Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


EX  LIBRIS 
BERTRAM 
WIN 

O.Sc.M.D 


m 


HI  i 


o 


1  ROM    A    PHOTOGRAPH    (l88l)    BY    MESSRS.    ELLIOTT    AND    FRY. 

Frontispiece,  l-'ol.  III. 


THE 


LIFE  AND  LETTERS 


OF 


CHARLES  DARWIN, 


INCLUDING 


AN  AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL  CHAPTER. 


EDITED   BY   HIS    SON, 

FRANCIS     DARWIN. 


IN    THREE    VOLUMES:— VOL.    Ill, 


THIRD  EDITION. 


LONDON: 
JOHN   MURRAY,   ALBEMARLE   STREET. 

1887. 

All  Rights  Reserved. 


LONDON: 
PRINTED  BY  WILLIAM  CLOWES  AND  SONS,   LIMITED, 

STAMFORD  STREET  AND  CHARING  CROSS. 


AUb  1  a  1957] 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


VOLUME  III. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  I. — THE  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.     *  VARIATION 

OF  ANIMALS  AND  PLANTS' — 1863-1866  i 

CHAPTER  II. — THE  PUBLICATION  OF  THE  '  VARIATION 
OF  ANIMALS  AND  PLANTS  UNDER  DOMESTICATION' — 
JAN.  i867~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' — 1871- 
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 

BOTANICAL  LETTERS. 
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 


IV  CONTENTS. 

PAGB 

CHAPTER  XI.— THE  «  POWER  OF  MOVEMENT  IN  PLANTS  ' 

— 1878-1881 329 

CHAPTER  XII. — MISCELLANEOUS    BOTANICAL    LETTERS — 

1873-1882 339 

CHAPTER  XIII.— CONCLUSION 355 


APPENDICES. 

APPENDIX  I. — THE  FUNERAL  IN  WESTMINSTER  ABBEY    .  360 

APPENDIX  II. — LIST  OF  WORKS  BY  C.  DARWIN      .         .  362 

APPENDIX  III.— PORTRAITS 371 

APPENDIX  IV. — HONOURS,  DEGREES,  SOCIETIES,  &c.       .  373 

INDEX  ..........  377 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


VOLUME  III. 

Frontispiece:  CHARLES  DARWIN  IN  1881.      From  a  Photo- 
graph by  Messrs.  Elliot  and  Fry. 


LIFE  AND  LETTERS 

OF 

CHARLES    DARWIN. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE   SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION. 

'VARIATION   OF  ANIMALS  AND   PLANTS.' 
1863-1866. 

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 
years. 

The  three  chapters  in  vol.  ii.  on  inheritance,  which  occupy 
84  pages  of  print,  were  begun  in  January  and  finished  on 
April  ist ;  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  i6th  and  finished  on  July  2oth. 

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 

VOL.  in.  B 


2  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

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 
dreadful." 

The  minor  works  in  this  year  were  a  short  paper  in  the 
(  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  4^.  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  meatus. 
that  the  oviduct  runs  down  to  the  f  Kingsley's  '  Life,'  vol.  ii.  p.  171. 


1863.]  MR.  HUXLEY'S  LECTURES.  3 

"  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  :] 

C.  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 


4  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

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  .  .  . 

.  .  .  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]. 

TVfY  DEAR  HOOKER.  —  I  am  burning  with  indignation  and 
-must  exhale.  ...  I  could  not  get  to  sleep  till  past  3  last 
night  for  indignation.!  .  .  . 

*  From  "  Sea  Dreams,"  in  '  Enoch  anger.     It  was  a  question  of  literary 

Arden,'  &c.,  1864,  p.  105.  dishonesty,  in  which  a  friend  was 

f  It  would  serve  no  useful  pur-  the  sufferer,  but  which  in  no  way 

pose  if  I  were  to  go  into  the  matter  affected  himself. 
which  so  strongly  roused  my  father's 


1863.]  SCIENCE   IN    THE   COLONIES.  5 

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^  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 


6  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

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 


1863.]  EVOLUTION   IN   FRANCE.  7 

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.  Quatrefages'  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. 


8  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

not  seen  the  Athenczum*  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  \  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,'  controversy  which  every  one  be- 
first  edition,  p.  480,  Lyell  criticised  lieved  to  be  closed.  Prof.  Huxley 
somewhat  severely  Owen's  account  (Medical  Times,  Oct.  25,  1862,. 
of  the  difference  between  the  Hu-  quoted  in  '  Man's  Place  in  Nature,' 
man  and  Simian  brains.  Thenum-  p.  117)  spoke  of  the  "two  years 
ber  of  the  Athenceum  here  referred  during  which  this  preposterous  con- 
to  (1863,  P-  262)  contains  a  reply  troversy  has  dragged  its  weary 
by  Professor  Owen  to  Lyell's  stric-  length."  And  this  no  doubt  ex- 
tures.  The  surprise  expressed  by  pressed  a  very  general  feeling, 
my  father  was  at  the  revival  of  a  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 
subject. 

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 


10  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

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  Parthenon  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. 


1863.]  'ANTIQUITY  OF   MAN.'  II 

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   I 
tell  her  that  is  a  pitch  of  heroism  to  which  only  a  woman  is  j 
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.' 
the    real    issues    involved    in    the 


12  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

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.'  13 

"  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. 


14  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1863 

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,  Buffbn,  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  Athenceum 
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  n,  1863  ;  Ly ell'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.'  15 


C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down  [March  13,  1863]. 

I  should  have  thanked  you  sooner  for  the  Athenceum  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 
always  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. 


1 6  SPREAD  OF  EVOLUTION.        .  [1863. 

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  corning  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 t  (I  now  forget  the  name !),  who  has  lately  published  a 
grand  folio,  has  spoken  out  to  the  utmost  extent  on  the 
'  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  '  Antiques  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.' 


1863.]  THE   'ATHENAEUM.'  17 

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  Athencemn  taking  to  Oken-like 
transcendental  philosophy  written  in  Owenian  style !  \  .  .  .  . 

"  The  Marquis  de  Saporta.  Carpenter,  naturally    enough,    be- 

t  This  refers  to  a  review  of  Dr.  lieved  in,  viz.  the  genetic  connec- 

Carpenter's    'Introduction  to   the  tion  of  living  and  extinct  Foramini- 

study    of  Foraminifera,'    that   ap-  fera.    In  the  next  number  is  a  letter 

peared      in      the    Athenceum     of  by    Dr.   Carpenter,    which    chiefly 

March  28,  1863  (p.  417).     The  re-  consists   of  a  protest  against  the 

viewer     attacks     Dr.     Carpenter's  reviewer's  somewhat  contemptuous 

views  in  as  much  as  they  support  classification  of  Dr.  Carpenter  and 

the  doctrine  of  Descent ;    and  he  my  father  as  disciple  and  master, 

upholds     spontaneous     generation  In  the  course  of  the  letter  Dr.  Car- 

(Heterogeny)  in  place  of  what  Dr.  penter  says — p.  461  : — 
VOL.   III.  C 


18 


SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION. 


