise upon, iii. 

Bree, Dr. C. R., 'Species not trans- 
mutable,' ii. 358 ; on ' Fallacies in 
the hypothesis of Mr. Darwin,' iii. 

Breeding, books on, ii. 281. 

Bressa Prize, award of the, by the Royal 
Academy of Turin, iii. 225. 

Brinton, Dr., iii. I. 

British Association at Southampton, 
1846, i. 351 ; at Birmingham, 1849, 
i. 378 ; Sir C. Lyell's Presidential 
address to the, at Aberdeen, 1859, 
ii. 166 ; at Norwich, 1868, Sir 
Joseph Hooker's address to the, iii. 
100 ; action of, in connection with 
the question of vivisection, iii. 201 ; 
Sir J. D. Hooker's address to the 
Geographical Section of the, at 
York, 1881, iii. 246, 249; Sir John 
Lubbock's Presidential Address to 
the, at York, 1 881, iii. 249 ; Meet- 
ing at Oxford, discussion at the, ii. 
320-323 ; Sir J. D. Hooker's alle- 
gory of the Discussion at the, iii. 48 ; 
Prof. Tyndall's Presidential address 
to the, at Belfast, 1874, iii. 189. 

British aquatic and terrestrial plants, 
sexual characteristics of, iii. 304. 

Broderip, \V. J., i. 274 note, 275. 




Bronn, H. G., letters to, on the German 
translation of the ' Origin,' ii. 277, 
278, 279 ; translation of the ' Origin 
of Species,' ii. 186; chapter of ob- 
jections, ii. 346. 

Bronn's ' Geschichte der Natur,' ii. 


Brown, Robert, i. 274, 282, 294 ; ac- 
quaintance with, i. 68-73 > recom- 
mendation of Sprengel's book, iii. 

Brunton, Dr. Lauder, letter to, on 
vivisection, iii. 210. 

Buckle, Mr., meeting with, i. 74; his 
approval of the ' Origin,' ii. 315. 

Buckle's ' History of Civilisation,' ii. 
no, 386. 

Buckley, Miss, letters to : — on the death 
of Sir Charles Lyell, iii. 196, 197 ; 
on her ' History of Natural Science,' 
iii. 229. 

Bud-variation, iii. 57, 86. 

Buffon's notions analogous to Pange- 
nesis, iii. 44, 45. 

Bullfinch, sexual differences of the, iii. 

Bulwer's * Professor Long,' i. 81. 

Bunbury, Sir C, his opinion of the 
theory, ii. 285. 

Business habits, i. 120. 

Butler, Dr., schoolmaster at Shrews- 
bury, i. 30. 

, Samuel, charge against C. 

Darwin, iii. 220. 

-, Rev. T., i. 168. 

Butterflies, removal of the pollen of 
Hedychium by the wings of, iii. 283, 

of the Alps, tamer than those of 

lowlands, iii. 170. 

Cactus, seedling, movements of, iii. 

„ 33 °' 
Cader Idris, iii. 106. , 

Caerdeon, residence at, iii. 106. 

Cairns, Prof. J. E., lecture on * The 

Slave-power,' iii. 11. 

Catamites, i. 357. 

Call-duck, ii. 50. 

*' Callisection," iii. 202 note. 

Cambridge, gun-practice at, i. 34 ; 

Life at, i. 46-55, 163-184 ; second 
residence at, in 1836, i. 67, 278 ; visit 
to, in 1870, iii. 125. 

Cambridge, degree of LL.D. conferred 
by University of, iii. 222; subscription 
portrait at, iii. 222, 

Philosophical Society, Sedg- 
wick's attack before the, ii. 306, 307, 

^ 308. 

Camerarius on sexuality in plants, iii. 

Cameron, Mrs., iii. 92, 101. 

Campanula carpathica, sterile in ab- 
sence of insects, iii. 309. 

" Can you forgive her," iii. 41. 

Canary Islands, projected excursion to, 
i. 190; littoral miocene shells at the, 


Cants magellanicus, iii. 118. 

Cape of Good Hope, bloom-covered 

plants at the, iii. 341. 
Cape Verd Islands, i. 228, 241. 
Carabidae, squirting of, ii. 36. 
Carboniferous and Silurian formations, 

amount of subsidence indicated by, 

_ ii- 77- 

Carlisle, Sir Anthony, i. 360. 

Carlyle, Thomas, character of Erasmus 
A. Darwin, i. 22. 

, acquaintance with, i. 77. 

Carnarvon, Lord, proposed Act to 
Amend the Law relating to cruelty 
to animals, iii. 201. 

Carnarvonshire, paper on ancient 
glaciers of, i. 302. 

Carnations, effects of cross- and self- 
fertilisation on, iii. 290. 

Carnivorous plant, in Madagascar, 
hoax about a, iii. 325. 

Carpenter, Dr. W. B., letters to : — on 
the ' Origin of Species,' ii. 222, 223, 
239 ; on his review in the ' National 
Review,' ii. 262 ; on his review in 
the ' Medico-Chirurgical Review,' 
ii. 299. 

, limited acceptance of theory 

by, ii. 369. 

Carpenter's ' Introduction to the Study 
of Foraminifera,' review of, in the 
Athenaum t iii. 17 ; Dr. Carpenter's 
reply, iii. 18, 19 ; G. Bentham on, iii. 




Carus, Prof. Victor, impressions of the 
Oxford discussion, ii. 322. 

, his translations of the ' Origin ' 

and other works, iii. 48, 49 ; 
* Bibliotheca Zoologica,' iii. 66; 
opinion adverse to pangenesis, iii. 
83 ; letters to : — on the German 
translation of the ' Origin of Species,' 
iii. 49, 66 ; on pangenesis, iii. 83 ; 
on the translation of the ' Origin ' 
into German, iii. 109; on earth- 
worms, iii. 217 ; on ' Cross- and 
Self-Fertilisation of Plants,' iii. 292 ; 
on the publication of ' Forms of 
Flowers,' iii. 309. 

Caryophyllia, i. 235. 

Case, Rev. G., schoolmaster at Shrews- 
bury, i. 27. 

Cataseticm, pollinia of, adhering to 
bees' backs, iii. 264, 284 ; sensitive- 
ness of flowers of, iii. 268 ; paper on, 
iii. 275. 

Caterpillars, colouring of, iii. 93, 94 
note, 95. 

Caton, John D., letter to, on American 
Deer, hi., 102. 

Cats, mesmerising, i. 374. 

and mice, ii. 312. 

with blue eyes, deafness of, ii. 


Cattle, falsely described new breed of, 
i. 105 ; feral, in Australia and else- 
where, ii. 173, 174. 

Causation, ii. 249. 

Caves, blind insects of, ii. 265. 

Celebes, peculiarities of, ii. 162 ; Afri- 
can character of productions of, ii. 

Cells, struggle between the, in the 
same organism, iii. 244. 

Cephalaspis, ii. 334 note. 

Chaffinch, sexual differences of the, 
iii. 124. 

Chalk, subsidence in the, ii. 332. 

Chambers, R., acquaintance with, 
355 ; author of the ' Vestiges,' 
356 ; on ancient Sea-margins, 
362 ; remarks on the " Essays and 
Reviews,' ii. 363. 

' Chance,' supposed influence of, in 
Evolution, ii. 199. 

Change, slowness of, ii. 124. 


Chatsworth, visit to, i. 344. 

Chemistry, study of, i. 35. 

Children, loss of, iii. 39. 

, mortality of, ii. 264. 

Chili, recent elevation of the coast of, 
i. 67, 279. 

Chimneys, employment of boys in 
sweeping, i. 382. 

China and Japan, junction of, ii. 137. 

Christ's College, Cambridge, charac- 
teristics of, i. 163-165 ; bet as to 
height of combination-room of, i. 

1 Christian Examiner,' review of the 
'Origin' in the, ii. 318, 319. 

Church, destination to the, i. 45, 46, 

Cicadas, male, musical, iii. 94 ; rivalry 
of, iii. 97. 

Circumnutation, iii. 338. 

, tendency to, inherent in the 

growing parts of plants, iii. 329. 

Cirripedia, work on the, i. 80, 81, 
346-350 ; confusion of nomencla- 
ture of, i. 366, 370 ; completion of 
work on the, i. 395 ; fossil pedun- 
culate, completion of work on the, 
ii. 37 ; variability of, ii. 37 ; ovigerous 
frena of, ii. 214 ; Krohn's observations 
on, ii. 345 ; branchiae of, ii. 350 ; 
paper on the so-called auditory sac 
of, iii. 2 ; orifice at base of first pair 
of cirrhi of, iii. 38. 

Cissus, irritability of tendrils of, iii. 


Clairvoyance, i. 374. 
Clark, Prof., ii. 308. 
, Sir Andrew, treatment by, iii. 

^ 355. 358. 
Classics, study of, at Dr. Butler's 

school, i. 31. 
Classification, ii. 244. 
Cleistogamic flowers, iii. 307, 308, 309. 
Climate, comparative unimportance of, 

ii. 212; influence of, on plants, ii. 

92 ; influence of, on variation, ii. 

96; influence of, ii. 168, 174, 317. 

, pliocene, ii. 135. 

and migration, ii. 135, 136, 

Climbing plants, i. 92; iii., 27, 311- 





' Climbing Plants,' publication of the, 
iii. 317. 

Coal, supposed marine origin of, i. 

Coal-plants, letters to Sir Joseph 
Hooker on, i. 356-360. 

Cobbe, Miss, manifesto against vivi- 
section sent by, iii. 203 ; letter 
headed "Mr. Darwin and vivisec- 
tion " in the Times, iii. 206. 

Coccus, apple-trees not attacked by, 
iii. 348. 

Cohn, Prof., visit to Down, iii. 223 ; 
letter to, iii. 234. 

Coldstream, Dr., i. 38. 

Colenso, Bishop, on the Pentateuch, 
ii. 391. 

Collections made during the voyage of 
the ' Beagle,' destination of the, i. 273. 

Collier, Hon. John, portrait of C. Dar- 
win by, iii. 223. 

Colonies, Darwin's interest in the 
spread of science in the, iii. 5, 6. 

Colour, in insects, acquired by sexual 
selection, iii. 137. 

Compilers, inaccuracy of, ii. 281 note. 

Complexion, correlation of, with con- 
stitution in man, iii. 90. 

Conditions, Physical, constancy of 
species under diversity of, ii. 319 ; 
effects of, ii. 320. 

, external, direct action of, iii. 

109, 159. 

-, external, influence of changed, 

on plants, iii. 345. 
Confervas, conjugation of, iii. 304. 
Coniferse, origin of the flowers of, iii. 

Conscientiousness, extreme, anecdotes 

illustrative of, iii. 53—55. 
Consideration for the feelings of others, 

i". 53-55- 
Continent, possible former Antarctic, 

iii. 248. 

Tertiary Antarctic, iii. 231. 

Continental extensions, ii. 72, 73, 
74-78, 80, 81, 82, 109. 

Continents, antiquity of, ii. 76 ; ef- 
fects of submergence of, ii. 75 '■> 
sinking of imaginary, iii. 230. 

and oceans, permanence of, iii. 


Contributions, list of books containing, 

by C. Darwin, iii. 364, 365. 
Conversation, i. 140, 142. 
Cooper, Miss, 'Journal of a Naturalist,' 

ii. 391. 
Cope, Prof. E. D., on acceleration and 

retardation of development, iii. 154, 
Copley medal, award of, to C. Darwin, 

iii. 27, 28, 29. 
Coral formations, areas of elevation 

and subsidence in the Pacific and 

Indian oceans, as deduced from the 

study of, i. 279. 
Coral Reefs, work on, i. 70, 291, 300; 

publication of, i. 302. 
, Dana's adoption of Darwin's 

theory of, i. 375. 

, subsidence indicated by, ii. 77. 

second edition of, iii. 181 ; 

Semper's remarks on the, iii. 181, 
182 ; Murray's criticisms, iii. 183. 
and Islands, Prof. Geikie and 

Sir C. Lyell on the theory of, i. 324. 
and Volcanoes, book on, i. 297. 

Cordillera, sublimity of the, iii. 54 ; 
submarine porphyritic lavas of the, 
iii. 190. 

Corfield, Mr., residence with, i. 258. 

Coronation of King William IV. im- 
pressions of the procession and illu- 
minations at the, i. 209. 

Corrections on proofs, ii. 159, 160, 
164, 178. 

Correspondence, i. 119. 

■ during life at Cambridge, 

1828-31, i. 163-184; relating to 
appointment on the ' Beagle,' i. 
185-216 ; during the voyage of the 
4 Beagle,' i. 217-271 ; during resi- 
dence in London, 1836-1842, i. 272- 
303 ; on the subject of religion, i. 
304-317 ; during residence at Down, 
1 842-1 854, i. 318-395; during the 
progress of the work on the ' Origin 
of Species,' ii. 1-178 ; after the pub- 
lication of the work, ii. 205-392; 
on the ' Variation of Animals and 
Plants,' iii. i-88 ; on the work on 
1 Man,' iii. 89-180 ; miscellaneous, 
iii. 181-253 ; on botanical researches, 
iii. 254-354. 




Coryantkcs, water-reservoir in labellum 
of, iii. 284. 

Corydalis, Hildebrand on cross-fertili- 
sation in, iii. 2S0. 

Cosmogony, Pentateuchal, ii. 187. 

' Cosmos,' English translation of the, 

i- 344 ; "• 3°- 
Cottage Gardens, i. 343 note. 

Cotyledons, movements of, iii. 330. 

Cousins, inter-marriage of, iii. 129, 130. 

Cowslip, supposed male and female 

plants of the, iii. 297, 298 ; differ- 
ences of the pollen in the two forms 

of the, iii. 297, 298. 
Crawford, John, review of the 'Origin,' 

ii. 237. 
Created form, primordial, ii. 251. 
Creation, continued, of Monads, ii. 210. 

, conceivable, ii. 187. 

, objections to use of the term, 

iii. 18. 
Creative action, ii. 210. 
power, continued intervention 

of, ii. 174. 
Cresy, E., letters to, detailing experi- 
ments on Drosera with ammoniacal 

salts, iii. 318, 319. 
Cretaceous beds of the United States, 

Angiospermous plants ir, iii. 248 ; 

toothed birds in the, iii. 242 note. 
Crick, W. D., on a mode of dispersal 

of Bivalve Mullusca, iii. 252. 
Crossbill, variability of the bill of the, 

ii. 97. 
Cross- and self-fertilisation in plants, i. 

96, 97. 
Cross-fertilisation of hermaphrodite 

flowers, first ideas of the, iii. 257, 258. 
Crossing, effects of, iii. 156. 

of animals, i. 299, 301. 

Cruder, Dr., observation on Catasttum 

and Coryanthes, iii. 264, 284. 
Crustacea, unequal numbers of sexes 

in, iii. 97 ; lower, clasping pincers 

in males of, iii. III. 
Crustaceans and fishes, ii. 334. 
Cryptogamia, dispersal of, i. 328 note. 
Cucurbitaceae, irritability of tendrils of, 

iii. m> 
Cycas, seedling, movements of, iii. 330. 

Cychnoches, iii. 268. 

Cypripediuni., pollen of, iii. 265. 



Daily Life at Down, i. 108. 

' Daily Review,' review of the c Varia- 
tions of Animals and Plants ' in the, 
iii. 85. 

Dallas, W. S., index to the 'Variation 
of Animals and Plants,' iii. 74 note ; 
translation of Fritz Midler's ' Fur 
Darwin,' iii. 86, 87 ; glossary to sixth 
edition of the 'Origin,' iii. 154; 
translation of E. Krause's ' Life of 
Erasmus Darwin,' iii. 364. 

Dana, Professor J. D., Geology of the 
United States Expedition, i. 374 ; 
on the permanence of continents and 
oceans, iii. 247. 

Dareste, Camille, letter to, iii. 7. 

Darwin, Charles, i. 7. 

, Charles R., pedigree of, i. 5 J 

Autobiography of, i. 26-107 5 birth, 
i. 27 ; loss of mother, i. 27 ; day- 
school at Shrewsbury, i. 27 ; natural 
history tastes, i. 28 ; hoaxing, i. 
28 ; humanity, i. 29 ; egg-collect- 
ing, i. 30 ; angling, i. 30 ; dragoon's 
funeral, i. 30 ; boarding school 
at Shrewsbury, i. 30 ; fondness 
for dogs, i. 30 ; classics, i. 32 ; 
liking for geometry, i. 33 ; read- 
ing, i. 33 ; fondness for shooting, i. 
34 ; science, i. 34 ; at Edinburgh, 
i. 36-42 ; early medical practice at 
Shrewsbury, i. 37 ; tours in North 
Wales, i. 42 ; shooting at Wood- 
house and Maer, i. 42-44 ; at Cam- 
bridge, i. 46-55 ; visit to North 
Wales, with Sedgwick, i., 56-58 ; 
on the voyage of the ' Beagle,' i. 58- 
6y ; second residence at Cambridge, 
i. 67 ; residence in London, i. 67- 
78 ; marriage, i. 69 ; residence at 
Down, i. 78-79 ; publications, i. 79- 
98 ; manner of writing, i. 99-100 ; 
mental qualities, i. 100-107. 

, Reminiscences of, j. 108-160 ; 

personal appearance, i. 109, 11 1; 
mode of walking, i. 109, 1 1 1 ; walks, i. 
109, 114-116; dissecting, i. no; 
ill-health, iii. ' 159 ; laughing, i. 
in ; gestures, i. 112 ; dress, i. 112; 
early rising, i. 112; work, i. 112, 
122 ; fondness. for dogs, i. 113 ; love 
of flowers, i. 116; riding, i. 117; 

2 C 




diet,i. 118, 123 ; correspondence, i. 
119; business habits, i. 120; smok- 
ing, i. 121, 122 ; snuff-taking, i. 
121, 122; reading aloud, i. 122, 123, 
124; backgammon, i. 123; music, 
i. 123 ; bed-time, i. 124 ; art-criti- 
cism, i. 125 ; German reading, i. 
126 ; general interest in science, i. 

126 ; idleness a sign of ill-health, i. 

127 ; aversion to public appearances, 
i. 128, 143 ; visits, i. 128 ; holidays, 
i. 129, 130; love of scenery, i. 129 ; 
visits to hydropathic establishments, 
i. 131 ; family relations, i. 1 32- 1 38 ; 
hospitality, i. 139 ; conversational 
powers, i. 140-142 ; friends, i. 142 ; 
local influence, i. 142 ; mode of 
work, i. 144 ; literary style, i. 155. 

Darwin, Edward, i. 4. 

, Dr. Erasmus, i. 2, 4 ; charac- 
ter of, i. 6 ; life of, by Ernst Krause, 
i. 97, iii. 218; views on evolution, 
ii. 189 note ; error of M. Fabre in 
quoting from, iii. 221. 

, Erasmus (2), i. 8. 