[I863. 


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  y.  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  arn  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 
Reviewer's. 


1863.] 


FALCONER   ON   LYELL. 


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  thenceum  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 
Athen<zum\  (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.  LyelPs 
reply  was  published  in  \h.tAthen<z- 
2t?n,  April  1 8,  1863.  It  ought  to 
be  mentioned  that  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Prestwich  (Athenaeum,  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. 
Falconer's. 

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 


20 


SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION. 


[I863. 


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  f  of  your  valuable  book.  But  after  a 
few  hours  my  sorrow  vanished  for  this  reason  :  I  have  written 
a  letter  to  the  Athenceumym  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  J  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. 

t  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  Athenceiim 
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  tc* 
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. 


1863.]  LETTER   IN   THE   '  ATHEN.EUM.'  21 

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 
liave  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.t  Well,  it  will  all  soon  be  forgotten 

[In  reply  to  the  above-mentioned  letter  of  my  father's 
to  the  Athenceum,  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,  "  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 


22  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

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  Athenaum  of 
May  Qth,  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. 


1863.]  LETTER   IN   THE   '  ATHEN/EUM.'  23 

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

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Leith  Hill  Place, 

Saturday  [May  11,  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  Pitblic  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 
astonishing 

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

*  Public  Opinion,  April  23,  was  obliged  to  conceal  it  imme- 
1863.  A  lively  account  of  a  police  diately,  or  one  of  the  old  bone 
case,  in  which  the  quarrels  of  collectors  would  be  sure  to  appro- 
scientific  men  are  satirised.  Mr.  priate  it  first  and  deny  the  theft 
John  Bull  gives  evidence  that —  afterwards,  and  the  consequent 

"  The  whole  neighbourhood  was  wrangling    and    disputes  were   as 

unsettled  by  their  disputes  ;  Hux-  endless  as  they  were  wearisome, 

ley   quarrelled  with   Owen,   Owen  "  Lord    Mayor.  —  Probably    the 

with    Darwin,    Lyell    with    Owen,  clergyman    of   the    parish    might 

Falconer  and  Prestwich  with  Lyell,  exert  some  influence  over  them  ? 

and  Gray  the  menagerie  man  with  "  The  gentleman  smiled,  shook 

everybody.    He  had  pleasure,  how-  his   head,  and  stated  that  he  re- 

ever,  in  stating  that   Darwin  was  gretted  to  say  that  no  class  of  men 

the  quietest  of  the  set.     They  were  paid    so    little     attention    to    the 

always    picking    bones  with   each  opinions  of  the  clergy  as  that  to 

other  and  fighting  over  their  gains.  which    these    unhappy    men     be- 

If  either  of  the   gravel  sifters   or  longed." 
stone  breakers  found  anything,  he 


24  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

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  cathedra"  of  a  theory 
of  spontaneous  generation  by  the  reviewer  of  Dr.  Carpenter 
in  the  Athenaum  (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 
possess."] 

C.  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 
to-day. 

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,  (i)  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. 


26  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1863. 

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  LyelPs  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 
Bentham, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

CH.  DARWIN. 

1864. 

[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  write  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 


28  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1864. 

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,  hoVever,  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  : — 


1864.]  COPLEY   MEDAL — PROF.   KOLLIKER.  29 

"  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.'  "  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  respect  due  to  so  distinguished  a 

Species," 'Nat.  Hist.  Review,' 1864.  naturalist    (a    sentiment    well    ex- 

Republished     in    '  Lay    Sermons,'  pressed  in  Professor  Huxley's  re- 

1870,  p.  328.  The  work  of  Professor  view),  but  he  had  also  a  personal 

Kolliker  referred  to  is  '  Ueber  die  regard  for  him,  and  often  alluded 

Darwin'sche       Schopfungstheorie '  with  satisfaction  to  the  visit  which 

(Leipzig,  1864).    Toward  Professor  Professor  Kolliker  paid  at  Down. 
Kolliker  my  father  felt  not  only  the 


30  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1864. 

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  Academic  des  Sciences,  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  1'origine  des  especes.  Par 
P.  Flourens.'  8vo.  Paris,  1864. 


1865.]  M.   FLOURENS — DUKE   OF   ARGYLL.  31 

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

"  Enfin  1'ouvrage  de  M.  Darwin  a  paru.  On  ne  peut 
qu'etre  frappe  du  talent  de  1'auteur.  Mais  que  d'idees  ob- 
scures, que  d'idees  fausses !  Quel  jargon  metaphysique  jete 
mal  a  propos  dans  1'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  Tesprit 
frangais,  que  devenez-vous  ?  "] 

1865. 

[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 


32  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1865. 

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  versation  on  Darwinism  with  the 
doubts,  I  did  not  think  it  worth  Princess  Royal,  who  is  a  worthy 
sending  you)  on  Coal  Flora.  He  daughter  of  her  father,  in  the  read- 
wrote  some  excellent  articles  in  ing  of  good  books,  and  thinking  of 
*  Silliman '  against  *  Origin  '  views  ;  what  she  reads.  She  was  very 
but  he  says  now,  after  repeated  much  au  fait  at  the  '  Origin,'  and 
reading  of  the  book,  he  is  a  con-  Huxley's  book,  the  *  Antiquity ,*" 
vert  !  "  £c."—Ly  ell's  '  Life,'  vol.  ii.  p.  385. 
*  "  I  had  ...  an  animated  con- 


1865.]        DUKE   OF  ARGYLL — NATURAL   SELECTION,  33 

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  yJoth  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.'  t 

*  "  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 

VOL.  III.  D 


34  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1865. 

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  s'ay  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.]  L YELL'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 
continents. 

I  have  also  been  very  glad  to  read  your  argument  on  the 
denudation  of  the  Weald,  and  your  excellent  rtsumt  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 


36  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1865. 

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


C.  Darwin  to  John  Lubbock. 

Down,  June  n  [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, J  but  I  fear  you 

*  This  was  a  favourite  reform  of  through  dry  and  pictureless  books 

my    father's.      He    wrote    to    the  for  the  benefit  of  their  elders."    He 

Athenceum  on  the  subject,  Feb.  5,  tried  to  introduce  the  reform  in  the 

1867,    pointing    out    that    a  book  case  of  his  own  books,  but  found 

cut,  even  carefully,  with   a  paper  the  conservatism  of  booksellers  too 

knife  collects  dust  on  its  edges  far  strong  for  him.     The  presentation 

more    than    a  machine-cut    book.  copies,  however,   of   all    his  later 

He  goes  on  to  quote  the  case  of  books  were  sent  out  with  the  edges 

a  lady  of  his    acquaintance    who  cut. 

was  in  the  habit  of  cutting  books          f  '  Prehistoric  Times,'  1865. 
with  her  thumb,  and  finally  appeals          \  l  Prehistoric    Times,'    p.    487,. 

to  the  AthencEum  to  earn  the  grati-  where  the  words,  "  the  discoveries 

tude  of  children  "who  have  to  cut  of  a  Newton  or  a  Darwin,"  occur. 


1865.]  FRITZ   MULLER.  37 

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

[The  following  letter  refers  to  Fritz  Miiller'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  Miiller,  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 


38  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1865. 

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  I 
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  cirripdde  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 
copy. 

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

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


1865.]  CHILDREN  AND  PARENTS.  39 

C.  Darwin  to  J.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  Thursday,  2;th  [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  % 
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,  While,  for  the  subsequent  develop- 

and  Lord  Chancellor  of  England,  ment  of  the  gardens  up  to  their 

lived  at  Holwood,  near  Down.  present  magnificent  condition,  the 

t  Sir  Wm.   Hooker ;    b.    1785,  nation    must     thank     Sir    Joseph 

d.  1865.      He  took  charge  of  the  Hooker,  in  whom  the  same  qualities 

Royal  Gardens  at  Kew,  in    1840,  are  so  conspicuous, 
when  they  ceased  to  be  the  private          \  I  may  quote  here  a  passage 

gardens  of  the  Royal  Family.     In  from  a  letter  of  November   1863. 

doing  so,  he  gave  up  his  professor-  It  was  written  to  a  friend  who  had 

ship  at  Glasgow — and  with  it  half  lost  his  child :    "  How  well  I   re- 

of  his   income.      He  founded  the  member  your  feeling,  when  we  lost 

herbarium  and  library,  and  within  Annie.    It  was  my  greatest  comfort 

ten  years  he  succeeded  in  making  that  I  had  never  spoken  a  harsh 

the  gardens  the  first  in  the  world.  word  to  her.     Your  grief  has  made 

It  is,  thus,  not  too  much  to  say  that  me  shed  a  few  tears  over  our  poor 

the  creation  of  the  establishment  darling  ;  but  believe  me  that  these 

at  Kew  is  due  to  the  abilities  and  tears    have    lost    that  unutterable 

self-devotion  of  Sir  William  Hooker.  bitterness  of  former  days." 


4O  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1865. 

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  ;  f  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  Magazine  of  Natural  Hist- 
ory, and  find  much  that  interests  me.  I  miss  my  climbing 
plants  very  much,  as  I  could  observe  them  when  very 
poorly. 

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,{  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 

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

'  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.  4! 

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 
friends. 

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  1813  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  Miiller,  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.  f  'Chapters  on  Language,' 1865. 


42  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

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 
done. 

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. 


1866. 

[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  loth. — Finished  '  Origin,'  except  revises,  and  began 
going  over  Chapter  XIII.  of  *  Domestic  Animals.' 

Nov.  2ist. — Finished  '  Pangenesis.' 

Dec.  2ist. — 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 
Down. 


1 866.]  PANGENESIS.  43 

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  I  Trans.  Entomolog.  Soc.,  vol.  v. 
on  South  American  Butterflies,"  j  (N.S.). 


44  SPREAD  OF   EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

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- 
worked. 

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 

[1865?] 

MY  DEAR  HUXLEY,— Forgive  my  writing  in  pencil,  as  I 
can  do  so  lying  down.  I  have  read  Buffon  :  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 


46  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

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 
'  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  '  Mate'rialisme  Contemporain.' 
degree  indirect  and  incorrect,  since 


1 866.]  BRITISH   ASSOCIATION.  47 

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.3     See   Gar- 

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


48  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

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  Cams. 

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  Koyal  Academy  of  Sciences  at 
Naturhistorischen    Art.'      An  Ad-      Munich,  Mar.  28,  1865. 
dress  given  at  a  public  meeting  of 

VOL.  III.  E 


SO  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

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 
translation. 

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  Begriff/  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 


52  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

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  ii  [1861]. 

"  If  you  wish  to  save  me  from  a  miserable  death,  do  tell  me 
why  the  angles  of  •£-,  i,  f,  -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  clistinguishable,  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.n 

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  sub  scribed  ,£  i  o. 


54  SPREAD   OF   EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

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 
evanescent. 

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  '  wasv  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 
character."] 

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.' 


56  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [l866. 

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. 


1 866.]  SCIENCE  AND   HORTICULTURE.  57 

[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. 
horticulture. 


58  SPREAD   OF  EVOLUTION.  [1866. 

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  laburnum  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 
yourself. 

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    ) 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   PUBLICATION   OF   THE   'VARIATION   OF   ANIMALS 
AND   PLANTS   UNDER  DOMESTICATION.' 

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  octavo,  so  I  have  written  to  Murray 

J.  D.  Hooker  :  "  I  have  been  these  to  suggest  details  to  be  printed  in 

last  few  days  vexed  and  annoyed  small  type.     But    I    feel  that    the 

to  a  foolish  degree  by  hearing  that  size  is  quite  ludicrous  in  relation  to 

my  MS.    on  Dom.   An.  and  Cult.  the  subject.     I  am  ready  to  swear 

Plants    will    make    2   vols.,    both  at  myself  and  at   every  fool  who 

bigger    than    the    '  Origin.'      The  writes  a  book." 
volumes  will  have  to  be  full-sized 


60  'VARIATION    UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [l86/. 

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  I5th,  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  1860  (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  Merite"  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- 


l86/.]  'REIGN   OF   LAW.'  6l 

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.       Robert    Brown,    Faraday,  then  elect  by  vote  the  new  member 

and  Herschel,    have  belonged    to  — but  the  king  has  technically  the 

it   in   this  way.     From  the  thirty  appointment  in  his  own  hands, 

members  a  chancellor  is  elected  by  *  '  The  Reign  of  Law,'  1867. 

the  king   (the  first  officer  of  this  f  Sat.  Review,    Nov.    15,    1862, 

kind  was  Alexander  v.  Humboldt)  ;  '  The   Edinburgh  Review   on    the 

and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  chancellor  Supernatural.'      Written     by    my 

to  notify  a  vacancy  in  the  Order  to  cousin,  Mr.  Henry  Parker, 
the  remainder  of  the  thirty,  who 


62  'VARIATION    UNDER   DOMESTICATION.'  [l86/. 