, Erasmus Alvey, i. 20 ; 21 ; his 

brother's character of him, i. 21 ; 
Carlyle's character of him, i. 22 ; 
Miss Wedgwood's character of him, 
i. 23 ; letter from, ii. 223 ; death of, 
iii. 228. 

, family, i. I. 

, Francis Sacheverel, i. 4. 

, John, i. 4. 

, Miss, letter to, 1838, i. 289. 

, Miss C, letters to : — from Mal- 

donado, i. 244 ; from East Falkland 
Island, i. 251 ; from Valparaiso, i. 

-, Miss Susan, letters to : — relating 

the ' Beagle ' appointment, i. 200, 
201, 206, 207 ; from Valparaiso, i. 
259 ; from Bahia, i. 265. 

-, Mrs., letter to, with regard to 

the publication of the essay of 1844, 
ii. 16 ; letter to, from Moor Park, 
ii. 113. 

-, Reginald, letters to, on Dr. 

Erasmus Darwin's common-place 

book and papers, iii. 219. 

, Richard, i. I. 

— , Robert, i. 3. 


Darwin, Robert Waring, the elder, i. 4. 

, Robert Waring (2), i. 8, 10 ; 

his son's character of him, i. 11-20; 
his family, i. 20 ; letter to, in answe 
to objections to accept the appoint- 
ment on the ' Beagle,' i. 196 ; letter 
from Josiah Wedgwood to, on the 
same subject, i. 198 ; letter to, from 
Bahia, i. 226. 

, William, i. I. 

, William, (2), i. 1, 2. 

, William, (3), i. 2. 

— , William, (4), i- 3- 
-, William Alvey, i. 4. 

'Darwinische Arten-Entstehung-Hum- 
bug,' iii. 306. 

'Darwinismus,' i. 86. 

Daubeny, Professor, ii. 327 ; ' On the 
final causes of the sexuality of plants,' 
ii. 320, 332. 

Davidson, Thomas, letters to, ii. 366, 

Dawes, Mr., i. 54. 

Deaths of old and young, contrast of 
the, iii. 228. 

De Candolle, Professor A., letter to, 
iii. 98 ; letters to : — on his • His- 
toire des Sciences,' iii. 169 f send- 
ing him the 'Origin of Species,' ii. 
216 ; on his ' Phytographie,' iii. 332. 

Decoctions and extracts, action of, upon 
leaves oiDrosera and Dioncca, iii. 323. 

Deer, American, iii. 101. 

Degree of Bachelor of Arts taken, i. 47, 
183, 185. 

Degrees, Honours and Societies, list of, 
"i- 373-376. 

Delpino, Prof, on the theory of Pan- 
genesis, iii. 194; observations on 
Magnolia iii. 285. 

Deluge, Noachian, arguments from the, 
iii. 376. 

'Descent of Man,' work on the, iii. 
98, 121 ; publication of the, i. 93, 
iii. 131 ; preparation of second 
edition of the, iii. 175 ; publication 
of second edition of the, iii. 184. 

, Reviews of the, in the ' Edin- 
burgh Review,' iii. 133 ; in the 
Academy, iii. 137 ; in the Pall Mall 
Gazette, iii. 138; in the Spectator, 
iii. 138 ; in the Nonconformist, iii. 




139 ; in the Times, iii. 139 ; in the 
Saturday Review, iii. 139 ; in the 
' Quarterly Review,' iii. 146. 
Descent with modification, primary 
importance of the doctrine of, ii. 


Descriptive work, blunting effect of, 

"• 379- 
Design in Nature, i. 315, iii. 353, 373, 

377) 378i 382 ; argument from, as to 

existence of God, i. 309. 

, evidence of, ii. 312. 

Devonian strata, insect with stridula- 

ting apparatus in the, iii. 97. 
Devonshire caverns, pre-glacial remains 

in, ii. 365. 
'Dichogamy' of C. K. Sprengel, iii. 


Dicotyledons, chief development of, 
dependent on the development of 
sucking insects, iii. 285 ; develop- 
ment of the mammalia dependent on 
that of, iii. 285 ; importance of the 
study of fertilisation in the most 
ancient forms of, iii. 2S5. 

Dieffenbach, Dr., translation of the 
'Journal' by, i. 323. 

Dielytra, iii. 259. 

Diet, i. 118, 123. 

Differences, individual, and single varia- 
tions, relative importance of, iii. 107, 

, sexual, iii. 135. 

'Different Forms of Flowers,' publica- 
tion of the, i. 97 ; iii. 309; review 
of the, in ' Nature,' iii. 310. 

Digestion in Drosera, iii. 322, 223, 

3 2 5- 
, process of, in Pinguicula t iii. 

Dimorphism and trimorphism in plants, 

papers on, i. 91. 
' Dicecio-dimorphism,' iii. 303. 
Dioiuea, dissolution of albumen and 

gelatine by, iii. 323. 
Direction, supposed sense of, in animals, 

iii. 221. 
Diseases, infectious, origin of, iii. 234. 
Dispersion of animals, iii. 182. 
Dissecting, i. no. 
Distribution of organisms, evidence 

from the, as to former continental 


extensions, ii. 77 ; means of, ii. 

, geographical, ii. 79, 149; iii. 


Divergence, principle of, i. 84; ii. 124. 

Dogs, fondness for, i. 30, 113. 

, Mongrelisation of, in Beyrout, 

iii. 252. 

, supposed multiple origin of 

domestic, ii. 230, 346. 

Dohrn, Dr. Anton, letters to, on the 
reception of the ' Descent of Man,' 
iii. 133 ; on the Naples Zoological 
Station, iii. 198 ; offering to present 
apparatus to the Zoological station at 
Naples, iii. 225 ; on F. M. Balfour's 
illness, iii. 251. 

' Dolomit-Riffe,' by E. von Mojsis- 
ovics, iii. 234. 

Domestication, variation under, ii. 29. 

Don, Mr., i. 275. 

Donders, Prof., letter to, on election to 
the Royal Society of Holland, iii. 

, letter to, on Drosera, iii. 325. 

Donkey, stripes on the legs of the, ii. 

Down, residence at, i. 78-79, 318 ; 
daily life at, i. 108 ; local influence 
at, i. 142 ; sequestered situation of, 
i. 319, 321. 

Dragon -flies, attracted by bright colours, 
iii. 94. 

Dragoon, funeral of a, i. 30. 

Draper, Dr., paper before the British 
Association on the "Intellectual de- 
velopment of Europe," ii. 321. 

Dress, i. 112. 

Drosera, observations on, i. 95 ; iii. 
317-327 ; action of glands of, iii. 337 ; 
action of ammoniacal salts on the 
leaves of, iii. 318, 319, 324, 325, 
326 ; dissolution of albumen and 
gelatine by, iii. 323 ; effect of very 
light objects on the hairs of, iii. 

Dryness, villosity of plants due to, ii. 

98. • 
Dryopithecus, iii. 163. 
Dublin Hospital Gazette, review of the 

' Origin ' in the, ii. 375. 
Du Bois - Reymond, Prof., ii. 354 ; 

2 C 2 




letter to, on election to the Berlin 

Academy of Sciences, iii. 224. 
Duck, varieties of the common, ii. 50. 
Ducks, study of, ii. 84. 
Duns, Rev. J., the supposed author 

of a review in the ' North British 

Review,' ii. 311. 
Dust, fine, falling on vessels in the 

Atlantic Ocean, i. 328. 
Dutch translation of the ' Origin,' ii. 


Dyer, W. Thiselton, on the employ- 
ment of horticultural evidence, iii. 
57 ; on Mr. Darwin's botanical work, 
iii. 256 ; review of the ' Different 
Forms of Flowers,' iii. 310 ; note to, 
on the life of Erasmus Darwin, iii. 
219 ; review of the ' Effects of Cross- 
and Self-Fertilisation,' iii. 294. 

, letters to :— on Thalia, iii. 286 ; 

on his review of ' Cross- and Self- 
Fertilisation,' iii., 294 ; on his re- 
view of 'Forms of Flowers,' iii. 
310 ; on movement in Pinguecula, iii. 
324 ; on movement in plants, iii. 
33°> 33 : > 334; on the 'bloom' of 
leaves and fruit, iii. 341. 

Dysteleology, iii. 119 note. 

Ear, human, infolded point of the, iii. 

Earle, Erasmus, i. 2. 

Early rising, i. 1 12. 

Earthquake, slight shock of, at Valpa- 
raiso, i. 259. 

Earthquakes, paper on, i. 70. 

Earthworms, paper on the formation of 
mould by the agency of, i. 70 ; hrst 
observations on work done by, i. 
284 ; work on, iii. 216 ; publication 
of, iii. 217 ; intelligence in, iii. 243. 

East Falkland Island, condition of, i. 
252 ; letter to J. S. Henslow from, 
i. j 249 ; letter to Miss C. Darwin 
from, i. 251. 

Eccremocarpus scaler, climbing of, iii. 

Echidna, ii. 335. 
Echinocystis lobata, irritability of the 

tendrils of, iii. 31 1 ; twisting of the 

upper internode of, iii. 312. 


Echinoderms, Romanes and Ewart on 
the locomotor system of, iii. 243. 

Echiimi vulgar e, iii. 301. 

Edinburgh, Plinian Society, i. 39 ; 
Royal Medical Society, i. 40; Wer- 
nerian Society, i. 40 ; lectures on 
Geology and Zoology in, i. 41. 

, Sir J. D. Hooker's candi- 
dature for the Professorship of Botany 

at > i- 335> 342. 

, studies at, i. 36, 42. 

, Royal Society of, Address of 

the Duke of Argyll to the, iii. 


, Royal Society of, election as 

Honorary Member of the, iii. 34. 

' Edinburgh Review/opposition to Dar- 
win's views, ii. 184 ; review of the 
'Origin' in the, ii. 300, 302, 303, 
3°4» 3 11 , 3 : 3; review of the 'De- 
scent of Man ' in the, iii. 133 ; re- 
view of the ' Expression of the 
Emotions' in the, iii. 173; review 
of the ' Fertilisation of Orchids ' in 
the, iii. 274. 

Education, i. 380, 384-386. 

' Effects of Cross- and Self-Fertilisation 
in the Vegetable Kingdom,' publica- 
tion of the, i. 96, 97 ; iii. 293 ; 
review of the, in ' Nature,' iii. 

Egg, development of the fowl in the, 
ii. 202. 

Electrical organs, homologues of, in 
non-electrical Fishes, ii. 352. 

Elephants, direction of tusks in, ii. 
318; Dr. Hugh Falconer on the 
origin of, ii. 389. 

Elevation and subsidence, ii. 38. 

Elie de Beaumont, opposition to Dar- 
win, ii. 185. 

Elie de Beaumont's theory, i. 296. 

Embryological characters in classifica- 
tion, ii. 148, 149. 

Embryology, ii. 244 ; force of evidence 

' from, ii. 338, 340. 

England, spread of the Descent-theory 
in, iii. 69. 

, south of, origin of the angular 

drift-gravels of, iii. 213. 

English Churchman, review of the 
' Origin ' in the, ii. 241. 




Engravings, fondness for, i. 170. 

1 Enoch Arden,' quotation from, iii. 4. 

Entomological Society, concurrence of 

the members of the, iii. 69. 
Epideudrum, iii. 265. 
Equator, ceremony at crossing the, i. 

Equisdum, upright oolitic, i. 360. 
Equus, species of the genus, ii. 101. 
Erratic blocks, at Glen Roy, i., 293; 

Mr. D. Mackintosh's work on, iii. 

Erratic boulders, paper on the trans- 
portal of, i. 328. 
and " till" of South America, 

paper on the, i. 70, 300. 
Esquimaux, iii. 90. 
Essay of 1844, ii- 35* 
' Essays and Reviews,' R. Chambers 

on the, ii. 363. 
Eucalypti, *' bloom" common on the, 

iii. 341. 
Euphorbia pcplus, action of ammonia 

on the contents of the cells of the 

roots of, iii. 347. 
Europe, mountains of, ii. 75. 
European opinions of Darwin's work, 

Dr. Falconer on, ii. 375. 
Eustachian tube, iii. 141. 
Evaporation, " bloom " sometimes a 

check to, iii. 341. 
Everglades of Virginia, black pigs in 

the, ii. 300. 
Evolution, progress of the theory of, iii. 

2, 16 ; revival of the philosophy of, 

ii. 180. 
Ewart, Prof. J. C, on the locomotor 

system of Echinoderms, iii. 243. 
Experiment, love of, i. 150* 
Expression in man, ii. 265 ; iii. 1 12. 

in the Malays, iii. 95, 96. 

Expression of the Emotions, work on 

the, iii. 133. 
* Exoression of the Emotions in Men 

and Animals,' publication of the, i. 

94 ; iii. 171 ; review of the, in the 

'Edinburgh Review,' iii. 173. 
External conditions, influence of, in 

causing variation, ii. 87, 90. 

, direct action of, iii. 109, 159. 

, influence of changed, on plants, 

iii- 345- 


Eye, structure of the, ii. 207, 234, 273, 
285, 312. 

, Human, action of minute quan- 
tities of atropine on the, iii. 325. 

Eyre, Governor, prosecution of, iii. 


Fabre, J. H., letter to, on his ' Sou- 
venirs Entomologiques,' iii. 220. 

Falconer, Dr. Hugh, i. 351. 

, claim of priority against Lyell, 

iii. 14, 19, 21 ; his opinion of the 
mischievous nature of evolution, ii. 
121, 139; antiquity of man, ii. 
139; letter from, offering a live 
Proteus and reporting on continental 
opinion, ii. 374 ; letters to : — ii. 375 ; 
letters to, sending him the ' Origin of 
Species,' ii. 216 ; on the study 
of phyllotaxy, iii. 51; "on the 
American Fossil Elephant," and on 
the origin of Elephants, ii. 389 ; on 
pre-glacial remains in Devonshire 
caverns, ii. 365. 

Falkland Islands, ii. 74, 76. 

Family relations, i. 132-138. 

Fantail pigeon, ii. 353. 

Farm, purchase of, in Lincolnshire, 

i- 343- 
Farrar, Canon F. W., letter to, iii. 41. 

Farrer, Sir Thomas, letters to : — on the 
fertilisation of the Scarlet-runner, iii. 
277 ; on the value of observations, 
iii. 278 ; on the effect of water-drops 
on leaves, iii. 340 ; on the potato- 
disease, iii. 348. 

, Notes of C. Darwin's opinions 

on vivisection, iii. 200 ; on the ferti- 
lisation of Passiflora and Tacsouia, 
iii. 279. 

Fawcett, Henry, letter from \V. Hop- 
kins to, ii. 315 note; on Huxley's 
reply to the Bishop of Oxford, ii. 
322 note. 

Fere-homo, ii. 227. 

Fernando Noronha, visit to, i. 229. 

1 Fertilisation of Orchids,' publication 
of the, i. 90, 97 ; iii. 270. 

1 of Orchids,' publication of 

second edition of the, iii. 286. 

1 ■ of Orchids,' reviews of the ; 




in the ' Parthenon,' iii. 270 ; in 
the Athenceum, iii. 270 ; in the 
' London Review,' iii. 270 ; in ' Silli- 
man's Journal,' iii. 272, 304 ; in the 
Saturday Review, iii. 274 ; in the 
Literary Churchman, iii. 274 ; in 
the ' Edinburgh Review,' iii. 274. 

Fertilisation, cross- and self-, in the 
vegetable kingdom, iii. 289-294. 

of flowers, bibliography of the, 

iii. 275. 

Fish swallowing seeds, ii. 56. 

Fisher, Mrs. See Buckley, Miss. 

Fishes, Amazonian, iii. 99 ; electrical 
organs of, ii. 352 ; swim-bladder of, 

hi. 135- 

■ and crustaceans, ii. 334. 

Fiske, J., letter to, on his ' Cosmic 
Philosophy,' iii. 193. 

Fitton, W. PL, i. 294. 

Fitz-Roy, Capt., i. 58, 59; character 
of, i. 60 ; character of, by Rev. G. 
Peacock, i. 191, 194; Darwin's 
impressions of, i. 201, 203, 204, 206, 
210; discipline on board the 'Beagle,' 
i. 222 ; intended resignation of, i. 
257 ; letter to, from Shrewsbury, i. 
269 ; letters to, on his appointment 
as Governor of New Zealand, i. 331, 

Fitzwilliam Gallery, Cambridge, i. 49. 
Flint implements associated with bones 

of extinct animals, ii. 160. 
Flora of the Northern United States, 

ii. 88. 
Flourens, opposition to Darwin, ii. 

185; ' Examen du livre de M. 

Darwin,' iii. 30. 
Flowers, adaptation of, to visits of 

insects, iii. 262 ; different forms of, 

on plants of the same species, i. 97 ; 

iii. 295-310; fertilisation of, iii. 

256-288 ; hermaphrodite, first ideas 

of cross-fertilisation of, iii. 257, 258; 

irregular, all adapted for visits of 

insects, iii. 262. 

, cleistogamic, iii. 295. 

, love of, i. 116. 

Flustra, form allied to, i. 249 ; paper 

on the larva? of, i. 39. 
Forbes, David, on the geology of 

Chile, ii. 355. 


Forbes, Prof. Edward, ii. 38. ; on 
continental extensions, ii. 72 ; iii. 35. 

Ford, G. H., illustrations to the 
' Descent of Man,' iii. 121. 

Fordyce, J., extract from letter to, 


Forel, Auguste, letter to, on ants, iii. 

Forest, tropical, delight in, i. 237, 241. 

Forests, Brazilian, sublimity of the, 
iii. 54. 

' Formation of Vegetable Mould, 
through the action of Worms,' pub- 
lication of the, i. 98; iii. 217; un- 
expected success of the, iii. 217, 

Formica rufa, observations on habits 
of, iii. 191, 192. 

Forms, extinction of, ii. 212. 

Forster, Miss, letter to, iii. 224 note. 

Fossil bones, given to the College of 
Surgeons, i. 276. 

Fox, Rev. William Darwin, i. 4, 51. 

, authority for the deafness of 

blue-eyed cats, ii. 348 ; letters to : — i. 
174-184, 186, 190; ii. 84, no; 
before sailing in the Beagle, i. 205, 
211; from Botofogo Bay, i. 233; 
from Lima, i. 262 ; in 1836-1842 ; 
i. 277, 27S, 279, 280, 290, 299, 301 ; 
on the house at Down, i. 321 ; on 
traces of glacial action, i. 332 ; on the 
death of his little daughter, i. 380 ; 
on their respective families, pro- 
fessions for boys, education and the 
publication of vol. i. of the Cirri- 
pedes, i. 380, 384 ; on education and 
schools, i. 385, 386 ; condoling on 
loss of a child, i. 388 ; on plumage 
and skeletons of young birds, ii. 46, 
48, 49, 50 ; on Pigeon-breeding, ii. 
51 ; asking for lizards' eggs, ii. 53 ; 
on the British Association meeting 
at Glasgow, 1855, ii. 66 ; on striped 
horses, ii. 1 1 1 ; on family matters, ii. 
140, 150; on the progress of the 
work, ii. 167 ; on the ' Origin of 
Species,' ii. 221 ; on the award of 
the Copley Medal, iii. 27. 
France, state of opinion in, iii. 7 J 
persistence of belief in immutability 
of species in, iii. 87. 