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  give  a  conclusive   answer  on  this 

from   some    notes  which    he    has  point.    Professor  Judd  continues  : — 

kindly  given    me  :  —  "  Lyell   once  "  I  made  a  note  of  this  and  other 

told  me  that  he  had  frequently  been  conversations  of  Lyell's  at  the  time, 

asked  if  Darwin  was  not  one  of  the  At  the  present  time  such  statements 

most  unhappy   of  men,    it    being  must  appear  strange  to  any  one  who 

suggested    that  his   outrage  upon  does  not  recollect  the  revolution  in 

public   opinion  should  have  filled  opinion    which    has    taken    place 

him  with  remorse."      Sir   Charles  during  the  last  23  years  [1882]." 
must  have  been  able,  I  think,  to 


1867.]  EVOLUTION   AND   RELIGION.  63 

[The^Jollpwing  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 


64  'VARIATION   UNDER   DOMESTICATION.'  [1867. 

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 
power. 

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  i  [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. 

VOL.   III.  F 


66  '  VARIATION   UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [l86/. 

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  Cams. 

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. 


l86/.]  PROFESSOR   HAECKEL.  6/ 

[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  Miiller. 
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 
Morphologic,'  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 
success. 

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  Morphologic,'  "  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 
*  '  Charles  Darwin  und  sein  Verhaltniss  zu  Deutschland,'  1885. 

F  2 


68  'VARIATION    UNDER   DOMESTICATION.'  [l86/. 

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

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  Morphologic,'  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  i8th  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  '  Encyclo-  printed  in  '  Science  and  Culture, 
paedia  Britannica,'  9th  edit.,  re-  1881,  p.  298. 


l86/.]  PROFESSOR   HAECKEL.  69 

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 


70  <  VARIATION    UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [l86/. 

Victor  Carus  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 
here. 

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  '  The  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants.' 


1 867.]  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  Planarise  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  bean  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  loth  edit,  of  the  '  Principles.' 


72  'VARIATION   UNDER   DOMESTICATION.'  [1867. 

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 
weaned  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 
Biology. 

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.!  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. 

t  Of  the   '  Origin.'     It   appears  Royer,  who  translated  the  book. 


l86/.]  ENCOURAGEMENT.  73 

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. 


74  '  VARIATION   UNDER   DOMESTICATION.'  [lS6/. 

C.  Darwin  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  ?....!  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 

1868. 

['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  Muller,  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.  Darwin  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 !  .  .  .  . 


76  'VARIATION    UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1868. 

C.  Danvin  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.]  REVIEWS.  77 

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  thenceum*  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.  "  Henceforth  the  rhetoricians  will 

My  father  quoted  Pouchet's  asser-  have  a  better  illustration  of  anti- 

tion  that  "variation  under  domes-  climax  than  the  mountain  which 

tication  throws    no   light   on  the  brought  forth  a  mouse,  ...  in  the 

natural    modification   of    species."  discoverer  of  the  origin  of  species, 

The   reviewer  quotes  the  end   of  who  tried  to  explain  the  variation 

a  passage  in  which  my  father  de-  of  pigeons  ! 

clares    that   he  can  see   no    force  "A  few  summary  words.      On 

in  Pouchet's  arguments,  or  rather  the  '  Origin  of  Species '  Mr.  Dar- 

assertions,  and  then  goes  on  :  "We  win  has  nothing,  and  is  never  likely 

are  sadly  mistaken  if  there  are  not  to  have  anything,  to  say  ;  but  on  the 

clear  proofs  in  the  pages   of  the  vastly  important  subject  of  inheri- 

book  before  us  that,  on  the  contrary,  tance,  the  transmission    of  pecu- 

Mr.  Darwin  has  perceived,  felt,  and  liarities     once     acquired     through 

yielded  to  the  force  of  the  argu-  successive   generations,    this  work 

ments  or  assertions  of  his  French  is  a  valuable   store-house  of  facts 

antagonist."      The  following  may  for  curious  students  and  practical 

serve  as  samples  of  the  rest  of  the  breeders." 
review  : — 


78  'VARIATION   UNDER  DOMESTICATION/  [1868. 

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  Quatrefages),  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  Athenceum  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. 

t  '  Zoological  Record.'    The  volume  for  1868,  published  Dec.  1869. 


80  'VARIATION    UNDER   DOMESTICATION.'  [1868. 

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  jF.  D.  Hooker. 

Down,  February  28  [i< 
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.  III.  G 


82  'VARIATION    UNDER   DOMESTICATION.'  [l868. 

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 
isolated. 

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. 


a  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 
admitted. 

...  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]. 

.  .  .1  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 
liypothesis.  .  .  .  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  Miiller,  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 


84  'VARIATION   UNDER  DOMESTICATION.'  [1868. 

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.  Darzvin  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  L 
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  but  the  edifice  (answering  to  natural 

metaphor  is  given  at  p.  307,  vol.  i.  selection)  should  rise,  irrespective 

Dr.  Gray's  criticism  on  this  point  of  will  or  choice  !  "     But  my  father's 

is  as  follows  :  "  But  in  Mr.  Dar-  parallel  demands  that  natural  selec- 

win's  parallel,  to  meet  the  case  of  tion  shall  be  the  architect,  not  the 

nature  according  to  his  own  view  edifice — the  question  of  design  only 

of  it,  not  only  the  fragments  of  rock  comes  in  with  regard  to  the  form 

(answering  to  variation)  should  fall,  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-ordainment,  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  would  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  f  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  Athenaum.  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- 


86  '  VARIATION    UNDER   DOMESTICATION.'  [l86& 

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  Miiller's  book, 
'  Fiir  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  '  Fiir  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.3* 


1 868.]  M.  GAUDRY.  S/ 

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.  Gaiidry. 

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 
Geoffroy,  and  especially  to  Lamarck,  should  now  cling 
so  pertinaciously  to  the  belief  that  species  are  immutable 
creations. 

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


88  '  VARIATION   UNDER   DOMESTICATION.'  [1868. 

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 
little.  .  .  . 

*  Now  Professor  of  Physiology  at  Jena. 


89 


CHAPTER  III. 

WORK     ON     'MAN/ 
1864-18/0. 

flN  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/f  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  J  Reader,  Pup.  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. 
i  -  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.  91 

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  i6th  for  Fresh- 
water, in  the  Isle  of  Wight,  where  he  remained  with  his 
family  until  August  2ist.  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 


l86/.]  SEXUAL   SELECTION.  93 

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.'  [l86/. 

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. 


1867.]  SEXUAL  SELECTION.  95 

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  growing 
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, 
'  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 


1 868.]  SEXUAL  SELECTION.  97 

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


C.  Darwin  to  F.  Milller. 

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 

VOL.  III.  H 


9&  WORK   ON   'MAN/  [l86&. 

armatus  translated  by  Mr.  Dallas,  has  just  appeared  in  our 
1  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.'  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  carnosus  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.  Agassis. 

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.  Gunther,  that 

H  2 


100  WORK   ON   'MAN.'  [1868. 

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  J.  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  Athen&um,  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.j  I  particularly  admired 
Tyndall's  little  speech.t  .  .  .  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- 

f  The   British  Association  was  ly  described. 

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

ment  in  certain  modern  cromlech  dent  of  Section  A. 


1 868.]  BRITISH   ASSOCIATION.  IOI 

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  A  thenceum 
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  j  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  Lyell's  "  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  Lyell's  heroic  renunciation  of  his 

reference  to  the  review  of '  Animals  old  views  in  accepting  Evolution, 

and  Plants'  in  the  Athmceum  of  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker  continued,  "Well 

Feb.  15,  1 868.  may  he  be  proud  of  a  superstructure, 

f  In  discussing  the  astronomer's  raised  on  the  foundations  of  an  in- 

objection  to  Evolution,  namely  that  secure  doctrine,  when  he  finds  that 

our  globe  has  not  existed  for  a  long  he  can  underpin  it  and  substitute 

enough  period  to  give  time  for  the  a  new  foundation  ;  and  after  all  is 

assumed  transmutation  of  living  be-  finished,  survey  his  edifice,  not  only 

ings,  Hooker  challenged  Whewell's  more  secure  but  more  harmonious 

dictum,  that  astronomy  is  the  queen  in  its  proportion  than  it  was  before." 

of  sciences — the  only  perfect  science.  §  The  *  Naturalist's  Voyage '  was 

\  After  a  eulogium  on  Sir  Charles  dedicated  to  Lyell. 


102  WORK  ON   'MAN.'  [1868. 

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  Athen&um  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  i  : — 

"  In  my  opinion  Dr,  Joseph  Dalton  Hooker  need  take  no 
notice  of  the  attack  in  the  Athen&um  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 
Flourens." 

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,' 


1868.]  MARQUIS   DE   SAPORTA.  IO3 

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 
liorns  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.' 


IO4  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  Morphologic,' 1 866.  Geschichte,'  1868.  It  was  trans- 
No  English  translation  of  this  lated  and  published  in  1876,  under 
book  has  appeared.  the  title, '  The  History  of  Creation.* 

f  'Die  Natiirliche    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,'  ir. 
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 

-expression.] 

1869. 

[At  the  beginning  of  the  year  he  was  at  work  in  preparing 
the  fifth  edition  of  the  '  Origin.3  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  loth, 
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  loth, 
when  he  went  with  his  family  to  North  Wales,  where  he 
remained  about  seven  weeks,  returning  to  Down  on  July  3ist. 

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 
tomb." 


1869.]  FLEEMING  JENKIN.  IO/ 

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 


IO8  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  Athenczum,  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 


1869.]  FIFTH   EDITION   OF   THE   'ORIGIN.'  1 09 

calls  'An  Historical  Sketch/  &c."     As   a  matter  of  fact  a 
Sketch  appeared  in  the  third  edition  in  1861. 

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  XVI 1 1.,  published  after  the  Restoration,  from  which 
the  Republic  and  the  Empire,  Robespierre  and  Buonaparte 
were  omitted." 

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

C.  Darwin  to  Victor  Carus. 

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 


IIO  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  I,  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  ;, 


1869.]  SEXUAL  SELECTION.  Ill 

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 
uniformitarians. 

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. 

VOL.  III.  I 


114  WORK   ON   'MAN.'  [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 
'  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.  1 15 

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  14,  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  Groll  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 


116  WORK   ON   'MAN.'  [1869. 

"  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  ! 
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  multiplication,  and  survival,  for  his 

any  one  acquainted  merely  with  the  own  purpose.     We  know,  however, 

"  unaided  productions  of  nature,"  that  this   has  been   done,  and  we 

might   reasonably    doubt    whether  must  therefore  admit  the  possibility 

a   dray-horse,   for   example,  could  that   in    the    development    of   the 

have     been     developed     by      the  human  race,  a  higher  intelligence 

power     of     man     directing     the  has  guided  the  same  laws  for  nobler 

"  action  of  the  laws  of  variation,  ends." 


1869.]  MAN— M.   DE   QUATREFAGES.  II? 

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- 
1  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. \  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  wiiat  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          \  "  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.'  [l8/O. 

iS/O. 

[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.  Danvin  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.' 


1 870.]        MR.  WALLACE'S  'NATURAL  SELECTION.'  121 

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.  Gunther* 

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.'  [iS/O. 

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 .  Gilnther. 

May  15  [1870]. 

MY  DEAR  DR.  GUNTHER, — 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.  123 

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> 
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.'  [iS/O. 

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  ?  chaffinch,*  the  less  red  on  the  head 
and  less  clean  colours  of  ?  goldfinch,  the  much  less  red  on 
the  breast  of  o.  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  cceruleus  (both  of  which  build  under 
cover)  than  of  °.  Parusy  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 
Callus  bankiva,  the  female  of  black  grouse,  the  pea-hen,  the 
female  partridge,  [and  their  respective  males],  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. 


1 8/0.]  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 
gallinacese  would  suffice. 

Believe  me,  my  dear  Wallace, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

CH.  DARWIN. 

C.  Darwin  to  y.  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.'  [iS/CX 

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  \  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. 


1 8/0.]  SOUTH   AMERICAN   MISSION.  I2/ 

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 
days, 

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.'  [1870. 

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 
loth,  1879  :  'The  progress  of  the  Fuegians  is  wonderful,  and 
had  it  not  occurred  would  have  been  to  me  quite  incredible.' 
On  January  3rd,  1880  :  *  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  2Oth, 
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  ist,  1881,  sending  me  his  annual  subscription  to 
the  Orphanage  at  the  Mission  Station,  he  wrote :  '  Judging 
from  the  Missionary  Jotirnal,  the  Mission  in  Tierra  del 
Fuego  seems  going  on  quite  wonderfully  well.'  "] 

*  It  seems  to  have  been  in  1867. 