France and Germany, contrast of pro- 
gress of theory in, iii. 118. 

' Fraser's Magazine,' reviews of the 
'Origin,' in, ii. 314, 314, 327. 

Freke, Dr., ' On the Origin of Species 
by means of Organic Affinity,' ii. 359. 

French botanists, errors of, in the 
matter of cross- and self-fertilisation, 
iii. 279. 

criticism on the paper on 

Primula, iii. 305. 

translation of the 'Origin,' ii. 

357? 3^7 ; Mdlle. Royer's introduc- 
tion to the, iii. 72 ; preparation of a 
second edition of the, iii. 31 ; third 
edition of the, published, iii. no. 

translation of the ' Origin ' 

from the fifth English edition, 

arrangements for the, iii. no. 
Fuegians, condition of the, i. 243, 255 ; 

mission to the, iii. 127, 128. 
Fumaria, iii. 259. 
Fumariacese, fertilisation of the, iii. 

Funeral in Westminster Abbey, iii. 


Galapagos, i. 65 ; ii. 74 ; American 
type of productions of the, ii. 209 ; 
dull colours of animals in the, iii. 
151 ; origin of Amblyrhynchus of 
the, ii. 336 ; reference to flora and 
fauna of the, ii. 22, 23, 24, 25 ; the 
case of the, ii. 334 ; fauna of the, the 
starting-point of investigations into 
the origin of species, iii. 159, 160. 

Galls, production of, iii. 346. 

Gallits bankiva, female, coloration of, 
iii. 124. 

Galton, Francis, i. 4 ; answers to 
questions formulated by, iii. 177— 
180 ; experiments by intertransfu- 
sion of blood, to test the theory of 
pangenesis, iii. 195 ; questions on 
the faculty of visualising, iii. 238. 

, letter to, on visualising, iii. 


, note to, on the life of Erasmus 

Darwin, iii. 220. 

Ganoid fishes confined to fresh water, 
ii. 143. 


Gardeners' Chronicle, article by W. H. 
Harvey in the, ii. 274, 275, 276 ; 
review of the ' Origin ' in the, ii. 
267 ; letters from Prof. Westwood 
in the, ii. 267 ; Mr. Patrick Matthew's 
claim of priority in the, ii. 301, 302 ; 
review of the ' Variation of Animals 
and Plants ' in the, iii. 77 ; review 
of the ' Fertilisation of Orchids,' in 
the, iii. 273. 

Gardens, Cottage, i. 343 note. 

Garreau on the " bloom " of leaves and 
fruit, iii. 339 note. 

Gauchos pithing lassoed cows, iii. 245. 

Gaudry, A., letter to, iii. 87. 

Geikie, Prof. Archibald, ' Life of 
Murchison,' iii. 215; notes on the 
' Geological Observations on South 
America,' i. 326, 327 ; notes on the 
article ' Geology ' in the Admiralty 
Manual, 1849, i. 329 ; notes on the 
work on Coral Reefs, i. 323 ; notes 
on the work on Volcanic Islands, i. 
326 ; on Darwin's theory of the 
parallel roads of Glen Roy, i. 290. 

, Prof. James, letter to, on 

glacial geology, iii. 213. 

Gelatine, dissolution of, by leaves of 
Drosera and Dioncea, iii. 323. 

Genera, distribution of the species of 
widely represented, ii. 25 ; large, 
not varying, ii. 306 ; large, variability 
of species in, ii. 102-107. 

' Genera Plantarum,' by Hooker and 
Bentham, ii. 306. 

Generalisation, love of, i. 103. 

Generalised forms, frequency of, in the 
older strata, iii. 169. 

Generation, spontaneous, iii. 180. 

' Generelle Morphologie,' Hackel's, 
projected translation of, iii. 104. 

' Genesis,' changed treatment of, ii. 181. 

Geoffroy St. Hilaire, ii. 207. 

Geographical distribution, ii. 79, 149, 

' Geological Observations on South 
America,' i. 80; publication of the, 
i. 326 ; Prof. Geikie's notes on^ the, 
i. 326, 327. 

' Geological Observations on Volcanic 
Islands,' publication of the, i. 323 ; 
Prof. Geikie's notes on the, i. 326. 




' Geological Observations on the vol- 
canic islands and parts of South 
America visited during the voyage 
of H.M.S. Beagle, ' publication of the, 
iii. 212. 

Geological Record, imperfection of 
the, ii. 124, 263, 309, 350, 369; 
Sedgwick on the, ii. 369 note. 

Geological Society, desire to join the, 
i. 267 ; Secretaryship of the, i. 68, 

Geological time, iii. 109. 

work in the Andes, i. 260. 

1 Geologist,' review of the ' Origin ' in 
the, ii. 362. 

Geology, commencement of the study 
of, i. 56, 185, 186, 189 ; lectures on, 
in Edinburgh, i. 41 ; predilection for 
i- 233, 235, 238, 249, 255 ; study of, 
during the Beagle's voyage, i. 62 ; 
progress of, in fifty years, iii. 249. 

, article on, in the ' Admiralty 

Manual,' 1849 ; Prof. Geikie's notes 
on the, i. 329. 

Geometry, liking for, i. 33. 

German reading, i. 126. 

German translation of the ' Journal of 
Researches,' i. 323. 

German translation of the ' Origin of 
Species,' ii. 276, 357 ; new edition 
of the, letter to Prof. J. Victor Carus 
on, iii. 66 ; letter to Prof. Carus on 
the, iii. 109. 

Germany, Hackel's influence in the 
spread of Darwinism in, iii. 67, 

, photograph-album received 

from, iii. 225. 

-, reception of Darwinistic views 

in, ii. 186, 327 ; reception of the 
' Descent of Man ' in, iii. 133. 

■ and France, contrast of progress 

of theory in, iii. 118. 

Gestures, i. 112. 

Gilbert, Dr. J. H., letter to, on varia- 
bility in plants, iii. 342. 

Glacial action and lake-basins, iii. 35. 

Glacial formation, stone-implements in 
relation to the, ii. 364. 

Glacial period, ii. 135, 136 ; influence 
of the, on distribution, i. 88 ; traces 
of, in New Zealand, iii. 6. 


Glacial Period and extinction of large 

Mammals, iii. 230. 
Glaciation in the tropics, Bates and 

Belt on, ii. 361. 
Glacier action in North Wales, i. 

Glaciers, ancient, of Caernarvonshire,. 

paper on, i. 302. 
Glands, sticky, of the pollinia, iii. 

Glen Roy, visit to, and paper on, i. 68 ; 

doubts as to the theory of marine 

origin, i. 333 ; criticism of Darwin's 

views on, by Mr. D. Milne-Home, 

i. 361 ; expedition to, i. 290, 292 ; 

R. Chambers on the parallel roads 

of, i. 362, 363. 
Glossothcriiim, i. 276. 
Gnetaceae, origin of the flowers of, iii. 
Godron's 'Florula juvenalis,' ii. 

Gold-crested Wren, sexual differences 

of the, iii. 124. 
Goldfinch, sexual differences of the, iii. 

Goodacre, Dr., observations on the 

fertility of hybrids from the common 

and Chinese goose, iii. 240. 
Good Success Bay, landing in, i. 


Gorilla, brain of, compared with that 
of man, ii. 320. 

Gorse, seedlings of, ii. 102. 

Gould, John, ii. 25. 

Gourmet Club, i. 169. 

Gower Street, residence in, i. 299. 

Grafts, effects produced upon the stock 
by, iii. 57. 

Graham, W., letter to, i. 315. 

Grant, Dr. R. E., i. 38 ; an evolu- 
tionist, ii. 188. 

Gravity, light, &c, acting asi stmuli, 

iii- 33 6 , 337- 
Gray, Dr. Asa, a supporter, ii. 310; 

article on ' Dimorphism in the Geni- 
talia of Plants,' iii. 303; articles in 
the 'Atlantic Monthly,' ii. 333, 354, 
355 '■> reply to Agassiz and others, 
ii- 333 > article by, reprinted in the 
* Annals of Natural History,' ii. 353 ? 
comparison of rain drops and varia- 



tions, i. 314; articles in the 'At- 
lantic Monthly,' ii. 338, 359, 370, 
371 ; ' Darwiniana,'ii. 370; his sup- 
port of Darwin's views, ii. 185, 
314; letter from, to J. D. Hooker, 
on the ' Origin of Species,' ii. 268 ; 
letter from, on the American reprint 
of the ' Origin,' ii. 270 ; " Note 
on the coiling of the Tendrils of 
Plants," iii. 311 ; notice in the Na- 
tion, of the - Variation of Animals and 
Plants,' iii. 84 ; on the aphorism : 
" Nature abhors close-fertilisation," 
iii. 259 ; on variations being speci- 
ally ordered or guided, iii. 62 ; 
review of the ' Fertilisation of 
Orchids' by, in ' Silliman's Journal,' 
iii. 272. 
Gray, Dr. Asa, letters to : — on Design in 
Nature, i. 315; on variation and on the 
American flora, ii. 60, 61 ; on Natural 
Selection and on geographical distri- 
bution, ii. 78 ; on Trees and Shrubs, 
ii. 89 ; on the recording of varieties of 
plants, ii. 106 ; with abstract of the 
theory of the ' Origin of Species,' ii. 
120 ; on climate and migration, ii. 
135 ; on the difficulties of the work, 
ii. 155 ; sending him the ' Origin 
of Species,' ii. 217'; suggesting an 
American edition, ii. 244, 269 ; on 
his review of the 'Origin,' ii. 286; 
on Sedgwick's and Pictet's reviews, 
ii. 296 ; on American reviews, ii. 
305 ; on notices in the ' North British' 
and * Edinburgh ' Reviews, and on the 
theological view, ii. 310; on the dis- 
cussion before the American Aca- 
demy, ii. 326 ; on Lyell's change of 
position, ii. 326 ; on the position of 
Profs. Agassiz and Parsons, ii. 332 ; 
on his article in the ' Atlantic Month- 
ly,' ii. 338 ; on degrees of acceptance, 
ii. 344 ; on his essay and on change 
of. species by descent, ii. 371 ; on 
design, ii. 353, 373, 377, 381 ; on 
the American war, ii. 376, 381 ; 
on his sending postage-stamps, ii. 
383 ; on the spread of the doc- 
trine of Evolution and on the 
French translation of the ' Origin,' 
ii. 386 ; on language and on Colenso's 


' Pentateuch,' ii. 390 ; on Lyell's 
' Antiquity of Man,' and on the Civil 
War in the United States, iii. 10; 
on Phyllotaxy, iii. 52 ; on the ' Varia- 
tion of Animals, &c.,' iii. 73; on 
the American edition, iii. 84; on 
the ' Descent of Man,' iii. 131 ; on 
the biographical notice in ' Nature,' 
iii. 189 ; on their election to the 
French Institute, iii. 223 ; on the 
' Expression of the Emotions,' iii. 
134; on fertilisation of Papilionaceous 
flowers and Lobelia by insects, iii. 
259, 260 ; on the structure of ir- 
regular flowers, iii. 262 ; on Orchids, 
iii. 263, 264, 271, 273, 284; on his 
article in ' Nature,' iii. 283 ; on cross- 
and self-fertilisation, iii. 290, 292, 
293 ; on different forms of flowers in 
species of Primula, iii. 298, 300 ; on 
Lythriwi, iii. 301 ; on Linum grandi' 
floruni, iii. 302 note; on " dicecio- 
dimorphism," iii. 303; on dimorphic 
plants, iii. 306, 308 ; on the Oxlip, 
iii. 306 ; on the fertilisation of Linum 
grandiflorum, iii. 302, note; on 
movement of tendrils, iii. 313 ; on 
the climbing of Bignonia caprcolata, 
iii. 314 ; on climbing plants, iii. 316 ; 
on Drosera, iii. 318, 322, 325 ; on 
the " bloom " of leaves and fruit, iii. 


Gray, John Edward, his opinion of the 
' Origin,' ii. 243. 

Gray's ' Statistics of the Flora of the 
Northern United States,' ii. 88. 

Great Marlborough Street, residence 
in, i. 67-99, 2 79- 

Greeks, ancient, high intellectual 
development of the, ii. 295. 

Greenland, connexion of American and 
European Alpine plants through, ii. 

Grote, A., meeting with, i. 76. 

Gully, Dr., his belief in mesmerism and 
clairvoyance; i. 373. 

Gunther, Dr. A., letters to : — on Ford's 
woodcuts, iii. 122; on sexual differ- 
ences, iii. 123. 

Gurney, Edmund, letter to, on music, 
iii. 186; contribution to the vivi- 
section discussion, iii. 210. 




Haast, Sir J. von, at Cambridge, 
1886, iii. 5 ; letter to, on the pro- 
gress of Science in New Zealand, 
iii. 6. 

Hackel, Professor Ernst, embryologi- 
cal researches of, i. 89 ; his adoption 
of the theory, iii. 16 ; influence of, in 
the spread of Darwinism in Germany, 
iii. 67, 68. 

, letters to : — on the progress 

of Evolution in England, iii. 68 ; 
on his works, iii. 104 ; on the 
'Descent of Man,' iii. 136; on the 
' Natiirliche Schopfungs-Geschichte ' 
and on spontaneous generation, iii. 
177; on the 'Expression of the 
Emotions,' iii. 171 ; on the receipt 
of an album of photographs, iii. 

Hackel's ' Freedom in Science and 
Teaching,' iii. 236. 

' Generelle Morphologie,' ' Ka- 

diolaria,' ' Schopfungs-Geschichte,' 
and ' Ursprung des Menschen-Gesch- 
lechts,' iii. 67, 68, 104. 

' Natiirliche Schopfungs-Ges- 

chichte,' iii. 104; Huxley's review of, 

iii. 119. 
Hague, James, on the reception of the 

' Descent of Man,' iii. 133. 
Hair and teeth, correlation of, iii. 

Hairiness of Alpine plants, ii. 91, 92, 

Haliburton, Mrs., letter to, on the 

' Expression of the Emotions,' iii. 

173; on personal matters, iii. 174; 

letter to, iii. 334. 
Hardie, Mr., i. 38. 
Harris, William Snow, i. 215. 
Hartung on boulders on the Azores, ii. 

112, 113. 
Harvey, Professor W. H., article by, 

in the Gardefiers* Chronicle, ii. 

274, 275, 276, 290 ; note on, ii. 274 

note; his 'serio-comic squib,' ii. 

314 ; opposition to Darwin's views, 

ii. 184 ; review of the ' Origin,' 

in the Dublin Hospital Gazette, ii. 

Haughton, Professor S., opinion on the 

new views of Wallace and Darwin, 


i. 85 ; criticism on the theory of the 

origin of species, ii. 157. 
Hawks, pellets cast up by, ii. 84, 

Health, i. Ill, 159; improved, during 

the last ten years of life, iii. 355. 
Hearing, influence of breathing upon, 

iii. 141. 
Heart, pain felt in the region of the, 

i. 64; iii. 355, 357. 
Heat, effect of, upon leaves of Drosera, 

iii. 323. 
Hedychium, removal of the pollen of, 

by the wings of butterflies, iii. 283, 

Hedysarnm, habits of, ii. 59. 
Heliotropism of seedlings, iii. 336, 

Hemiptera, apterous, occurrence of 

winged individuals of, iii. 199. 

Henslow, Professor, character of, by 
Darwin, i. 186-188 ; lectures by, 
at Cambridge, i. 48 ; introduction to, 
i. 52 ; intimacy with i. 169, 182, 185, 
186; his opinion of Lyell's 'Prin- 
ciples,' i. 72 ; of the Darwinian 
theory, i. 285, 287, 327 ; last illness 
and death of, ii. 363, 372 ; L. Blome- 
field's memoir, ofii. 372. 

, letter from, on the offer of the 

appointment to the 'Beagle,' i. 192 ; 

, letter to, from Rev. G. Peacock, 

1. 191. 

-, letters to : — relating to the ap- 

pointment to the ' Beagle,' i. 195, 
199, 203, 214, 216; from Rio de 
Janeiro, i. 235; at sea between the 
Falklands and the Rio Negro, i. 242 ; 
from East Falkland Island, i. 249 ; 
from Sydney, i. 264 ; from St. 
Helena, i. 267 ; from Shrewsbury, i. 
269 ; as to destination of specimens 
collected during the voyage of the 
' Beagle,' i. 273. 
, letters to :—i 836-1 842, i. 283, 

284, 285, 288 ; on the purchase of a 
farm in Lincolnshire, i. 343 note; 
sending him the ' Origin,' ii. 217. 
Herbert, John Maurice, i. 49 ; anec- 
dotes from, i. 164, 166, 171 ; letter 
to, i. 172; letter to, from Botofogo 
Bay, i. 238; from Maldonado, i. 




246 ; letter to, on the ' South Ameri- 
can Geology,' i. 334. 
Herbert, Hon. and Rev. W., visit to, 

*• 343- 

Hermaphrodite flowers, first idea of 
cross-fertilisation of, iii. 257. 

animals, terrestrial, not fitted for 

self-impregnation, iii. 260. 

Herschel, Sir J., acquaintance with, i. 
74 ; visit to, i., 268 ; letter from Sir 
C. Lyell to, on the theory of coral- 
reefs, i. 324 ; his opinion of the 
* Origin,' ii. 242; on the Origin of 
Species, ii. 373. 

Hesperiadse, iii. 151. 

Heterogenesis, iii. 168. 

Heterogeny, iii. 19 note, 20. 

Heterostyled plants, iii. 295 ; some 
forms of fertilisation of, analogous 
to hybridisation, iii. 296. 

Hieraciwn, protean forms of, iii. 188. 

Higginson, Colonel, letter to, on his 
visit to Down, ' Essays ' and ' Life 
with a Black Regiment,' iii. 176. 

* Highland Agricultural Journal,' re- 
view of the ' Origin ' in the, ii. 


Hildebrand, Prof. F., letters to: — on 

the fertilisation of Salvia, Corydalis, 

ike, iii. 280 ; on dimorphism in 

flowers, iii. 305, 306. 
, on an explosive arrangement 

in the flowers of some Marantese, iii. 

287 note. 
Hilgendorf, on fossil freshwater mol- 

lusca, iii. 232. 
' Himalayan Journal,' Hooker's letter 

on the, i. 392. 
Himantopns, variability of length of 

legs, ii. 97. 
Hippocrates, priority of, with the 

doctrine of pangenesis, iii. 82. 
Hoaxes, i. 105. 
Hoffman, Prof., on the variability of 

plants, iii. 345. 
Holidays, i. 129, 130. 

from 1842 to 1854, i. 330. 