I8/O.]  COUSIN   MARRIAGES.  129 

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  the  existence  of  a 
great  physiological  law,  rendering  an  enquiry  with  reference  to 
mankind  of  much  importance.  In  England  and  many  parts  of 
Europe  the  marriages  of  cousins  are  objected  to  from  their 
szipposed  injurious  consequences ;  but  this  belief  rests  on  no 
direct  evidence.  It  is  therefore  manifestly  desirable  that  the 
belief  should  either  be  proved  false,  or  should  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. 

VOL.   III.  K 


130  WORK  ON   'MAN.'  [iS/O. 

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 
substantiated."] 

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


CHAPTER  IV. 

PUBLICATION  OF  THE  'DESCENT  OF  MAN.' 


THE   'EXPRESSION   OF  THE   EMOTIONS/ 
18/1-1873. 

[THE  last  revise  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man '  was  corrected  on 
January  I5th,  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.  2  500 
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 


132  'DESCENT   OF   MAN '—EXPRESSION. 

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 
1  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 
form." 

In  Mr.  James  Hague's  pleasantly  written  article,  "  A  Remin- 
iscence of  Mr.  Darwin"  ('Harper's  Magazine,'  October  1884), 
*  '  Contemporary  Review,'  1871. 


l8;i.]  'EXPRESSION   OF   THE  EMOTIONS.'  133 

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 
shocked" 

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 
admiration." 

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 
'  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  I7th,  1871,  the  last  proof  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man ' 
having  been  finished  on  January  1 5th.  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 

f  July    1871.     An  adverse  criti-  fact." 

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


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

began  to  write  it.  Thus  he  wrote  to  Dr.  Asa  Gray,  April  15, 
1867:— 

"  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 
neglected." 

It  should,  however,  be  remembered  that  the  subject  had 
been  before  his  mind,  more  or  less,  from  1837  or  ^38,  as 
I  judge  from  entries  in  his  early  note-books.  It  was  in 
December  1839,  that  he  began  to  make  observations  on 
children. 

The  work  required  much  correspondence,  not  only  with 
missionaries  and  others  living  among  savages,  to  whom  he 
sent  his  printed  queries,  but  with  physiologists  and  phy- 
sicians. He  obtained  much  information  from  Professor 
Donders,  Sir  W.  Bowman,  Sir  James  Paget,  Dr.  W.  Ogle, 
Dr.  Crichtori  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  [1871]. 

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  Wallace    maintains    that   'natural 

January  27,  Mr.  Wallace  wrote  :  — •  selection  could  only  have  endowed 

"  Many  thanks  for  your  first  volume  the   savage  with  a    brain   a  little 

which  I  have  just  finished  reading  superior  to  that  of  an  ape.' "     In 

through  with  the  greatest  pleasure  the  above  quoted  letter  Mr.  Wallace 

and  interest ;  and  I  have  also  to  wrote  : — "  Your  chapters  on  '  Man  ' 

thank  you  for  the  great  tenderness  are  of  intense  interest,  but  as  touch- 

with  which  you  have  treated  me  ing  my  special  heresy  not  as  yet 

and  my  heresies."  altogether    convincing,  though    of 

The  heresy  is  the  limitation  of  course  I  fully  agree  with  every  word 

natural  selection  as  applied  to  man.  and  every  argument  which  goes  to 

My    father    wrote    ('  Descent     of  prove  the  evolution  or  development 

Man,'  i.  p.  137): — "  I  cannot  there-  of  man  out  of  a  lower  form." 
fore  understand  how  it  is  that  Mr. 


I8/I.]  '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. 


'DESCENT   OF   MAN' — EXPRESSION.  [187 1. 

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  v  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- 


1 871.]  MR.  WALLACE'S  REVIEW  137 

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,  1871. 

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,  f  in  the  case  of  insects,  having  been  acquired 


tiirliche  Schopfungs  -  geschichte,'  f  Mr.  Wallace  says  that  the  pair- 
in  which  he  fully  discusses  the  ing  of  butterflies  is  probably  deter- 
genealogy  of  man.  If  this  work  mined  by  the  fact  that  one  male  is 
had  appeared  before  my  essay  stronger-winged,  or  more  pertina- 
had  been  written,  I  should  pro-  cious  than  the  rest,  rather  than  by 
bably  never  have  completed  it.  the  choice  of  the  females.  He 
Almost  all  the  conclusions  at  quotes  the  case  of  caterpillars  which 
which  I  have  arrived,  I  find  con-  are  brightly  coloured  and  yet  sex- 
firmed  by  this  naturalist,  whose  less.  Mr.  Wallace  also  makes  the 
knowledge  on  many  points  is  much  good  criticism,  that  the  'Descent  of 
fuller  than  mine."  Man'  consists  of  two  books  mixed 
*  Academy,  March  15,  1871.  together. 


138  ^DESCENT  OF  MAN5 — EXPRESSION. 

through  sexual  selection.  I  always  saw  that  the  evidence 
was  very  weak  ;  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, 

is/I):- 

"  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  Ath&t&um" 

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 y    March  n    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- 


1871.]  REVIEWS.  139 

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,  1871)  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 
sale." 

A  review  of  the  '  Descent  of  Man/  which  my  father  spoke 
of  as  "capital,"  appeared  in  the  Saturday  Review  (Mar.  4 
and  n,  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  citation  will  show  :  "  Even  had  it 

my   chapter  on    man  will    excite  been     rendered    highly    probable, 

attention  and  plenty  of  abuse,  and  which  we  doubt,  that  the  animal 

I    suppose   abuse    is   as    good   as  creation  has  been  developed  into 

praise  for  selling  a  book." — (From  its  numerous  and  widely  different 

a  letter  to  Mr.  Murray,  Jan.  31,  varieties  by  mere  evolution,  it  would 

1867.)  still  require  an  independent  investi- 

f  Times,   April  7  and   8,   1871.  gation  of  overwhelming  force  and 

The  review  is  not  only  unfavourable  completeness    to   justify  the    pre- 

as    regards  the    book  under  dis-  sumption  that  man  is  but  a  term  in 

cussion,  but  also  as  regards  Evolu-  this  self-evolving  series." 
tion  in  general,  as  the  following 


140  'DESCENT   OF   MAN' — EXPRESSION. 

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  John  Brodie  Innes.\ 

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 '].} 
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 

nerti.  and  yet  feel  no  shade  of  animosity, 

t  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 


IS/I.]  EXPRESSION.  141 

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

Down,  March  12  [1871]. 

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.  $  Medico-chirurg.  Trans,  liii. 


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

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. 


l8;i.]  EXPRESSION.  143 

C.  Darwin  to  W.  Ogle. 

Down,  April  29  [1871]. 