Holland, photograph-album received 

from, iii. 225. 
, Royal Society of, election as 

a Foreign Member of the, iii. 



Holland, Sir H., his opinions of the 
theory, ii. 251 ; opinion of Pange- 
nesis, iii. 78. 

Holmgren, Frithiof, letter to, on vivi- 
section, iii. 205. 

Home, love of, i. 225, 261. 

Homo and Satyrits, gap between, ii. 

Homoeopathic explanation of origin of 
species, ii. 383. 

Homologues, non-electrical, of the 
electrical organs of fishes, ii. 


Honours, Degrees and Societies, list of, 

iii- 373-376. 

Hooker, Sir J. D., Address to the 
British Association at Norwich, 1868, 
iii. 100 ; appointment of as Assistant 
Director at Kew, ii. 57 ; on Conti- 
nental extensions, ii. 72 ; on the 
training obtained by the work on 
Cirripedes, i. 346 ; proposed visit to 
Palestine, ii. 337 ; reminiscences of 
acquaintance with C. Darwin, ii. 19, 
23, 26 ; review of the ' Fertilisation 
of Orchids ' by, iii. 273 ; speech at 
Oxford, in answer to Bishop Wilber- 
force, ii. 322, 323 ; lecture on In- 
sular Floras, iii. 47 ; letters from, on 
the ' Origin of Species,' ii. 228, 

, letters to : — i. 360, 361 ; on 

the ' Vestiges,' and on the imagi- 
nation of the mother affecting her 
offspring, i. 333 ; on his candi- 
dature for the Professorship of 
Botany at Edinburgh, i. 335, 342 ; 
on the relation of soil to vegetation, 
i. 345 ; relating to work on species, 
and Southampton Meeting of the 
British Association, i. 351 ; letter to, 
on his proposed expedition to India, 
i. 352, 360; on Watson's views on 
species and varieties, i. 354 ; on 
coal-plants, i. 356, 357, 359, 360; 
on the custom of appending the 
name of the first describer to 
species, i. 364 ; announcing death 
of R. W. Darwin, and an inten- 
tion to try water-cure, i. 372 ; on 
geological letters from the Hima- 
layas, i. 376 ; on the Birmingham 




Meeting (1849) of the British Asso- 
ciation, and on the cold-water treat- 
ment at Malvern, i. 378 ; on the 
award of the Royal Society's Medal, 
i. 388 ; on his ' Himalayan Jour- 
nal,' i. 392 ; on his return from 
his Antarctic voyage, ii. 21 ; on 
the theory of the origin of species, 
ii. 23-21 ; on variations, ii. 37 ; 
on rise and fall of land, ii. 38 ; 
on the New Zealand Flora, cirri- 
pedial work, and ' Himalayan Jour- 
nal,' ii. 39; on the New Zealand 
Flora, ii. 41 ; on the Philosophical 
Club, Humboldt and Agassiz, ii. 42 ; 
on the Royal Society's Medal, ii. 44 ; 
on Wollaston's ' Insecta Maderensia,' 
ii. 44 ; on the germination of soaked 
seeds, ii. 54, 55, 57 ; on botanical 
work, ii. 58 ; on vitality of seeds, ii. 
65 ; on the preparation of a sketch 
of the theory of species, ii. 68, 70 ; 
on Wollaston's ' Variation of Spe- 
cies,' and on continental extensions, 
ii. y^ ; on continental extension, ii. 
80, 81 ; on geographical distribu- 
tion, ii. 83, 84, 85, 86 ; on natural 
selection, ii. 86 ; on the definition of 
4 species,' ii. 88 ; on variation, ii. 
90 ; on the influence of climate on 
plants, ii. 91 ; on Alpine plants, ii. 
96 ; on variability of abnormal de- 
velopments, ii. 97, 98; on variability 
and the struggle for existence, ii. 98 ; 
on the giving of medals, and on 
variation of abnormal developments, 
ii. IOO ; on seedling gorses, ii. 102 ; 
on variation in large genera, ii. 102, 
105, 107 ; On erratic boulders in the 
Azores, ii. 112-119; on the papers 
read before the Linnean Society, ii. 
119, 126, 128, 130 ; on Bentham's 
' British Flora ' and progress of 
work, ii. 132; on the 'Abstract,' ii. 
I 33^ I37> I39> 142 ; on thistle-seeds, 
ii. 134; on Falconer's opinion, ii. 
138, on distribution, ii. 142, 144 ; on 
Wallace's letter, ii. 145 ; on nuts in 
crops of nestling petrels, and on the 
value of embryological characters, ii. 
147, 148 ; on geographical distribu- 
tion, ii. 149 ; on the arrangement 


with Mr. Murray, ii. 153, 156 ; on 
Prof. Haughton's remarks, ii. 157; 
on style and variability, ii. 157 ; on 
failure of health, ii. 158, 163 ; on 
the co-existence of man and extinct 
animals, ii. 160 ; on the completion of 
proof-sheets, ii. 165; from Ilkley, on 
the ' Introduction to the Australian 
Flora,' ii. 171, 175 ; on the review 
of the ' Origin ' in the Athenceum 
ii. 224, 228 ; on naturalists, ii. 225 ; 
on the success of the ' Origin,' ii. 
243 ; on Naudin's theory, ii. 246, 
252 ; on the review in the Times , ii. 
252 ; on his ' Australian Flora,' ii. 
257 ; on his review in the Gardeners' 
Chronicle, ii. 267 ; on a proposed 
historical sketch of opinion on muta- 
bility of species, ii. 273 ; on Harvey's 
objections, ii. 274, 275 ; on the pro- 
gress of opinion, ii. 291, 313; on 
Mr. Matthew's claim of priority and 
the ' Edinburgh Review,' ii. 301 ; on 
notices in the ' Edinburgh ' and ' North 
American,' Reviews, ii. 304 ; on the 
Cambridge opposition, ii. 307 ; on 
the meaning of ' ' Natural selection," 
ii. 316 ; on the British Association 
discussion, ii. 323 ; on the review in 
the ' Quarterly,' ii. 324 ; on his pro- 
posed visit to Palestine, ii. 337 ; on 
Dr. Asa Gray's pamphlet, ii. 355 > 
on criticisms of the theory, ii. 358 ; 
on the ' Natural History Review,' ii. 
360 ; on Bates' ' Insect fauna of the 
Amazon Valley,' ii. 361 ; on Ben- 
tham's views, ii. 362 ; on Henslow's 
death, ii. 372 ; on Harvey's review, 
ii- 375 j on tne American troubles 
and the improvement of the aris- 
tocracy by selection, ii. 384 ; on 
collecting and holidays, iii. 5 ; on 
Lyell's ' Antiquity of Man, 'hi. 7, 15 ; 
on the origin of life, iii. 17; on 
Falconer's article on Lyell's book, 
iii. 18 ; on letters in the papers, iii. 
23 ; on the Copley Medal, iii. 28 ; 
on the loss of children, iii. 39 ; on 
Dr. Wells' recognition of ' Natural 
Selection,' iii. 41 ; on his lecture on 
"Insular Floras," iii. 47 ; on the pro- 
secution of Governor Eyre, iii. 53 ; 




on the Flora of New Zealand, iii. 55 ; 
on the bulk of his book on ' Varia- 
tion under Domestication,' iii. 59 
note ; on the Duke of Argyll's ' Reign 
of Law,' iii. 61 ; on the completion 
and publication of the book on 
1 Vaiiation under Domestication,' iii. 
74, 75, 76, 77 ; on pangenesis, iii. 
81 ; on work, iii. 92 ; on the British 
Association Meeting, 1868, iii. 100 ; 
on a visit to Wales, iii. 106 ; on a 
new French translation of the 
' Origin,' iii. no; on a visit to Cam- 
bridge, iii. 125 ; on troubles at Kew, 
iii. 166 ; on Belt's ' Naturalist in 
Nicaragua,' iii. iSS ; on the death of 
Sir Charles Lyell, iii. 197 ; on vivi- 
section, iii. 204 ; on Mr. Ouless' 
portrait, iii. 195 ; on the Earth- 
worm, iii. 217; on his address to 
the Geographical Section of the 
British Association, iii. 246 ; on the 
fertilisation of Orchids, iii. 262, 263, 
264, 265, 266, 268 ; on establishing 
a hot-house, iii. 269 ; on his review 
of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' iii. 
273 ; on different forms of flowers in 
species of Primula, iii. 297, 298; on 
Lythrum, iii. 302, 306 ; on Viola, 
iii. 307 ; on movement in plants, iii. 
311, 312; on climbing plants, iii. 
314, 315, 316 ; on Drosera, iii. 317, 
319, 320 ; on Utricularia, iii. 326 ; 
on Aldrovanda, iii. 328 ; on the 
' Insectivorous Plants,' iii. 328 ; on 
the movements of plants, iii. 330, 
334 ; on the ' bloom ' of leaves and 
fruit, iii. 339, 342 ; on galls, iii. 346 ; 
on health and work, iii. 356. 

Hooker, Sir J. D., note to, on the life of 
Erasmus Darwin, iii. 219 ; on the Em- 
peror of Brazil, iii. 227 ; on the death 
of Erasmus Alvey Darwin, iii. 228. 

, and Bentham, G., the ' Genera 

Plantarum,' by, ii. 306. 

Hooker, Sir \V., death of, iii. 39. 

Hooker's 'Himalayan Journal,' publi- 
cation of, i. 391, 392. 

' Introduction to the Flora of 

Australia,' references to, ii. 225, 245, 

Hope, Rev. F. W., i. 174, 178, 181. 

Hopkins, W., reviews of the 'Origin ' in 

'Eraser's Magazine,' ii. 314, 315, 327 ; 

letter to Henry Fawcett, ii. 315 note. 
Horner, Leonard, i. 40. 
Horror, expression of, iii. 142, 143. 
Horses, humanity to, iii. 200. 

, striped, ii. ill. 

Hospitality, i. 139. 
Hot-hOuse, building of, iii. 269. 
Hottonia, pollen of, iii. 301. 
Humboldt, Baron A. von, i. 336 ; ii. 

43 ; meeting with, i. 74. 
■ ■ — as a scientific traveller, iii. 

Humboldt's * Personal Narrative,' i. 


Huth, Mr., on "Consanguineous Mar- 
riage,' i. 106. 

Hutton, Capt. F. \V., review of the 
' Origin,' ii. 362. 

Huxley, Prof. T. H., i. 102 ; article in 
the ' Contemporary Review,' against 
Mivart, and the Quarterly reviewer 
of the 'Descent of Man,' iii. 147; 
lecture by, at the Royal Institution, 
ii. 280, 282-284 > lecture on ' the 
Coming of Age of the Origin of 
Species,' iii. 240; lectures on 'Our 
knowledge of the causes of Organic 
Nature,' iii. 2 ; suggested popular 
treatise on Zoology by, iii. 3, 4 ; 
on the discovery of toothed birds 
in the Cretaceous of North Ame- 
rica, iii. 242 note; on the progress 
of the doctrine of Evolution, iii. 
132 ; on the reception of the ' Origin 
of Species,' ii. 179-204 ; on the value 
as training, of Darwin's work on the 
Cirripedes, i. 347 ; ' On the Zoo- 
logical Relations of Man with the 
lower Animals,' ii. 358 ; opinion of 
Hackel's work, iii. 67, 68 ; proposal 
to review all the reviewers, ii. 
311; reply to Kolliker's 'Darwin- 
sche Schopfungstheorie,' iii. 29 ; 
reply to Owen, on the ' Brain in 
Man and the Gorilla,' ii. 320, 324 ; 
review of the ' Origin ' in the ' West- 
minster Review,' ii. 300 ; speech at 
Oxford, in answer to the Bishop, ii. 
322, 323, 324. 

; letters from, on the ' Origin of 




Species/ ii. 231 ; on von Bar's views, 
ii. 329. 

Huxley, Prof. T. H., letters to :— ii. 172 ; 
on his adoption of the theory, ii. 232 ; 
on the idea of creation, ii. 251 ; on 
the review in the Times, ii. 253 ; on 
authorities on cross-breeding, ii. 280 ; 
on the discussion at Oxford, ii. 324 ; 
on the views of von Bar, Agassiz, 
and "Wagner, ii. 330 ; on the third 
edition of the 'Origin,' ii. 351; on 
the effect of reviews, ii. 354; on his 
Edinburgh lectures, and on hybri- 
dism, ii. 384 ; suggesting a popular 
treatise on Zoology, iii. 3 ; on the 
Copley Medal, hi. 28 ; on his reply 
to Kolliker, iii. 29 ; on pangenesis, 
iii. 43, 44, 45 ; on his address to the 
Geological Society, 1869, iii. 113; 
on rudimentary organs, iii. 119; on 
his review of Mivart's ' Genesis of 
Species,' iii. 148, 149; on the pre- 
paration of a new edition of the 
'Descent of Man,' iii. 175; on 
spiritualism, iii. 187 ; on ' the com- 
ing of age of the Origin of Species,' 
iii. 240 ; on ' Science and Culture,' 
iii. 251. 

<, last letter to, iii. 358. 

Huxley's 'Man's place in Nature,' 
review of, in the Athenceum, iii. 

Hyatt, Prof. A., letter to, on errors in 
the sixth edition of the ' Origin,' iii. 


, on acceleration and retardation 

of development, iii. 154, 233; on 

Hilgendorf's fossil fresh-water mol- 

lusca, iii. 232. 
Hybridisation, analogy of, with some 

forms of fertilisation of heterostyled 

plants, iii. 296. 
Hybridism, ii. 1 10 ; Asa Gray on, ii. 

Hybridity, iii. 302. 
Hybrids, ii. 384 ; sterility of, ii. 96. 
from the common and Chinese 

goose, fertility of, iii. 240. 
Hydropathic establishments, visits to, 

i. 131. 

treatment, i. 81, 85. 

Hypothesis and Theory, ii. 286. 

Ice, boulders transported by floating, 

paper on, i. 302. 
Icebergs, stranding of, on the Azores 

ii. 112. 
Ichneumonidse, and their function, ii. 

Idiots, microcephalous, examples of, 

iii. 163. 
Idleness a sign of ill-health, i. 127. 
Ilkley, residence at, in 1859, ii. 205 ; 

water-cure at, ii. 171, 175. 
Illegitimacy of remarkable men, iii. 

Ill-health, i. 69, 80, 81, 85, 107, 284, 

299-302, 350, 352-163 ; iii. 1, 

27. _ 
Imitation, protective, iii. 151. 
Immortality of the Soul, i. 312. 
Implements, stone, in Biddenham 

gravel pits, ii. 364. 
Improvement, principle of, ii. 176. 
Incipient structures, iii. 152. 
Indian Ocean, former continental ex- 
tension in the southern, ii. 74. 
Indian plants invading Australia, ii. 

Individual differences and single varia- 
tions, relative importance of, iii. 107, 

Infant, biographical sketch of an, iii. 

Infra-homo, ii. 227. 

Infusoria, Secondary, ii. 210. 

Inheritance of sexual characters, iii. 

Innes, Rev. J. Brodie, i. 122, 143. 

on Darwin's position with 

regard to theological views, ii. 288 ; 
note on the review in the ' Quar- 
terly ' and Darwin's appreciation 
of it, ii. 325 note 1 anecdote illus- 
trative of Mr. Darwin's extreme 
conscientiousness, iii. 53 ; letter 
to, on the 'Descent of Man,' iii. 

' Insectivorous Plants,' work on the, 
iii. 181 ; publication of, i. 96 ; iii. 

Insects, i. 35 ; absence of, in small 
islands, ii. 30 ; agency of, in cross- 
fertilisation, iii. 258 ; blind, in caves, 
ii. 265 ', ' bloom ' sometimes aprotec- 



tion from, iii. 341 ; colour in, acquired 
by sexual selection, iii. 137 ; flower- 
frequenting, impulse given by, to the 
development of the higher plants, iii. 
248 ; musical organs of, iii. 97 ; 
spread of European, in New Zea- 
land, iii. 6 ; sucking, influence of, 
on the development of the Dicoty- 
ledons, iii. 285. 

Instinct, ii. 318, 305. 

Instincts, congenital habits, iii. 170 ; 
difficulty of discussing, iii. 244. 

Institute of France, election as a 
corresponding member of the Botan- 
ical section of the, iii. 223. 

Intellectual powers, gradation of the, 
ii. 211. 

Intelligence in Earthworms, iii. 243. 

Intermarriage of cousins, iii. 129, 130. 

Internode, uppermost, of branches of 
Echinocystis lobata, twisting of the, 
iii. 312, 313. 

Islands, distribution of species in, ii. 
24, 25 ; mammals on, ii. 334, 335 ; 
antiquity of, ii. 335 ; oceanic, 
absence of secondary and palaeozoic 
rocks from, ii. 76, 80 ; relationships 
of species in, ii. 24, 25. 

Isle of Wight, visit to (in 1867), iii. 

Isolation, effects of, iii. 157, 159, 161 ; 
influence of, in modifying species, ii. 
28, 29. 

JACKSON, B. Daydon, preparation of 
the Kew-Index placed under the 
charge of, iii. 353. 

Janet's, ' Materialisme Contemporain,' 
iii. 46. 

Japan and China, junction of, ii. 137. 

Jardine, Sir Wm., criticisms of the 
'Origin,' ii. 246. 

Jemmy Button, i. 251. 

Jenkin, Fleeming, review of the 
'Origin,' iii. 107, 108. 

Jenyns, Rev. Leonard, acquaintance 
with, i. 54 ; his opinion of the theory 
ii. '285, 287, 32jnote; reminiscences 
of insect-collecting in Cambridge- 
shire, i. 364 note. 

, letters to : — i. 181 ; with charac- 

ter of Henslow, i. 186, 188 ; on the 
' Origin of Species,' ii. 219, 263 ; on 
the ' Naturalists' Pocket Almanack,' 
i- 353 > on tne importance of small 
facts in natural history, ii. 31 ; 
on checks to increase of species, ii. 
33 ; on his ' Observations in Natural 
History,' ii. 35 ; on power of work, 
iii. 211. 
Jones, Dr. Bence, treatment by, iii. 

'Journal of Researches,' i. 79, 80, 279, 

282, 283 ; publication of the second 

edition of the, i. 337 ; differences in 

the two editions of the, with regard 

to the theory of species, ii. 1-5 ; 

German translation of the, i. 323 ; 

pronounced unfit for publication, iii. 


Juan Fernandez, ii. 94. 

Judd, Prof., on Mr. Darwin's inten- 
tion to devote a certain sum to the 
advancement of scientific interests, 



Judd's ' Ancient Volcanoes of the 

Highlands,' iii. 190. 
Jukes, Prof. Joseph B., ii. 293. 

Keeling Atoll, insects on, ii. 30. 

Kerguelen Land, ii. 74, 93 ; Lignite- 
plants of, iii. 247. 

Kerner's ' Flowers and their Unbidden 
Guests,' Dr. Ogle's translation of, iii. 

Kew Gardens, progress of, under the 
Hookers, iii. 39 note; agitation to 
open all day, iii. 331. 

Kew-Index of plant names, iii. 351 ; 
endowment of, by Mr. Darwin, iii. 

Kew, Sir Joseph Hooker's troubles at, 

iii. 166. 

Keyserling, Count, his opinion of the 

' Origin,' ii. 261. 
Kidney-beans, fertilisation of, iii. 259, 

King, Dr.-, letter of thanks to, or 

information on Earthworms, iii. 

Kingsley, Rev. Charles, letter from, on 

the 'Origin of Species,' ii. 287; on 




the progress of the theory of Evolu- 
tion, iii. 2. 

Kirby, Rev. William, on breeding cats, 
ii. 348. 

Koch's researches on splenic fever, iii. 

Kolliker's ' Ueber die Darwin'sche 

Schopfungstheorie,' answered by 

T. H. Huxley, iii. 29. 

Kolreuter on sexuality in plants, iii. 


Kossuth, character of, ii. 113. 

Krause, Ernst, ' Life of Erasmus Dar- 
win,' i. 97 ; on Hackel's services to 
the cause of Evolution in Germany, 
iii. 67, 68 ; on the work of Dr. 
Erasmus Darwin, iii. 218. 

Krohn, Prof. Aug., on Cirripedes, ii. 
345 ; i"- 2. 

Laburnums, iii. 57. 
Laccadive islands, ii. 77* 
Lake-basins and glacial action, iii. 35. 
Lamarck's ' Philosophic Zoologique,' ii. 

views, references to, ii. 23, 29, 

39, 207, 215 ; iii. 14, 15. 
Lamellicorn beetles, stridulating organs 

of, iii. 97. 
Landois, H., on the stridulating organs 

of insects, iii. 97. 
Lankester, E. Ray, letter to, iii. 120 ; 

letter to, on the reception of the 

1 Descent of Man,' iii. 138. 
, on ' Comparative Longevity,' 

iii. 120. 
La Plata, deposits containing extinct 

Mammalia in the neighbourhood of 

the, i. 279 ; woodpecker of the, ii. 

351 ; pithing of lassoed cows, by the 

Gauchos of, iii. 245. 
Large areas, perfection of forms inhabit- 
ing, ii. 142. 
Lascelles family, i. 2, 3. 
Last words, iii. 358. 
Lathyrns grandiflorus, fertilisation of, 

by bees, iii. 260. 
Laugel, M., notice of the 'Origin of 

Species,' ii. 186 ; Review of the 

' Origin ' by, in the ' Revue des 

Deux Mondes,' ii. 305. 


Laughing, i. in. 

Laws, designed, ii. 312. 

Leaves, divergence of, investigation of 
the, iii. 23. 

, position of, on plants, iii. 51, 

52 ; position of, during rain, iii. 342. 

Lecky's ' Rise of Rationalism in Eu- 
rope,' iii. 40. 

Lecoq, a believer in mutability of 
species, iii. 26. 

Lecoq's ' Geographie Botanique,' iii. 

Lecture, Huxley's, at the Royal Institu- 
tion, ii. 238. 

Lee, Professor Samuel, i. 289. 

Legislation, attempted, in connection 
with vivisection, iii. 201, 203. 

Leibnitz, objections raised by, to New- 
ton's Law of Gravitation, ii. 290. 

Lens, simple, use of the, i. 145. 

Lepidodendron, i. 357, 359. 

Lepidoptera, sexual selection in, iii. 

Lepidosiren, ii. 143. 

Lcschenaultia, fertilisation of, iii. 261. 

Lesquereux, L., conversion of, iii. 31 

Lewes, G. H., review of the ' Varia- 
tion of Animals and Plants,' in the 
Pall Mall Gazette, iii. 7. 

Lewisham and Blackheath Scientific 
Association, visit from the, iii. 227. 

Life, origin of, iii. 18. 

Light, gravity, &c, acting as stimuli, iii. 

336, 337- 
Lightning, ii. 312. 

Lignite-plants of Kerguelen Land, iii. 

Lima, letter to W. D. Fox, from, i. 262. 
Linaria vulgaris, observations on cross- 

and self-fertilisation in, iii. 290. 
Lincolnshire, purchase of a farm in, i. 


Lindley, John, i. 389. 

Lingula, ii. 340. 

Linnean Society, joint paper with A. 
R. Wallace, read before the, ii. 115, 
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 125, 126, 
128, 129, 1 30; portrait at the, iii. 
223 ; reading of the paper on 
Primula before the, iii. 299. 

IJnum, Dimorphic species of, iii. 297. 




Lhiumflavum, dimorphism of, i. 91. 

List of naturalists who had adopted the 
theory in March, i860, ii. 293. 

Litchfield, Mrs., letter to, on vivisec- 
tion, iii. 202. 

Litchfield, R. B., Bill regulating vivi- 
section, drawn up by, iii. 204. 

' Literary Churchman,' review of the 
' Fertilisation of Orchids ' in the, iii. 

Literature, taste in, i. 101. 

Little-Go, passed, i. 180. 

Lizards' eggs, ii. 53. 

Lobelias, not self-fertilisable, iii. 260. 

Local influence, at Down, i. 142. 

London, residence in, i. 67-78 ; from 
1836 to 1842, i. 272-303. 

* London Review,' notice of the 
1 Origin ' in the, ii. 32S ; opinion of 
the, ii. 364 ; review of the ' Fertili- 
sation of Orchids ' in the, iii. 270. 

Lonsdale, W., i. 275. 

Lords, influence of selection on, ii. 385 ; 
iii. 91. 

Lowe Archipelago, ii. jy. 

Lowell, J. A., review of the ' Origin ' in 
the Christian Examiner, ii. 31S, 

Lubbock, Sir John, letter from, to W. 

E. Darwin, on the funeral in West- 
minster Abbey, iii. 361 ; letters to : — 
on statistics of New Zealand Flora, ii. 
104 ; on beetle-collecting, ii. 141 ; on 
the publication of the ' Origin of Spe- 
cies,' ii. 218, 219, 242 ; on 'Prehis- 
toric Times,' iii. 36 ; on statistics of 
consanguineous marriages, iii. 129 ; 
on his Presidential Address to the 
British Association at York, iii. 249. 

, terrestrial Planaria obtained 

by, iii. 71. 

Lyell, Sir Charles, his reply to Dr. Fal- 
coner's letter in the Athaiicum, iii. 21 ; 
his support of Darwin's views, ii. 1S5 ; 
inclination to accept the notion of 
design, ii. 378 ; on Darwin's theory 
of coral islands, i. 324, 325 ; ac- 
quaintance with, i. 68, 71 ; character 
of, i. 72 ; iii. 197 ; influence of, on 
Geology, i. 73 ; geological views, 
i. 263 ; announcement of the forth- 
coming 'Origin of Species,' to the 



British Association at Aberdeen in 
1859, ii. 166 note, 169 ; adherence of, 
ii. 310; Bishop Wilberforce's remarks 
upon, ii. 325 note ; progress of belief 
in, ii. 345 ; revolution effected by, in 
Geology, iii. 115, 117 ; on the 'Fer- 
tilisation of Orchids,' iii. 273; death 
of, iii. 196, 197 ; extract of letter to, 
on the treatise on volcanic islands, 
i. 326 ; letter from, criticising the 
' Origin,' ii. 205 ; letters to, 1838-40, 
i. 291, 295, 301 ; letters to : — on the 
second edition of the 'Journal of 
Researches,' i. 338 ; on his 'Travels 
in North America,' i. 339, 341 ; on 
Waterton and the translation of 
' Cosmos,' i. 343 ; on the Glen Roy 
Terraces, i. 363 ; referring to Dana's 
' Geology of the United States Expe- 
dition,' i. 374; on his 'Second visit 
to the United States,' i. 376 ; on a 
visit to Lord Mahon, and on the com- 
plemental males of Cirripedes, i. 377 ; 
on his visit to Teneriffe, i. 390. 
Lyell, Sir Charles, letters to: — on his sug- 
gesting the preparation of a sketch of 
the theory, ii. 67, 71 ; on conti- 
nental extensions, ii. 72, 74 ; on the 
Novara expedition, ii. 93 ; on float- 
ing ice, ii. 113; on the receipt of 
Wallace's paper, ii. 116, 117, 118; 
on the papers read before the Linnean 
Society, ii. 129 ; on the mode of pub- 
lication of the 'Origin,' ii. 151, 152 ; 
with proof-sheets, ii. 164, 168, 169 ; 
on the announcement of the work at 
the British Association, ii. 166 ; on 
feral animals and plants, ii. 173; on 
natural selection and improvement, 
ii. 176; in reply to criticisms on the 
' Origin,' ii. 208, 334, 339, 345 ; on 
his adoption of the theory of descent, 
ii. 229, 236 ; on a proposed French 
translation of the 'Origin,' ii. 234; 
on objectors to the theory of descent, 
ii. 237, 241, 260; on Carpenter's 
views, ii. 240 ; on Hooker's ' Austra- 
lian Flora,' ii. 245 ; on Keyserling's 
opinion, ii. 261 ; on the second edi- 
tion of the ' Origin,' ii. 264, 266 ; 
on Huxley's lecture, ii. 280 ; on the 
review of the ' Origin ' in the 

2 D 




' Annals,' ii. 284 ; on objections, ii. 
289 ; on the intellectual develop- 
ment of the Greeks, ii. 295 ; on there- 
view of the ' Origin,' in the Spectator, 
ii. 297 ; on the reviews in the ' Me- 
dical and Chirurgical ' and ' Edin- 
burgh' Reviews, and on Matthew's 
anticipation of the theory of Natural 
Selection, ii. 301 ; on design in varia- 
tion, ii. 303 ; on the 'Atlantis,' ii. 
306 ; on the attack at the Cambridge 
Philosophical Society, ii. 308 ; on 
Hopkins' and other attacks, ii. 314 ; 

317, 319, 33i» 349 J on the British 
Association Meeting at Oxford, ii. 
327 ; on the pedigree of the Mam- 
malia, ii. 341 ; on Krohn's remarks 
on Cirripedes, ii. 345 ; on Bronn's 
objections, ii. 346 ; on preparations 
for the third edition of the ' Origin,' 
and on electric fishes, ii. 352 ; on 
the views of Bowen and Agassiz, ii. 
359; on the 'Antiquity of Man,' 
and on the habits of Ants, ii. 365 ; 
on Maw's review of the ' Origin, ' ii. 
376 ; on variability, ii. 387 ; on 
Falconer's views with regard to 
elephants, ii. 389. 

Lyell, Sir C, letters to : — on the ' An- 
tiquity of Man,' hi. II, 13, 15 ; on 
heterogeny, iii. 20 ; on the Duke of 
Argyll's Address to the Royal 
Society of Edinburgh, iii. 32 ; on 
the ' Elements of Geology,' iii. 35 ; 
on the Duke of Argyll's ' Reign of 
Law,' iii. 65 ; on the 'Variation of 
Animals, &c.'andon 'Pangenesis,' 
iii. 71, 72 ; on Wallace's Article in 
the 'Quarterly Review,' iii. 116 ; on 
Judd's ' Ancient Volcanoes of the 
Highlands,' iii. 190. 

Lyell's ' Elements of Geology,' i. 291 ; 
sixth edition of, iii. 35. 

' Principles of Geology,' ii. 190 ; 

tenth edition of, iii. 114; attitude 
towards the doctrine of Evolution, 

Antiquity of Man,' iii. 8, 10, 

II, 13, 15, 16, 26. 

Lythrum, iii. 27, 31 ; paper on, iii. 
89; trimorphism of, i. 92; ii. 301, 


Ly thrum hyssopifolia, iii. 301. 
salicaria, trimorphic, iii. 297. 

Macaulay, meeting with, i. 75. 
McDonnell, W., on homologues of the 

electrical organs of Fishes, ii. 353. 
Macgillivray, William, i. 42. 
Mackintosh, D., letter to, iii. 235. 
Mackintosh, Sir James, meeting with, 

i. 43« 

Macleay, W. S., i. 281. 

' Macmillan's Magazine,' Huxley's 

Article ' Time and Life ' in, ii. 238, 

239 ; review of the ' Origin ' in, by 

H. Fawcett, ii. 299. 
Macrauchcuia, i. 276. 
Mad-house, attempt to free a patient 

from a, iii. 199 note. 
Madagascar, ii. 74 ; a separate region, 

iii. 230 ; hoax about a carnivorous 

plant of, iii. 325. 
Madeira, ii. 74 ; absence of certain 

groups of insects in, ii. 77 ; birds of, 

ii. 209. 
Maer, visits to, i. 42-44. 
Magnolia, fertilisation of, by insects 

which gnaw the petals, iii. 285. 
Magpies, thieving instincts of, derived, 

ii. 388. 
Mahon, Lord, visit to, i. 377. 
Malay Archipelago, distribution of 

animals in the, ii. 162 ; Wallace's 

'Zoological Geography' of the, ii. 

Malays, expression in the, iii. 95, 96. 
Maldonado, letter to Miss C. Darwin 

from, i. 244 ; letter to J. M. Her- 
bert from, i. 246. 
Malibran, Madame, i. 180. 
Malthus on population, i. 83. 
Malvern, Hydropathic treatment at, i. 

Mammalia, development of, dependent 

on the development of Dicotyledons, 

iii. 285. 
, fossil, from South America, 

i. 276 ; extinct, paper on deposits 

containing, in the neighbourhood of 

the Plata, i. 279 ; stone-implements 

in relation to, ii. 364. 
, origin and development of, 




ii. 341-343 ; origin and distribu- 
tion of, ii. 335 ; Owen's classifica- 
tion of, ii. 266 ; Owen's classifica- 
tion of the, Lyell's appreciation of, 
iii. 10 ; supposed tracks of, in New 
Zealand, iii. 6 ; absence of, on islands, 
ii. 77 ; extinction of large, iii. 230 ; 
on islands, ii. 334, 335. 

Man, ancestor of, ii. 266 ; A. R. Wal- 
lace's views as to the origin of, iii. 
116, 117; brain of, and that of the 
gorilla, ii. 320 ; descent of, i. 93, 94 ; 
influence of sexual selection upon 
the races of, iii. 90, 95 ; objections 
to discussing origin of, ii. 109 ; 
origin of, ii. 263, 264 ; origin and 
races of, ii. 342-344 ; position of, in 
classification, iii. 136 ; Sir R. Owen's 
view of the classificatory position of 
man, ii. 358 ?wte ; work on, iii. 89, 
91, 92. 

Manchester, Dean of, visit to, i. 343. 

Mantegazza, anticipation of the theory 
of Pangenesis by, in his ' Elementi 
di Igiene,' iii. 195. 

Maranteas, explosive arrangement in 
the flowers of some, iii. 287 note. 

Marriage, i. 69, 299. 

Marsh, O. C, letter to, on his • Odon- 
tornithes,' iii. 241. 

Marshall Archipelago, ii. 77. 

Marsupials, persistence of, in Australia, 
ii. 75, 340. 

Masters, Maxwell, letter to, ii. 385. 

Materia Medica, a distasteful subject, 

i. 355- 
Mathematics, difficulties with, i. 170 ; 

distaste for the study of, i. 46. 

Matter, eternity of, an insoluble ques- 
tion, iii. 236. 

Matthew, Patrick, claim of priority in 
the theory of Natural Selection, ii. 
301, 302. 

Maw, George, review of the third 
edition of the ■ Origin ' in the 
' Zoologist,' ii. 376. 

Medals, awarding of, ii. IOO. 

1 Medico-Chirurgical Review,' review 
of the ' Origin ' in the, by W. B. Car- 
penter, ii. 299, 380. 

Aregatherium, i. 360. 

Mclipona, ii. 316. 

Mellersh, Admiral, reminiscences of C. 

Darwin, i. 222. 
Memory, i. 102. 
Mendoza, i. 260. 
Mental peculiarities, i. 100-107. 
Mesmerism, i. 374. 
Metaphysical views, ii. 290. 
Meteyard, Miss, notice of Dr. R. W. 

Darwin, i. 10. 
Microcephalous idiots examples of 

reversion, iii. 163. 
Microscopes, i. 145 ; compound, i. 350, 

Migration and climate, ii. 135, 136, 137. 
Mildew, varieties of the peach not liable 

to, iii. 348. 
1 Mill on the Floss,' iii. 40. 
Milne- Home, D., on boulders on 

Arthur's Seat, i. 328 note ; on Glen 

Roy, i. 361. 
Mimetic plants, iii. 70. 
Mimicry, iii. 151 ; H. W. Bates on, ii. 

Minerals, collecting, i. 34. 
Miracles, i. 308. 
Misery, existence of, ii. 312. 
Mission, South American, iii. 126-128. 
Missionaries in New Zealand and 

Tahiti, i. 264. 
Mitchella, pollen of, iii. 301 ; seed of, 

wanted, iii. 302. 
Mivart's ' Genesis of Species,' iii. 135, 

H3> 144- 
' Lessons from Nature,' review 

of, in the ' Academy,' iii. 184. 

Moggridge, J. Traherne, letter to, on 
the Bee and Spider Orchids, iii. 276. 

Mojsisovics, E. von, letter to, on his 
'Dolomit-Riffe,' iii. 234. 

Molecules, natural selection among, 
within the organism, iii. 1 19; strug- 
gle between the, in the same organ- 
ism, iii. 244. 

Mollusca, bivalve, dispersal of, by 
clinging to legs of water-beetles, iii. 
252 ; freshwater, distribution of, ii. 
93 ; land, difficulty as to dispersal of, 
ii. 85 ; iii. 231 ; land, on islands, ii. 

Monads, continued creation of, ii. 210. 

' Monistic hypothesis,' remarks on the, 
in the ' Quarterly Review,' iii. 184. 

2 D 2 




Monkeys, possible means of communi- 
cation between, ii. 391. 

Monoecious species, conversion of, into 
hermaphrodites, hi. 2S6. 

Monstrosities, ii. 333. 

Monte Video, letter to F. Watkins 
from, i. 240. 

, scenery of, i. 241. 

Moor Park, Hydropathic establishment 
at, i. 85. 

, stunting of Scotch firs near, ii. 


, water-cure at, ii. 67,112. 

Moore, Dr. Norman, treatment by, iii. 

Moral sense, iii. 136, 150. 
Mormodes, iii. 268. 
Morse, E. S., letter to, iii. 233. 
Moseley, Prof. H. N., letter to, on his 

' Notes of a Naturalist on the 

Challenger J iii. 237. 
Moths, feathered antennas of male, iii. 

in ; probable conveyance of pollen 

by the wings of, iii. 284 ; sterility of, 

when hatched out of season, iii. 198 ; 

white, Mr. Weir's observations on, 

iii. 94. 
Motley, meeting with, i. 76. 
Mould, formation of, by the agency of 

Earthworms, paper on the, i. 7°> 

98 ; publication of book on the, iii. 