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  articles,  as  well  by  a  little  teaching. 

Northampton,  Massachusetts,  Sept.  He    thought   and  read    much    on 

20,    1830,   and  came    of  a  family  metaphysical  subjects,  but   on  the 

settled  in  that    town    since    1654.  whole  with  an  outcome  (as  far  as 

He  became  in  1852  a  computer  in  the  world  was  concerned)  not  com- 

the  Nautical  Almanac  office  at  Cam-  mensurate  to  the  power  of  his  mind, 

bridge,  Mass.,  and  lived  a  quiet  un-  He  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of 

eventful  life,  supported  by  the  small  strong  individuality,  and  to   have 

stipend  of  his  office,  and  by  what  made   a  lasting  impression  on  his 

he    earned    from    his    occasional  friends.     He  died  in  Sept.  1875. 


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

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  wrords  by  Mivart,  detected 
by  Wright,  f  I  complained  to  Mivart  that  in  two  cases  he 
quotes  only  the  commencement  of  sentences  by  me,  and  thus 

*  '  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 


IS/I.]  '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  Chauncey  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 : — 
VOL.  in.  L 


146  DESCENT   OF   MAN  ' — EXPRESSION. 

"  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  [1871]. 

....  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  1871. 


1 8/1.]  'QUARTERLY   REVIEW.'  147 

[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 
'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 
JVEivart  out  of  the  mouth  of  his  own  prophet." 

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

L  2 


148  'DESCENT  OF   MAN' — EXPRESSION. 

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- 
becoming." • 

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  reverberation? 
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 


€871.]  MR.  HUXLEY'S  REVIEW.  149 

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  [1871]. 

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  \  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.  laughable   and    gigantic    blunders 

With  regard  to  the    relations   of  their  prophet  made  in  predicting 

Positivism   to   Science,  my  father  the  course  of  science/' 

wrote    to    Mr.    Spencer  in    1875  :  f  'Descent   of  Man/  vol.   i.  p. 

"  How  curious  and  amusing  it  is  to  87.     A  discussion  on  the  question 

see  to  what  an  extent  the  Positivists  whether  an  act  done   impulsively 

hate  all  men  of  science  ;  I  fancy  or  instinctively  can  be  called  moral, 
they    are    dimly    conscious    what 


150  'DESCENT   OF   MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [l8;i.. 

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.  Milller. 

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 


'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 
Muller  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. 


152  *  DESCENT   OF   MAN  ' — EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

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. 

1872. 

[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.  153 

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. 


154  'DESCENT   OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872.. 

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 
part." 

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.  15$ 

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  Iso- 

responding  member  of  the  French  lining  auf  die  Artbildung.'  Leipzig, 

Academy  until  1878.  1872. 

f  Professor  of  Zoology  in  Freiburg. 


156  'DESCENT   OF   MAN' — EXPRESSION.  [lS/2. 

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  Ipeen 
published. 

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 
illustrations. 

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,t  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  to  the  Bavarian  Academy  of  Sciences 

essays  on  the  same  subject.     '  Die  at  Munich,  1870. 

Darwin'sche      Theorie     und     das  f  "  Ueber  Planorbis  multiformis 

Migrationsgesetz,'    in     1868,     and  im  Steinheimer   Siisswasser-kalk." 

*  Ueber  den  Einfluss  der  Geogra-  *  Monatsbericht '  of  the  Berlin  Aca- 

phischen  I  solirung,  &c.',  an  address  demy,  1866. 


18/2.]  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  1 868  :] 

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 


'DESCENT   OF  MAN' — EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

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  Aits- 
land,  May  31,  1875:] 

C.  Darwin  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  bearino- 


160  'DESCENT   OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

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 


lS/2.]  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  adapted 
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 


1 62  *  DESCENT   OF   MAN  ' — EXPRESSION.  [18721 

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  Simiae.  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 


1 8/2.]  'DESCENT   OF   MAN.'  163 

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 


164  'DESCENT   OF   MAN' — EXPRESSION.  [1872. 

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 


18/2.]  HERBERT   SPENCER.  165 

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  word  of  the  remainder.     The  facts 

had  given  much  of  their  lives  to  seem  to  me  very  well  told,  and  the 

philanthropic  work  in  New  York,  inferences  very  striking.     But  after 

also  paid  a  visit  at  Down  in  this  all,  this  is  but  a  weak  part  of  the 

summer.     Some   of  their   work   is  impression   left   on   our  minds   by 

recorded     in     Mr.     Brace's    '  The  what  we  have  read  ;  for  we  are  both 

Dangerous  Classes  of  New  York,'  filled  with    earnest    admiration    at 

and  of  this  book  my  father  wrote  the  heroic  labours  of  yourself  and 

to  the  author  : —  others." 

"  Since  you  were  here   my  wife  f  *  Letters,'  p.  246-248. 

has  read  aloud  to  me  more  than  %  "  Mr.  Martineau  on  Evolution," 

half   of   your   work,    and    it    has  by  Herbert  Spencer,   '  Contempo- 

interested  us  both  in  the  highest  rary  Review,'  July  1872. 
degree,   and  we   shall  read   every 


1 66  'DESCENT   OF   MAN' — EXPRESSION.  [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  II,  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, 


1872.]  TROUBLES  AT  KEW.  l6/ 

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 
letter. 

My  dear  Wallace,  yours  very  sincerely, 

CH.  DARWIN. 

*  Mr.  Wallace  had  reviewed  Dr.  man  in  the  early  part  of  his  pedi- 

IBree's    book,    'An    Exposition   of  gree.      As    I   have    not   seen   Dr. 

Fallacies  in  the  Hypothesis  of  Mr.  Bree's  recent  work,  and  as  his  letter 

Darwin,' in 'Nature,' July  25, 1872.  is   unintelligible   to   me,  I    cannot 

f  "  Bree  on  Darwinism."     '  Na-  even    conjecture    how    he  has   so 

ture,'  Aug.  8,  1872.      The  letter  is  completely  mistaken  my  meaning  : 

as  follows  : — "  Permit  me  to  state  but,  perhaps,  no  one  who  has  read 

— though  the  statement  is   almost  Mr.  Wallace's  article,  or  who  has 

superfluous— that  Mr.  Wallace,  in  read  a  work  formerly  published  by 

liis  review  of  Dr.  Bree's  work,  gives  Dr.  Bree  on  the  same  subject  as 

with    perfect    correctness   what   I  his  recent  one,  will  be  surprised  at 

intended  to  express,  and  what   I  any  amount  of  misunderstanding  on 

believe  was  expressed  clearly,  with  his  part.— CHARLES  DARWIN." 
respect  to  the  probable  position  of         Aug.  3. 