'Mount,' the, Shrewsbury, Charles 

Darwin's birthplace, i. 9, II. 
Mountains of existing continents, ii. 75, 

, tropical, forms of temperate 

climates on, ii. 136. 
Midler, Fritz, embryological researches 

of, i. 89. 
, ' Fiir Darwin,' iii. 37 ; ' Facts 

and arguments for Darwin,' iii. 86. 

letters to, on his work ' Fiir 

Darwin,' iii. 37 ; on mimicry, iii. 70 ; 
on pangenesis, iii. 83 ; on the trans- 
lation of ' Fiir Darwin,' iii. 86 ; on 
sexual selection, iii. 97, III ; on the 
' Descent of Man,' and on ' Sexual 
Selection,' iii. 150; on Balfour's 
' Comparative Embryology,' iii. 250 ; 
on the effect of drops of water on 
leaves, iii. 342. 

Miiller, Fritz, narrow escape from a 

flood, iii. 242. 
, observations on branch - 

tendrils, iii. 317. 
Miiller, Hermann, iii. 37 ; letters to, 

on the fertilisation of flowers, iii. 281, 


on Sprengel's views as to cross- 
fertilisation, iii. 258. 

on self-fertilisation of plants, 

i. 97. 

Miiller, Prof. Max, 'Lectures on the 
Science of Language,' ii. 390. 

Murchison, Sir R. I., ii. 237. 

Murderer, Dr. Ogle on the arrest of a, 
iii. 141. 

Murray, Andrew, opposition to Dar- 
win's views, ii. 184 ; papers on the 
' Origin of Species,' ii. 261, 265. 

Murray, John, criticisms on the Dar- 
winian theory of coral formation, iii. 


Murray, John, letters to: — relating to the 
publication o f the ' Origin of Species, 
ii. 155, 159 161, 178; on the reception 
of the ' Origin ' in the United States, 
ii. 269 note ; on the third edition of 
the 'Origin,' ii. 356 ; connected with 
the publication of the ' Variation of 
Animals and Plants under Domesti- 
cation,' iii. 59, 60 ; on critiques of 
the ' Descent of Man,' iii. 139 ; on 
the new edition of the ' Descent,' iii. 
176; on the publication of the 
' Fertilisation of Orchids,' iii. 266, 
267, 270 ; on the publication of the 
book on ' Cross- and Self-Fertilisa- 
tion,' iii. 292. 

Music, effects of, i. 101 ; fondness for, 
i. 123, 170; taste for, at Cambridge, 
i. 49, 50. 

Musical instruments, in insects, acquired 
by sexual selection, iii. 138. 

sense, letter to E. Gurney on 

the, iii. 186. 

Mutilla, winged females of, iii. 199. 

Mylodon, i. 276. 

Nagelt, Carl, letter to, iii. 50. 
Nageli's ' Entstehung und Begriff der 
naturhistorischen Art,' iii. 49. 



Names of garden plants, difficulty of 

obtaining, iii. 269. 
* Nancy,' i. 254, 259. 
Naples, Zoological Station at, iii. 198 ; 

donation of ^"ioo to the, for appar- 
atus, iii. 225. 
Nascent organs, ii. 213, 237. 
' Nation,' notice, by Asa Gray in the, 

of the ' Variation of Animals and 

Plants,' ii. 84. 
Natural History, early taste for, i. 

'Natural History Review,' project of 

establishing the, ii. 328. 
Natural selection, ii. 78, S7, 123, 128, 

138, 317, 330- 
, applicability of the term, ii. 

278; belief in, founded on general 
considerations, iii. 25 ; H. C. Watson 
on, ii. 226 ; priority in the theoiy of, 
claimed by Mr. Patrick Matthew, ii. 
301, 302 ; progress of, in Germany, 
iii. 306 ; Sedgwick on, ii. 249 ; 
Wallace's criticism of the term, iii. 
46, 47. 

and sterility, iii. 80. 

Naturalists, list of, who had adopted 
the theory in March, i860, ii. 293. 

'Naturalists' Pocket Almanack,' letter 
to Rev. L. Jenyns on the, i. 353. 

1 Nature,' letter to, in answer to Dr. 
Bree, iii. 167 note; review of 
4 Different Forms of Flowers,' in, 
iii. 310. 

Naudin's theory, ii, 246, 247. 

Neale, Mr., on ' Typical Selection,' ii. 


Nearctic and Pabearctic regions, separa- 
tion of the, iii. 230. 

Nepenthes, iii. 97. 

"Nervous matter," something analo- 
gous to, in Drosera and Dioncea, iii. 

3*8, 3 J 9» 322. 
system, direct action of the, iii. 

Nescea verticillata, iii. 302. 
Neumayr, M., letter to, iii. 232. 
Nevill, Lady Dorothy, letter to, on 

Utricularia, iii. 327. 
New Caledonia, ii. 76. 
New Holland, ii. 74. 
Newton, Prof. A., letter to, iii. 79. 


Newton's ' Law of Gravitation,' objec- 
tions raised by Leibnitz to, ii. 289. 

New York Times, review of the 
'Origin' in the, ii. 305. 

New Zealand, absence of Acacias and 
Banksias in, ii. 77 ; bats of, ii. 336 ; 
Flora of, iii. 56 ; glacial period in, 
iii. 6 ; supposed tracks of Mammalia 
in, iii. 6 ; spread of European birds 
and insects in, iii. 6 ; plants of, ii. 

Flora, Dr. Hooker's paper on 

the, ii. 39, 41. 
Nicknames on board the Beagle, i. 221. 
Nicotiana, partial sterility of varieties 

of, when crossed, ii. 384. 
Nitrogenous compounds, detection of, 

by the leaves of Drosera, iii. 318, 324. 
' Nomenclator Darwinianus,' iii. 351 ; 

endowment by Mr. Darwin, iii. 352 ; 

plan of the, iii. 353. 
Nomenclature and the law of priority, 

letters to and from H. E. Strickland 

upon, i. 366, 372. 
Nonconformist , review of the ' Descent 

of Man' in the, iii. 139. 
North America and Siberia, almost 

continuous in Pliocene times, ii. 


' North American Review,' review of 

the ' Origin ' in the, by Prof. Bowen, 

ii. 304, 305. 
' North British Review,' review of the 

' Origin' in the, ii. 31 1, 315. 
North Wales, glaciation in, i. 332 ; 

tours through, i. 42 ; tour in, i. 71 ; 

visit to, with Sedgwick, I. 56-58 ; 

visit to, in 1869, iii. 106. 
Nose, objection to shape of, i. 59, 61. 
Notems, new species found, i. 237. 
Notes, mode of keeping, iii. 333. 
Novara Expedition, ii. 93. 
Novels, liking for, i. 101, 122-124. 
Nuptial dress of animals, iii. 123. 
Nuthatch, iii. 11S. 
Nymphcea, petals of, perhaps modified 

stamens, iii. 285. 

Observation, methods of, i. 14S-150 ; 

iii. 278. 
, power of, i. 103. 



Observing, pleasure of, ii. 341. 
Oceanic islands, ii. 162 ; volcanic, ii. 

Oceans and Continents, permanence 

of, iii. 247. 
Oceans, antiquity of, ii. 76. 
Octopus, change of colour in an, i. 


Ogle, Dr. W., letters to :— on Hippo- 
crates and Pangenesis, iii. 82 ; on the 
expression of the emotions, iii. 141, 
142, 143 ; on his translation of 
Aristotle ' On the parts of Ani- 
mals,' iii. 251 ; on Kerner's ' Flowers 
and their Unbidden Guests,' iii. 287. 

on the fertilisation of Salvia, iii. 


Old Testament, Darwinian theory 
contained in the, i. 86. 

Oliver, Prof., letter to, on the ' Fer- 
tilisation of Orchids,' iii. 270 note. 

Ophrys apifera, observations on, iii. 263. 

Opinion, progress of, ii. 355, 356 ; in 
Germany, ii. 357. 

Opuntia nigricans, seedling, movement 
in, iii. 330. 

Orang Utang, G. Rolleston on the 
brain of the, ii. 363. 

Orchids, bee and spider, possible iden- 
tity of the, iii. 276 ; fertilisation of, 
bearing of the, on the theory of Natural 
Selection, iii. 254 ; fertilisation of, 
work on the, ii. 357 ; homologies of, 
iii. 264 ; study of, iii. 262, 263, 264 ; 
usefulness of modifications of, iii. 
32 ; pleasure of investigating, iii. 288. 

Orchis pyramidalis, adaptation in, iii. 
262, 263. 

Orders, thoughts of taking, i. 171. 

Organism, Dr. Roux on the struggle 
between the parts of the, iii. 244. 

Organs, rudimentary, iii. 119; rudi- 
mentary, comparison of with un- 
sounded letters in words, ii. 208 ; 
struggle between the, in the same 
organism, iii. 244. 

Origin of Species, first notes on the, 
i. 68 ; investigations upon the, i. 82- 
85 ; progress of the theory of the, ii. 
I-114 ; differences in the two editions 
of the ' Journal ' with regard to the, 
ii. 1-5 ; extracts from note-books on 

the, ii. 5-10 ; first sketch of work on 
the, ii. 10; essay of 1844 on the, ii. 

' Origin of Species,' publication of the 
first edition of the, i. 86 ; ii. 205 ; suc- 
cess of the, i. 8j; reviews of the, in the 
Athenceum, ii. 224, 228 ; in the ' Na- 
tional Review,' ii. 240, 262, 265 ; in 
'Macmillan's Magazine,' ii. 238, 239, 
299 ; in the Times, ii. 252, 253, 254, 
255 ; in the Saturday Review, ii. 260 ; 
in the Gardeners' Chronicle, ii. 267; in 
the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural 
History,' ii. 284, in the 'American 
Journal,' ii. 286 ; in the Spectator, ii. 
296, 297 ; in the ' Bibliotheque Uni- 
verselle de Geneve,' ii. 297; in the 
' Medico-Chirurgical Review,' ii. 299, 
301; in the 'Westminster Review,' 
ii. 300 ; in the ' Edinburgh Review, ' 
ii. 300, 302, 303, 304, 311, 313 ; in 
the 'North American Review,' ii. 
304, 305 ; in the New York Times, 
ii. 305 ; in the ' Revue des Deux 
Mondes,' ii. 305; in the 'North 
British Review,' ii. 311, 315; in 
' Fraser's Magazine,' ii. 314, 315, 
327; in the Christian Examiner, ii. 
318, 319 ; in the ' Quarterly Review,' 
ii. 324, 327, 331 ; in the 'London 
Review,' ii. 328 ; in the ' Highland 
Agricultural Journal,' ii. 331 ; in the 
' Geologist,' ii. 362 ; in the Dublin 
Hospital Gazette, ii. 375 ; in the 
' Zoologist,' ii. 376. 

' Origin of Species,' publication of the 
second edition of the, ii. 256. 

, third edition, commencement 

of work upon the, ii. 352, 354 ; pub- 
lication of the, ii. 362; 

-, publication of the fourth edition 

of the, iii. 42, 43. 

-, publication of the fifth edition 

of the, iii. 108, 109. 

-, sixth edition, preparation of 

the, iii. 144 ; publication of the, iii. 
, the ' Coming of Age,' of the, 

111. 240. 
Ornaments of male animals, iii. ill, 112. 
Ornithorhynchus, ii. 143, 335, 340 ; 

mammary glands of, ii. 214. 




Orthoptera, auditory organs of, iii. 97 ; 
musical organs of male, iii. 94, 1 1 2. 

Os coccyx, a rudimentary tail, ii. 214. 

Ostrich, American, second species of, 
i. 249. 

Ouless, W. portrait of Mr. Darwin by, 
iii. 195. 

Owen, Sir R., ii. 240 ; claim of priority 
by, iii. 108 ; classification of Mam- 
malia, ii. 266 ; Lyell's admiration of, 
iii. 10 ; on the differences between 
the brains of man and the Gorilla, 
ii. 320 ; on the position of man, ii. 
358 note ; reply to Lyell, on the 
difference between the human and 
simian brains, iii. 8, 9 ; hinted belief 
in unity of origin of birds, ii. 388. 

Owls, distribution of species of, ii. 25. 

Oxford, British Association Meeting, 
discussion at, ii. 320-323. 

Oxford discussion, Sir Joseph Hooker's 
allegory of the, iii. 48. 

Oxlip, a hybrid between primrose and 
cowslip, iii. 306. 

Pacific continent, ii. 72, 73, 74. 

Pacific islands, dispersal ot land-shells 
on, ii. 109. 

Paging of separate copies of papers, iii. 

Pakearcticand Nearctic regions, separa- 
tion of the, iii. 230. 

Palaeontology, progress of, iii. 230. 

Paley's views, ii. 202. 

writings, study of, i. 47 ; ii. 219. 

Palgrave's 'Travels in Arabia,' iii. 40. 

Pall Mall Gazette, review of the ' Varia- 
tion of Animals and Plants ' in the, 
iii. 76 ; review of the ' Descent of 
Man,' in the, iii. 138. 

Pampas, ground woodpecker of the, iii. 


Fampoean formation near Buenos Ayres, 

paper on the, iii. 2. 
Pangenesis, iii. 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 

80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 93, no, 119, 

120, 169. 
, Dr. Lionel Beale's criticism of, 

iii. 194 ; anticipation of the theory in 

Mantegazza's ' Elementi di Igiene,' 

iii. 195. 


Pangenesis, experiments to test the 
theory of, by intertransfusion of blood, 
iii. 195. 

, MS. of chapter on, submitted 

to Professor Huxley, iii. 43. 

, Professor Delpino on, iii. 


Panniculus carnosus, iii. 99. 

Papers, scientific, list of, iii. 365-370. 

Papilionacerc, papers on cross-fertilisa- 
tion of, iii. 259, 261. 

Parallel roads of Glen Roy, paper on 
the, i. 290. 

Parasitic worms, experiments on, iii. 
203, 206. 

Parents, loss of, iii. 39. 

Parker, Henry, article in the Saturday 
Review, in reply to criticisms on the 
'Fertilisation of Orchids,' in the 
'Edinburgh Review,' iii. 274. 

Parslow, Joseph, i. 318 note. 

Parsons, Professor Theophilus, critic- 
isms of the ' Origin,' ii. 331, 333 ; on 
Pterichthys and Cephalaspis, ii. 334 

'Parthenon,' review of the 'Fertilisa- 
tion of Orchids ' in the, iii. 270. 

Partridge, female, coloration of the, iii. 

, mud on feet of, ii. 86. 

Parus, iii. 118. 

Parus cceruleus, sexual differences of, 
iii. 124. 

Passijlora, fertilisation of, iii. 279. 

Pasteur, refutation of spontaneous gen- 
eration by, iii. 24. 

Pasteur's results upon the germs of 
diseases, iii. 206. 

Patagonia, i. 64 ; dull colouring of 
animals in, iii. 151. 

Peach, varieties of, not subject to 
mildew, iii. 348. 

Peacock, Rev. George, letter from, to 
Professor Henslow, i. 191 ; letter 
from, offering the appointment to the 
' Beagle,' i. 193. 

Pea-hen, coloration of the, iii. 124. 

Peat-beds, evidence from, of former 
changes of climate in Scandinavia, 
iii. 249. 

Pedigree of Charles R. Darwin, i. 5. 

Pengelly, Win., ii. 376. 



Penguin, wing of, ii. 214. 
Pentateuchal cosmogony, ii. 187. 
Personal appearance and habits, i. 109, 

Petals, fertilisation of flowers by insects 
which gnaw the, iii. 285. 

Petrels, nestling, with exotic seeds in 

their crops, ii. 147, 148. 
Pheasant, female, coloration of the, 
iii. 124. 

Philadelphia, Academy of Natural 
Sciences of, election of C. Darwin a 
correspondent of, ii. 307. 

Phillips, Professor John, ' Life on the 
Earth,' ii. 349, 358, 373. 

note on, ii. 309 note ; lectures 

at Cambridge, ii. 309, 315. 

Philosophical Club, ii. 42. 

Phocse, descended from a terrestrial 
Carnivore, iii. 163. 

Photograph-albums received from Ger- 
many and Holland, iii. 225. 

Phyllotaxy, iii. 51, 52. 

Physical conditions, constancy of species 
under diversity of, ii. 319 ; effects of, 
ii. 320 ; increasing belief in the direct 
action of, ii. 390. 

Physicians, Royal College of, award of 
the Baly medal by the, iii. 224. 

Physiological Society, establishment of 
the, iii. 204. 

Physiology, importance of vivisection 
in the study of, iii. 202, 205. 

Pictet, Professor F. J., partial agree- 
ment with Darwin, ii. 184; review 
of the ' Origin ' in the ' Bibliotheque 
Universelle,' ii. 297. 

Pictures, taste for, acquired at Cam- 
bridge, i. 49. 

Picus, special adaptation of, iii. 158. 

Pigeon-fanciers, ii. 281. 

Pigeon-fancying, ii. 48, 51. 

Pigeons, ii. 46 ; importance of work 
on, ii. 84 ; modification of nasal 
bones in, ii. 378 ; vertebrae of, ii. 
350 ; wing-bars of, ii. 1 1 2. 

Pigs, black, in the Everglades of Vir- 
ginia, ii. 300. 

Finguicula, power of movement of the 
leaves of, iii. 324; digestion in, iii. 

" Tipes " in the chalk, ii. 332. 


Pithing of lassoed cows, by theGauchos 
of La Plata, iii. 245. 

P/auan'a, Terrestrial, ii. 36 ; mimetic 
coloration of, iii. 71. 

Ptanorbis, Professor Weismann on the 
species of, in the freshwater limestone 
of Steinheim, iii. 156. 

Plantago, two forms of, iii. 305. 

Plants, American Alpine, ii. 61 ; angi- 
ospermous, in cretaceous beds of the 
United States, iii. 248 ; Antarctic 
fossil, ignorance of, iii. 247 ; Arctic 
fossil, importance of, iii. 247 ; Aus- 
tralian, iii. 248 ; British Terrestrial 
and Aquatic, sexual characteristics 
of, iii. 304 ; causes of variability in, 
iii. 342-346 ; climbing, i. 92 ; iii. 
311-317; garden, difficulty of nam- 
ing, iii. 269 ; heterostyled, poly- 
gamous, dioecious and gynodioecious, 
iii. 295 ; higher, impulse to the 
development of, given by flower- 
frequenting insects, iii. 248 ; insec- 
tivorous, i. 96 ; in the Silurian, iii. 
248 ; lignite, of Kerguelen Land, iii. 
247 ; mimetic, iii. 70 ; naturalised 
in Australia, ii. 259 ; power of move- 
ment in, i. 98 ; iii. 329-338 ; protean 
or polymorphic forms of, iii. 188 ; 
self-impotent, iii. 75 ; supposed 
movement of, from the north, iii. 
247 ; sudden development of the 
higher, iii. 248. 

Platanthei'a Hookeri and hyperborca, 
fertilisation of, iii. 272 note. 

Platysma muscle, contraction of, under 
feeling of horror, iii. 142, 143. 

Pleasurable sensations, influence of, in 
Natural Selection, i. 310. 

Plinian Society, i. 39. 

Pliocene climate, ii. 135. 

Poetry, taste for, i. 33 ; failure of taste 
for, i. 100. 

Poinscttia, nature of petals of, iii. 

Poisons, experiments with, on Drosera, 

iii. 3*9, 323- 
Pollen, conveyance of, by the wings of 

butterflies and moths, iii. 284. 

, differences of the, in the two 

forms of cowslip, iii. 297, 298 ; in 

the two forms of Primrose, iii. 298. 


Pollen, poisonous action of, on the 
stigma of the same flower, iii. 70. 

tubes, penetration of, iii. 278. 

" Polly," the fox-terrier, i. 113. 

Polygamy, iii. 92. 

Polymorphic forms of plants, iii. 188. 

Polyps, study of, i. 249. 

Pontobdclla, egg-cases of, i. 39. 

Portillo Pass, i. 260. 

Portraits, list of, iii. 371. 

Positivism and science, iii. 149. 

Post-glacial warm period, probable, ii. 

Potato-disease, Mr. Torbitt's proposed 
mode of extirpating the, iii. 348-351. 

Poultry, ornamental, connection of, 
with the subject of species, i. 376. 

"Pour le Merite," knighthood of the 
order, iii. 60. 

Pouter pigeons, ii. 303. 

Powell, Prof. Baden, his opinion on the 
structure of the eye, ii. 285. 

' Power of Movement in Plants,' iii. 329- 
338; publication of the, i. 98 ; iii. 333. 

"Precocious fertilisation," iii. 308. 

Preglacial remains in Devonshire 
caverns, ii. 365. 

Prestwich, Prof. J., ii. 238 ; claim of 
priority against Lyell, iii. 19 ; letter 
to, asking for criticisms on the 
1 Origin,' ii. 295 ; on flint implements 
associated with bones of extinct 
animals, ii. 160. 

Preyer, Prof. W., letter to, iii. 88 ; on 
A lea impennis, iii. 16 note. 

Primogeniture, ii. 385 ; iii. 91. 

Primordial created form, ii. 251. 

Primrose, heterostyled flowers of the, 
iii. 295 ; differences of the pollen in 
the two forms of the, iii. 298. 

Primula, dimorphism of, paper on the, 
i. 91 ; iii. 296, 297 ; French criticisms 
on the paper on, iii. 305. 

elatior, a distinct species, iii. 


■ sinensis, two forms of flowers 

in, iii. 299. 
Primula, said to have produced seed 
without access of insects, i. 105. 

Princess Royal, SirC. Lyell's conversa- 
tion with the, on Darwinism, iii. 32. 
Priority, law of, i. 366, 372. 




Professions for boys, i. 380, 384-386. 

Protean forms of plants, iii. 188. 

Protective imitation, iii. 151. 

Proteus, ii. 265, 374. 

Prussian order " Pour le Merite," 
Knighthood of the, iii. 60. 

Pterichthys, ii. 334 note. 

Publication of the ' Origin of Species,' 
arrangements connected with the, ii. 
151, 152, 153, 155, 156. 

Publications, account of, i. 79~98 J list 
of, iii. 362-364. 

Publicity, dislike of, i. 128. 

Public Opinion, squib in, iii. 23. 

Pusey, Dr., sermon by, against Evolu- 
tion, iii. 235. 

' Quarterly Review,' notice of the 
' Journal of Researches ' in the, i. 
323 ; notice of the work on ' Coral 
Reefs ' in the, i. 325 ; notice of the 
' Origin of Species,' in the, ii. 182, 
183 ; remarks on the " Monistic 
hypothesis" in the, iii. 184; review 
of the ' Descent of Man ' in the, iii. 
146 ; review of the ' Origin ' in the, 
ii. 324, 327, 331 ; Darwin's apprecia- 
tion of it, ii. 325 note. 

Quatrefages, Prof. J. L. A. de, letter to, 
on his ' Histoire Naturelle Generale,' 
&c, iii. 117; letter to, on being pro- 
posed as a member of the French 
Academy, iii. 154. 

, partial agreement of, ii. 235. 

Rabbits, asserted close interbreeding 
of, i. 106 ; study of, ii. 84. 

Rade, Emil, letter to, acknowledging 
the receipt of an album of photo- 
graphs, iii. 226. 

Radicles, observations on, iii. 331, 334. 

Ramsay, Sir Andrew, ii. 291, 293. 

Ramsay, Mr., i. 54. 

Reade, T. Mellard, note to, on the 
earthworms, iii. 217. 

Reasoning powers, i. 103. 

Reception of the 'Origin of Species,' 
Prof, Huxley on the, ii. 179-204. 

'Reign of Law,' the, by the Duke of 
Argyll, iii. 61, 65. 




Religious views, i. 304-317; general 

statement of, i. 307-313. 
Repaging of separate copies of papers, 

iii. 141. 
Retardation and acceleration of de- 
velopment, views of Profs. Hyatt and 

Cope upon, iii. 154, 233. 
Reverence, development of the bump 

of, i. 45. 
Reversion, ii. 158 ; causing reappear- 
ance of characters of remote ancestors, 

iii. 246. 
Reviewers, i. 89 ; proposed notes on 

the errors of, ii. 349-351. 
' Revue des deux Mondes,' review of 

the ' Origin ' in the, ii. 305. 
Rhea americana, note on, i. 279. 
Rhizocephala, iii. 38. 
Rich, Anthony, letter to, on the book 

on ' Earthworms,' iii. 217. 
Richmond, W., portrait of C. Darwin 

by, iii. 222. 
Richter, Hans, visit to Down, iii. 223 

Riding, i. 117. 
Ridley, C, letter to, on Dr. Pusey's 

sermon, iii. 235. 
Rio de Janeiro, letter to J. S. Henslow, 

from, i. 235. 
Rivers, T., letter to, iii. 57. 
Robertson, G. Croom, letter to, with 

the ' Biography of an Infant,' iii. 

Robertson, John, review of the fifth 

edition of the ' Origin ' by, iii. 108. 
Rocks, scored, differences of, iii. 235. 
Rodents in Australia, ii. 339, 340. 
Rodriguez, ii. 94. 

Rodwell, Rev. J. M., letter to. ii. 348. 
Rogers, Prof. H. D., ii. 291. 
Rolleston, Prof. G., on the affinities of 

the brain of the Orang Utang, ii. 

Romanes, G. J., anecdote by, iii. 54 ; 
account of a sudden attack of illness, 

iii- 357- 

, letters to, on vivisection, iii. 

204, 208, 209, 225. 

-, letter to, on the locomotor 

system of Echinoderms, iii. 243. 
Roots, sensitiveness of tips of, to con- 
tact, iii. 337. 

st. John's. 
Rostellum of Orchids, nature of the, iii. 

Rotifers, spontaneous generation of, iii. 

Roux, Dr., « Der Kampf der Theile,' 

iii. 244. 
Royal College of Physicians, award of 

the Baly Medal by the, iii. 224. 
Commission on Vivisection, iii. 

Medical Society, Edinburgh, i. 

Society, award of the Royal 
Medal to C. Darwin, i. 388 ; to Dr. 
Hooker, ii. 44 ; award of the Copley 
Medal to C. Darwin, iii. 27, 28, 

Society of Edinburgh, address 


of the Duke of Argyll to the, iii. 31- 
33 ; election of C. Darwin as an 
Honorary Member of the, iii. 34. 

Society of Holland, election as 

a Foreign Member of the, iii. 163. 

Royer, Mdlle. Clemence, French 
translation of the ' Origin ' by, ii. 357, 
387 ; introduction to the French 
translation of the 'Origin,' iii. 72; 
publication of third French edition 
of the ' Origin,' and criticism of 
"pangenesis" by, iii. no. 

Rubus, protean forms of, iii. 188. 

Rudimentary organs, ii. 213; iii. 119; 
comparison of, with unsounded letters 
in words, ii. 208 ; curious view of, 
iii. 62. 

Russian translations of works by Lyell, 
Buckle, and Darwin, iii. 73. 

Sabine, Sir E., i. 352 ; reference to 
Darwin's work in his Presidential 
Address to the Royal Society, iii. 29. 

, Mrs., i. 378. 

Sachs on the establishment of the idea 
of sexuality in plants, iii. 256. 

St. Helena, i. 65 ; ii. 76 ; antiquity of, 
ii. 336 ; letter to J. S. Henslow from, 
i. 267. 

St. Jago, Cape Verd Islands, i. 228, 

233> 2 35 5 ge olo gy of > i- 6 5- 
St. John's College, Cambridge, strict 

discipline at, i. 164. 



St. Kilda, nestling petrels at, with 

exotic seeds in their crops, ii. 147, 

St. Paul's Island, ii. 76, 94 ; visit to, 

1. 230, 236, 239. 
Salisbury Craigs, trap-dyke in, i. 41. 
Salter, J. W., genealogy of Spirifers, ii. 


Salt-water, ' bloom ' sometimes a pro- 
tection from, iii. 341. 

Salvia, Hildebrand on cross-fertilisation 
in, iii. 280 ; Dr. Ogle on the fertili- 
sation of, iii. 278. 

Sanderson, Prof. J. Burdon, letter to, 
on Drosera, iii. 323. 

" Sand walk," last visit to the, iii. 

^ 357- 

Sand-wasps, instincts of, iii. 244, 245. 

Sandwich Islands, Labiatce of the, ii. 

San Salvador, letter to R. W. Darwin 
from, i. 226. 

Saporta, Marquis de, his opinion in 
1863, iii. 17. 

, letters to, iii. 188 ; on the pro- 
gress of evolution in France, iii. 103 ; 
on the origin of man, iii. 162 ; on 
fertilisation, iii. 284. 

-, on the impulse given to the 

development of the higher plants, by 
the development of flower-frequenting 
insects, iii. 248. 

Saturday Review, article in the, ii. 
311 ; article in reply to criticisms on 
the ' Fertilisation of Orchids 'in the 
' Edinburgh Review,' in the, iii. 274 ; 
reference to review of the ' Origin ' in 
the, ii. 260 ; review of the ' Descent 
of Man' in the, iii. 139; review of 
the ' Fertilisation of Orchids ' in the, 
iii. 274. 

Saturnia, iii. 159. 

Satynts and Homo, gap between, ii. 

Savages, first sight of, i. 243, 255. 

Scalpcllum, complemental males of, iii. 

Scalp-muscles, inheritance of the, iii. 

Scandinavia, evidence from peat-beds 

of former changes of climate in, iii. 


Scarlet-runner, Sir Thomas Farrer on 

the fertilisation of the, iii. 277. 
Scelidotheriam, i. 276. 
Scenery, love of, i. 129. 
Scepticism, effects of, in science, i. 

Schaaffhausen, Dr. H., his claim of 

priority, ii. 310, 319. 
Scherzer, Dr., note to, on Socialism 

and Evolution, iii. 237. 
Schmerling, Dr., iii. 19. 
Schools, i. 384, 385, 387. 
Schwendener, Professor, on the position 

of leaves, iii. 51. 
Science, early attention to, i. 34 ; 

general interest in, i. 126, 127. 
Scored rocks, differences of, iii. 235. 
Scotch Firs, stunting of young, by 

cattle, ii. 99. 
Scott, John, of the Botanic Gardens, 

Edinburgh, opinion of, iii. 300. 
Scott, Sir Walter, i. 40. 
Screams, heard in Brazil, iii. 200. 
Scudder, S. H. , on a Devonian insect 

with stridulating apparatus, iii. 97. 
Sea-sickness, i. 223, 224, 227, 229. 
Seals, ii. 336. 
, descended from a terrestrial 

carnivore, iii. 163. 
on oceanic islands, iii. 20. 

Secondary sexual characters, iii. III. 

Section-cutting, i. no. 

Sedgwick, Professor Adam, introduc- 
tion to, i. 185 ; visit to North Wales 
with, i. 56-58 ; opinion of C. Darwin, 
i. 66 ; in 1870, iii. 125 ; last inter- 
view with J. S. Henslow, ii. 372 ; 
review of the 'Vestiges,' i. 344; 
letter from, on the ' Origin of Species,' 
ii. 247 ; review of the ' Origin ' in 
the Spectator, ii. 296, 297 ; attack 
before the ' Cambridge Philosophical 
Society,' ii. 306, 307, 308. 

, Miss S., letter from Mr. 

Chauncey Wright to, iii. 165. 

Seedlings, destruction of by slugs, &c, 
ii. 91, 99 ; heliotropism of, iii. 334, 

^ 336, 337. 

Seeds, experiments on the germination 
of, after immersion, ii. 54, 55, 56 ; 
floating, ii. 56, 58 ; sinking of, in 
sea-water, ii. 56 ; tropical, found in 




young petrel's crops at St. Kilda, ii. 
147, 148 ; vitality of, ii. 65. 

Selborne, visit to, ii. 67. 

Selection, artificial, ii. 122; natural, 
ii. 123, 128 ; influence of, i. 83 ; 
influence of, upon the aristocracy, 
ii. 385 ; iii. 91. 

, natural, ii. 87. 

, sexual, iii. 92, 94 ; iii. 156, 157 ; 

in lower animals, iii. 1 1 1 ; in insects, 
iii. 137, 138; in Lepidoptera, iii. 150; 
influence of, upon races of man, iii. 
90, 95, 96. 

Semper, Professor Karl, letters to, on 
the influence of isolation in the pro- 
duction of species, iii. 160 ; on coral 
reefs, iii. 182 ; on variability in 
plants, iii. 344. 

Servia, new society in, iii. 117. 

Seward, Miss, calumnies of Erasmus 
Darwin by, iii. 219. 

Sex in plants, establishment of the idea 
of, iii. 256. 

Sexes more often separated in lower 
than in higher plants, iii. 304. 

Sexual characters, inheritance of, iii. 

characters, secondary, iii. ill. 

characteristics of British aqua- 
tic and terrestrial plants, iii. 304. 

• differences, iii. 135. 

selection, iii. 92, 94, 157 ; 

influence of, upon races of man, iii. 

90, 95, 96 ; in Lepidoptera, iii. 150; 

in lower animals, iii. 1 1 1 ; colour in 

insects, acquired by, iii. 137 ; musical 

instruments in insects, acquired by, 

iii. 138. 
Sexuality, origin of, iii. 289, 294. 
Seychelles, ii. 76, 94. 
Shakespeare readings, i. 170. 
Shanklin, ii. 134. 
Shivering, iii. 142. 
Shooting, fondness for, i. 34, 56. 
Shrewsbury, schools at, i. 27, 30 ; 

return to, i. 269, 273 ; early medical 

practice at, i. 37. 
Shrubs, tendency of, to separation of 

sexes, ii. 89. 
Shuddering, iii. 142. 
Siberia and North America, almost 

continuous in Pliocene times, ii. 135. 


Sigillaria, i. 356, 357, 358, 359. 
' Silas Marner,' iii. 40. 
Silurian, plants in the, iii. 248. 

and carboniferous formations, 

amount of subsidence indicated by, 

J 1 . 77 ' 
Simise, relation of man to the higher, 

iii. 162. 

Simon, Mr., Address to the Inter- 
national Medical Congress, 1881, iii. 

Sitta, iii. 118. 

Skeletons, ii. 47, 50. 

Slavery, i. 246, 248, 341. 

Slaves, sympathy with, iii. 199, 200. 

Sleep-movements of plants, iii. 330. 

Slowness of change, ii. 124. 

Slugs, destruction of seedlings by, ii. 

^ 9h 99- 

Smith, Rev. Sydney, meeting with, i. 

• 75- 
Smoking, i. 121, 122. 

Snipe, first, i. 34. 

Snowdon, ascent of, i. 42. 

Snuff-taking, i. 121, 122. 

Socialism, asserted connexion of, with 
the theory of Descent, iii. 236, 237. 

Societies, Degrees and Honours, List 
of, iii. 373-376. 

Sociology, Herbert Spencer on, iii. 165. 

Solenostoma, iii. 122. 

Son, eldest, birth of, i. 300 ; observa- 
tions on, i. 300. 

Song, importance of, in the Animal 
Kingdom, iii. 97. 

South America, erratic boulders of, 
paper on the, i. 70, 300. 

South America, publication of the 
geological observations on, i. 326. 

South American Missionary Society, 
iii. 127. 

Southampton, British - Association 
Meeting at (1846), i. 351. 

, origin of the angular gravels 

near, iii. 213. 

Sparrow, House, sexual differences of 
the, iii. 124. 

Species, accumulation of facts relating 
to, i. 82-85, 298, 299, 301 ; checks 
to the increase of, ii. 33 ; mutability 
of, ii. 34; distribution of the, ot 
widely represented genera, ii. 25 




nature of, ii. 78, 81, 83, 88, 105, 
346 ; origin of, ii. 77, 78 ; origin of, 
by descent, primary importance of 
the doctrine of, ii. 371 ; progress 
of the theory of the, ii. 1-114; 
differences with regard to the, in 
the two editions of the ' Journal,' 
ii. 1-5 ; extracts from Note-books 
on, ii. 5-10 ; first sketch of the, ii. 
10 ; Essay of 1844 on the, ii. 1 1- 16. 

Specific centres, ii. 82, 83. 

■ forms, slowness of change of, 

iii. 1S8. 

Sfiectato?-, review of the ' Descent of 
Man ' in the, iii. 138 ; review of the 
' Origin ' in the, ii. 296, 297. 

Specularia speculum, self-fertile, iii. 309. 

Spencer, Herbert, an evolutionist, ii. 
ii. 188; appreciation of, iii. 120; 
letter to, on his Essays, ii. 141 ; 
letter to, on his articles on Evolu- 
tion and on Sociology, iii. 165. 

Spencer's ' Principles of Biology,' iii. 

Spider-Orchis, possible identity of the, 

with the Bee-orchis, iii. 276. 
Spirifers, Mr. Salter's illustrations of 

the genealogy of, ii. 367. 
Spiritualistic seances, iii. 187. 
Splenic fever, Koch's researches on, 

iii. 234. 
"Spontaneity," Prof. Bain's principles 

of, iii. 172. 
Spontaneous generation, iii. 180. 
Sports, iii. 57. 
Sprengel, C. K., on cross-fertilisation 

of hermaphrodite flowers, iii. 257, 

, ' Das entdeckte Geheimniss der 

Natur,' i. 90. 
Squib, serio-comic, by W. H. Harvey, 

ii. 314. 
Stag, extinct, horn worked by man, 

ii. 307. 
Stamp-collecting, iii. 5. 
Stamps, sent by Dr. Asa Gray, ii. 383. 
Stanhope, Lord, i. 76 ; objections of, 

to Geology and Zoology, i. 377. 
Stebbing, Rev. T. R. R., lecture on 

'Darwinism,' iii. no. 
Stephens, J. F., i. 175. 
Sterility, in heterostyled plants, iii. 


296 ; partial, of varieties of Verbascum 
and Nicotiana when crossed, ii. 384. 

Sterility and natural selection, iii. 80. 

Steudel's ' Nomenclator,' iii. 351. 

Stigmaria, i. 359. 

Stock, effects produced by grafts upon 
the, iii. 57. 

Stokes, Admiral Lort, reminiscences 
of C. Darwin, i. 224. 

Strata, older, frequency of generalised 
forms in the, iii. 169. 

Strickland, H. E., note upon, i. 365 
note ; letters to, upon the appending 
of authors' names to those of genera 
and species, and on the application 
of the laws of priority, i. 366, 369, 
372 ; letter from, upon the law of 
priority and the question of append- 
ing authors' names to those of genera 
and species, i. 367. 

Stripes on horses, ii. 111; on the legs 
of the donkey, ii. 112. 

Strix, special adaptation of, iii. 158. 

' Struggle for Existence,' i. 8^ ; ii. 99, 

Struthio rhea, i. 249. 

Style, i. 155-157 ; defects of, ii. 157, 

Stylidiwn, sensitive pistil of, iii. 287. 

Suarez, T. H. Huxley's study of, iii. 

Sublime, sense of the, iii. 54, 186. 

Submergence of continents, effects of, 

, iL , 75 " 

Subsidence, amount of, ii. yj. 

Success, qualities producing, i. 107. 
Sudbrooke, residence at, i860, ii. 256. 
Suez, antiquity of the isthmus of, ii. 75. 
Suffering, evidence from, as to the 

existence of God, i. 307, 309, 311. 
Sulivan, Sir B. J., i. 351 ; letters to, on 

personal matters and on the South 

American Mission, iii. 126, 128. 
, on Darwin's relation to the 

South American Missionary Society, 

iii. 127. 
, reminiscences of C. Darwin, i. 


Surprise, influence of, on breathing, iii. 

" Survival of the fittest," Wallace on the 

term, iii. 46. 




Sutherland, Dr., paper on ice-action, i. 

Swim-bladder, ii. 214; iii. 135. 

Sydney, letter to J. S. Henslow from, 

i. 264. 

Systematic work, blunting effect of, ii. 


Tacsonia, fertilisation of, iii. 279. 
Tahiti, i. 264. 
Tardigrades, spontaneous generation of, 

iii. 168. 
Tasmania,' Hooker's ' Flora of, i. 394. 
Taste, acquisition and inheritance of, 

iii. 138. 
Teeth and hair, correlation of, iii. 95. 
Tegetmeier, W. B., co-operation of, ii. 

Teleology, influence of Darwinism upon, 
ii. 201 ; revival of, iii. 255. 

and morphology, reconciliation 

of, by Darwinism, iii. 189. 

Tenderness of disposition, i. 132-138, 
166, 167. 

Tendrils of plants, irritability of the 
iii. 311, 312, 313. 

Teneriffe, i. 390; desire to visit, i. 55 ; 
first view of, i. 239 ; projected excur- 
sion to, i. 190. 

Terrestrial animals, difficulty as to 
dispersal of, ii. 85. 

and Aquatic plants, sexual 

characteristics of British, iii. 304. 

Tertiary Antarctic Continent, iii. 231. 
Texas, habits of Ants in, ii. 365. 
Thalia dcalbata, sensitive flowers of, 

iii. 286. 
Theism, ii. 202. 

Theologians, opinions of, ii. 181. 
Theological views, ii. 311 ; iii. 63, 64, 

Theology and Natural History, ii. 288. 
Theory and hypothesis, ii. 286. 
Thiel, H., letter to, iii. 112. 
Thistle-seeds, conveyance of, by wind, 

ii. 134. 
Thompson, Professor D'Arcy, literature 

of the fertilisation of flowers, iii. 

Thomson, Dr. Thomas, notes on, ii. 

307, 308. 


Thomson, Sir William, ' On Geological 

Time,' iii. 113. 
Thomson, Sir Wyville, rejection of 

the Darwinian theory from the char- 
acter of the Abyssal fauna, iii. 242. 
Thoughts, rapid succession of, during a 

fall, i. 31. 
Thwaites, G. H. K., ii. 292 ; conversion 

of, ii. 347. 
Thylacine, iii. 135. 
Tierra del Fuego, i. 65, 242 ; geology 

of, i. 243 ; Alpine plants of, ii. 21 ; 

mission to, iii. 127, 128. 
Time, Geological, iii. 109. 
'Time and Life,' Huxley's article on, 

ii. 238. 
Times, article on Mr. Darwin in the, 

i n « 335 '■> letter to, on vivisection, iii. 

207 ; review of the ' Descent of Man,' 

in the, iii. 139 ; review of the ' Origin ' 

in the, ii. 252, 253, 254, 255. 
Timor, occurrence of a peculiar Telis, 

and of a fossil elephant's tooth in, ii. 

Title-page, proposed, of the ' Origin of 

Species,' ii. 152. 
Torbitt, James, experiments on the 

potato disease, iii. 348-351 ; letter 

to, hi. 350. 
Torquay, visit to (1861), ii. 357. 
Toucans, colour of beak of, iii. 97. 
Toxodon, i. 276. 
Translations of the ' Origin ' into 

French, Dutch and German, ii. 357. 
Transmutation of species, investigations 

on the, i. 82-85 > f* rs t note-book on 

the, i, 276. 
Trees, tendency of, to be dioecious, 

monoecious or polygamous, ii. 89. 
Trichinc?, Virchow's experiments on, 

iii. 203. 
Trigonia, ii. 340. 
Trimorphism and dimorphism in plants, 

papers on, i. 91. 
Tristan d'Acunha, ii. 74, 93. 
Tropical forest, first sight of, i. 237. 
Tschirsch on the "bloom" of leaves 

and fruits, iii. 339 note. 
Tumbler, Almond, J. Eaton on the, ii. 


Turin, Royal Academy of, award of 

the Bressa prize by the, iii. 225. 



Twining plants, iii. 315. 
Twisting of the uppermost internodes 

in Echinocystis lobata, iii. 311, 312. 

Tylor, E. B., letter to, on ' Primitive 

. Culture,' iii. 151 ; 'Researches into 

the Early History of Mankind,' iii. 

Tyndall, J. , Presidential Address to the 

British Association at Belfast, 1874, 

iii. 189. 
Types, creation of distinct successional 

and aboriginal, ii. 340 ; possible 

intermediate, ii. 344. 
Typhlops, ii. 210. 

' Unfinished Book,' ii. 67. 

Unitarianism, Erasmus Darwin's defini- 
tion of, ii. 158. 

United States, angiospermous plants in 
cretaceous beds of the, iii. 248. 

, Northern, flora of the, ii. 88. 

Unorthodoxy, ii. 152. 

Upper Gower Street, residence in, i. 

Usborne, A. B., reminiscences of C. 
Darwin, i. 224. 

Utricularia, observations on, iii. 326, 
327 ; a carrion-feeder, iii. 327. 

montana, observations on, iii. 


Valparaiso, letter to C. Whitley from, 
i. 254 ; letter to Miss C. Darwin 
from, i. 256 ; letter to Miss S. Darwin 
from, i. 259. 

Van Dyck, Dr. W. T., letter to, on 
his paper on the mongrelisation of 
the dogs in Beyrout, iii. 252. 

Vanilla, iii. 265. 

Variability, ii. 158 ; amount and re- 
strictions of, ii. 339, 340 ; causes of, 
iii. 80 ; causes of in plants, iii. 342- 
346 ; degree of, in high and low 
organisms, ii. 388 ; rate of, in terres- 
trial and marine organisms, ii. 388 ; in 
widely distributed genera, iii. 155 ; 
in the same genus during successive 
geological formations, iii. 156 ; of 
highly developed organs, ii. 97, 99, 
101 j of species in large genera, ii-. 


102-107 ; of the Cirripedia, ii. 37 ; 

periodical, iii. 158. 
Variation, ignorance of the causes of, 

ii. 90. 

and natural selection, ii. 87. 

' Variation of Animals and Plants under 

Domestication,' progress of the work, 

»• 356, 357, 390; iii- 1; i". 42; 
publication of, i. 93 ; iii. 59, 75 ; 

American edition of the, iii. 84 ; 

preparation of second edition of the, 

iii. 194. 
1 ,' reviews of the, in the Pall 

Mall Gazette, iii. 76 ; in the Athe- 

ncBum, iii. 77, 79 ; in the Gardeners' 

Chronicle, iii. 77 ; in the Nation, iii. 

84 ; in the Daily Review, iii. 85. 
'Variation of Species,' Wollaston's, ii. 


Variation under culture and in nature, 
ii. 346. 

Variations, single, and individual differ- 
ences, relative importance of, iii. 
107, 109. 

specially ordered or guided, 

iii. 62. 

Varieties, small species, ii. 105. 

Vegetable Kingdom, cross- and self- 
fertilisation in the, i. 96, 97. 

Verbascum, natural hybrids of, iii. 297 ; 
partial sterility of varieties of, when 
crossed, ii. 384. 

' Vestiges of the Natural History of 
Creation,' ii. 187-188, remarks on 
the, i. 333 ; Sedgwick's review of 
the, i. 344. 

Victoria Institute, analysis of the 
' Origin ' read before the, iii. 69 

Vinca major, action of insects on, iii. 

Vines, S. H., letter to, on aggregation 

in plant-cells, iii. 346. 
Viola, cleistogamic flowers of, iii. 307, 

308, 309. 

canina, fertilisation of, bv in- 
sects, iii. 309. 

Virchow, Prof., connection of socialism 
with the theory of descent, iii. 236, 

Virchow's experiments on Trichina:, 
iii. 203. 




Virginia, black pigs in the Everglades 
of, ii. 300. 

Visualising, answers to questions on 
the faculty of, iii. 239. 

Vitality of seeds, ii. 65. 

Vivisection, iii. 199-210 ; opinion of, 
iii. 200 ; commencement of agitation 
against, and Royal Commission on, 
iii. 201 ; attempted legislation on, iii. 
201 ; probable consequences of legis- 
lation on, iii. 203. 

Vogt, Prof. Carl, on microcephalous 
idiots, iii. 163 ; on the origin of 
species, iii. 132. 

Volcanic islands, Geological observa- 
tions on, publication of the, i. 323 ; 
Prof. Geikie's notes on the, i. 326 ; 
work on the, ii. 24. 

Volcanic outbursts indicative of rising 
areas, ii. 76. 

Volcanoes and Coral-reefs, book on, 
i. 297. 

* Voyage of a Naturalist in the Beagle J 
proposed French translation of the, 
iii. 102 note. 

Wagner, Moritz, letters to, on the 
influence of isolation, iii. 157, 158 ; 
A. Weismann's remarks upon, iii. 

Wagner, R. on Agassiz and Darwin, ii. 


Walking, mode of, i. 109, III. 

Walks, i. 109, 114-116 ; ii. 27. 

Wallace, A. R., appreciation of cha- 
racter of, ii. 308, 309. 

, first essay on variability of 

species, i. 85 ; on the ' Descent of 
Man,' iii. 134 note', on the phenomena 
of variation, iii. 89 ; on man, iii. 89, 
90 ; opinion of Pangenesis, iii. 81 ; 
on the law of the introduction of new 
species, ii. 108 ; pension granted to, 
iii. 228 ; review of Mivart's ' Lessons 
from Nature,' iii. 184 ; review of the 
' Descent of Man,' in the ' Academy,' 
iii. 137 ; reply to the Duke of 
Argyll's criticisms on the ' Fertilisa- 
tion of Orchids,' iii. 274 ; views as 
to the origin of man, iii. 116, 1 1 7. 


Wallace, ' Geographical Distribution of 

Animals,' iii. 230. 
, A. R., 'Malay Archipelago,' 

iii. 113; article in the 'Quarterly 

Review,' April 1869, iii. 114, 115, 

, ' Natural Selection,' iii. 121. 

, Travels on the Amazon and 

Rio Negro,' ii. 380. 
, letters to : — on continental ex- 

tension, and on the land shells of 
remote islands, ii. 108 ; ii. 145 ; on 
the Malay Archipelago, ii. 161; on the 
' Origin of Species,' ii. 220, 309 ; on 
Flourens' attack, iii. 30 ; on the 
terms ' Natural Selection ' and 
'Survival of the fittest,' iii. 45 ; on 
Warrington's paper at the Victoria 
Institute, iii. 69 note-, on pangene- 
sis, iii. 79 ; on man, iii. 89 ; on 
sexual selection, iii. 92, 93, 94, 95 ; 
on Fleeming Jenkin's argument, iii. 
107 ; on his book on the Malay 
Archipelago, iii. 113; on his article 
in the 'Quarterly Review,' iii. 115; 
on his essays on Natural Selection, 
iii. 121 ; on sexual differences, iii. 
123; on the 'Descent of Man,' iii. 
134, 137; on Mr. Wright's pamphlet 
in answer to Mivart, iii. 144 ; on 
Mivart's remarks and an article in 
the ' Quarterly Review,' iii. 146 ; on 
Dr. Bree's book, iii. 167 ; on Dr. 
Bastian's ' Beginnings of Fife,' iii. 
168 ; on the preparation of the second 
edition of the ' Descent of Man,' iii. 
175 ; on his criticism of Mivart's 
'Lessons from Nature,' iii. 185 ; on 
his work on ' Geographical Distribu- 
tion,' iii. 230. 

, last letter to, iii. 356. 

Waring, Robert, i. 2. 

Warrington, Mr., Analysis of the 
' Origin ' read by, to the Victoria 
Institute, iii. 69 note. 

Water-cure, i. 373 ; ii. 6j, 158 ; at 
Ilkley, ii. 171, 175 ; 205 ; at Moor 
Park, ii. 67, 91, 112; at Sudbrooke, 
ii. 256. 

Water-cure, effects of treatment, i. 

, treatment at Malvern, i. 379. 




Water, supposed injurious effects of, 
on leaves, iii. 340, 341. 

Waterton, Charles, visit to, i. 343. 

Watkins, Archdeacon, i. 168 ; letter 
to, from Monte Video, i. 240 ; letter 
to, ii. 328. 

Watson, H. C, i. 352 ; charge of egot- 
ism against C. Darwin, ii. 362 ; 
letter from, on the 'Originof Species,' 
ii. 226 ; on species and varieties, i. 


Wealden calculation, untenability of 
the, ii. 350. 

Weapons, iii. in. 

Wedgwood, Emma, married to C. 
Darwin, i. 299. 

, Hensleigh, ' Etymological Dic- 
tionary,' ii. 349. 

-, Josiah, character of, i. 44 

letter from, to R. W. Darwin, dis- 
cussing objections to the acceptance 
of the appointment on the Beagle, i. 

-, Miss Julia, character of Eras- 

mus A. Darwin, i. 23 ; letter to, i. 


-, Susannah, married to R. W. 

Darwin, i. 9. 
" Weed-garden," ii. 91, 99. 
Weeds, spread of European, in New 

Zealand, iii. 6. 
Weir, J. Jenner, observations on white 

moths, iii. 94. 
Weismann, August, letters to : — on his 

essay on the influence of isolation, 

iii. 155 ; on sterility, iii. 199 ; on his 

* Studien zur Descendenzlehre,' iii. 

Wells, Dr., application of Natural 

Selection to the Races of Man, in his 

' Essay on Dew,' iii. 41. 
Westminster Abbey, funeral in, iii. 360. 
' Westminster Review,' review of the 

' Origin ' in the, by T. H. Huxley, ii. 

Westwood, J. O., letters from, to the 

Gardeners' Chronicle, ii. 267. 
Whale, secondary, ii. 235. 
Whewell, Dr., acquaintance with, i. 

54 ; his opinion of the ' Origin,' ii. 

261 note. 



Whewell's ' History of the Inductive 
Sciences,' ii. 192, 194. 

Whitley, Rev. C, i. 49; letter to, 
from Valparaiso, i. 254. 

Wiesner, Prof. Julius, criticisms of the 
' Power of Movement in Plants,' iii. 
335 ; letter to, on Movement in 
Plants, iii. 336. 

Wilberforce, Bishop, his opinion of the 
' Origin,' ii. 285 ; review of the 
' Origin ' in the ' Quarterly Review,' 
ii. 324, 327, 331 ; speech at Oxford, 
against the Darwinian theory, ii. 
321 ; notice of the ' Origin of Spe- 
cies ' in the ' Quarterly Review,' ii. 
182 note. 

Wilder, Dr., proposal of the term " calli- 
section " for painless experiments on 
animals, iii. 202 note. 

Wit, i. 102. 

Wollaston's ' Insecta Maderensia,' ii. 
44 ; ' Variation of Species,' ii. 73. 

Wollaston, T. V., on continental ex- 
tensions, ii. 72 ; review of the 
' Origin' in the 'Annals,' ii. 284. 

Wollaston Medal, award of, ii. 145. 

1 Wonders of the World,' i. ^. 

Wood, Searles V., ii. 293. 

Woodpecker, Pampas, iii. 153 ; ii. 


Woodhouse, shooting at, i. 42, 43. 

Woodward, S. P., ii. 331 ; on conti- 
nental extension, ii. 72, 73, 74. 

Woollier, Mr., bust by, iii. 105 ; dis- 
covery of the infolded point of the 
human ear by, iii. 140. 

Work, i. ii2, 122; method of, i. 100, 

done between 1842 and 1854, 

i. 327. 

, growing necessity of, iii. 92. 

Works, list of, iii. 362-364. 

Worms, formation of vegetable mould 
by the action of, i. 70, 98, 284; iii. 
216, 217. 

Wren, Gold-crested, sexual differences 
of the, iii. 124. 

Wright, Chauncey, letters from, ac- 
companying his article against 
Mivart's 'Genesis of Species,' iii. 

2 E 




Wright, Chauncey, letters to, on his 
pamphlet against Mivart's * Genesis 
of Species, iii. 145, 146, 148, 164. 

, visit to Down, iii. 165. 

Writing, manner of, i. 99, 152-154. 

Yarrell, William, i. 208. 
Yorkshire Naturalists' Union, memo- 
rial from the, iii. 227. 

Zoological Station at Naples, 


donation of £ 100 to the, for purchase 

of apparatus, iii. 225. 
' Zoologist,' review of the third edition 

of the ' Origin ' in the, ii. 376. 
Zoology, lectures on, in Edinburgh, i. 

41 ; suggested popular treatise on, 

iii. 3, 4. 
c Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle? 

arrangements for publishing the, i. 

281, 283, 288 ; Government grant 

obtained for the, i. 284 ; publication 

of the, i. 71.