1 68  'DESCENT   OF  MAN' — EXPRESSION.  [lS/2. 

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  Archebiosisf  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  212°  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 
belief! 

As  for  Rotifers  and  Tardigrades  being  spontaneously  gener- 

*  *  The  Beginnings  of  Life.'     H.      Generation.     For    the    distinction 
C.  Bastian,  1872.  between  Archebiosis  and  Hetero- 

f  That  is   to   say,   Spontaneous      genesis,  see  Bastian,  chapter  vi. 


1 8/2.]  'BEGINNINGS   OF   LIFE.'  169 

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  n,  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 

*  '  Histoire  des  Sciences  et  des  Savants,'  1873. 


-170  'DESCENT   OF   MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [l8/2. 

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. 


11872.]        PUBLICATION   OF   THE   EXPRESSION   BOOK.  171 

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 
7000,  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 
lifetime. 

Among  the  reviews  of  the  '  Expression  of  the  Emotions  J 
maybe  mentioned  the  not  unfavourable  notices  in  the  Athe- 
.n&um,  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 


1/2  'DESCENT   OF   MAN  ' — EXPRESSION.  [1872'. 

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 
works. 

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  A  lexander  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  muscles  shall  be  fresh  and  vigorous, 

theory  of  Spontaneity  in  the  essay  ....  The  gesticulations  and  the 

here  alluded  to.     It  would  be  im-  carols  of  young  and  active  animals 

possible  to  do  justice  to  it  within  are    mere     overflow    of    nervous 

the  limits    of   a    foot-note.      The  energy  ;  and  although  they  are  very 

following  quotations  may  give  some  apt  to  concur  with  pleasing  emotion,, 

notion  of  it : —  they  have  an  independent  source. 

"  By  Spontaneity  I  understand  the  ....  They  are  not  properly  move- 
readiness  to  pass  into  movement,  ments  of  expression  ;   they  express 
in  the  absence  of  all   stimulation  nothing  at  all  except  an  abundant 
•whatever ;    the   essential   requisite  stock  of  physical  power." 
being  that  the  nerve-centres   and 


I872.] 


EXPRESSION   OF   THE   EMOTIONS.' 


173 


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  i  [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  d  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 
committed  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.' 


'DESCENT   OF   MAN' — EXPRESSION.  [lS/2. 

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 


1873.]  'DESCENT/   SECOND   EDITION.  175 

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. 

1873. 

[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  i,  1874,  when  he  was. 


176  '  DESCENT  OF  MAN  ' — EXPRESSION.  [1873. 

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 
.again." 

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  Tkos.  Wentworth  Higginson. 

Down,  February  2;th  [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. 


I873-] 


MR.   GALTON'S  QUESTIONS. 


177 


[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. 

Yes. 


None  whatever. 

No  mathematics  or  modern  languages, 
nor  any  habits  of  observation  or 
reasoning. 

No. 


Certainly  innate. 


My  innate  taste  for  natural  history 
strongly  confirmed  and  directed  by 
the  voyage  in  the  Beagle. 


VOL.   III. 


N 


178 


'DESCENT  OF  MAN' — EXPRESSION. 


[1873. 


I 

jflil'8 

^ 

oL 

d 

&      ~14J    <u    C 

3 

n-. 

0 

.2 

tA 

^  s  0-5  8> 

O 

O 

o 

CJ 

ro 

bJD-2         t£^             • 

'TJ 

1     1 

1 

•« 

T3 

6* 
o 
CJ 

0   ^    0    >>  G    £ 

•53  f^ja 

-±5   En             <H-'  T/ 

ro  G  <u          r* 

w 

'bb                 j-> 

G               a. 

s 

i 

s 
H 

W               8 

M 

S      S-,      ""^      2   rrt 

S 

*O                      CJ 

>» 

^<5                2      ^j^ 

g 

rG                                  Q^ 
O                              »*-c 

<L) 

*§  rn  §  olu  o 

o 

b              ~ 

rv. 

a>  (3       "  S  ' 

5                     -t-> 

U               o 

•— 

"3 

HH 

. 

oo£j|.2 

2               w 

rv. 

^ 

C! 

i 

£  .^P  G   *"   u,  jS 

>^»                   o 

.M 

•  •-• 

o 

o 

>  "£3    ^  ,y  QJ  +-> 

111 

o      -Q       o 

"S 

W 

M 

vO 

"o 
O 

\~t 

PQ 

o      o  ^  .2,  «3  "§  <? 

,,  o  b/)  >-.       bo 

50       ^   3   G   ^   &  '-£ 

G                <U      S   ^      >   'r5   <^ 

Iz;     j     O 

J5    c5 

« 

1 

t—t  t—  t    r;   en   en   i>^ 

1                          2 

era                                          rt 

!i 

g*0 

.s" 

rv. 

§ 

o 

fiffj! 

ctf                                          0 
P*                                         >> 

a  <u 

<Ljn3 

N 

1 

1 

^§2  §  §" 

P^ 

8 

en 

P4 

CO 

c4                 "^                   f*^ 

S                 I                 1 

s      S      ^ 

I1 

a" 

o 
0 

1 

rt  bo  *  2  x  2 

£-§  G  o  a  § 

T.^^B 

ll^i! 

^•sg^-S  . 

0 

il 

t> 
O 
>< 

5f  l     * 

*   G°           U       ^         § 

'g'S        2     cS     ^ 

^^                 ^>          M            S 

^<i>        g      o     ,G 

aT  <i>            a      *tt       £ 

|l    1  1  ii 

•o^            o      g       o 

'£ 

I1 

Colour  of  Hair  ? 

Brown. 

^(  »_,  d  rt        a  S3 

s  Ml&il 

0        ^JA^^OJ-O 
>                     ^    ^  i3   0    S 

s    l^ip 
I  t^§^^-s 

1  rilflSI 

I  ^^BS  — 

£ 

$ 

0,     "**                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ^ 

J 

s  t*                                                                               ^ 

o 

H 

•1  £                       «,                                    ^    ^ 

CO 

M 

^^                 ^' 

<y 

^^^^•^            ^h                                            ^     ^* 

K^^§5?^'<"                                                      ^^s 

>S  ti    K.         *?*         '*»         ^          ^5i                                                                                      «^          ^0 

Q     Q     Nj            .CgQ          ."*.»           ^x*               ^1                                                                                                               ^(            ^ 

^^•^    -§     ^      S      |^                                                    ^      ^ 
^            ^     R,     ^      ^                                                   ^     ^ 

MR.   GALTON'S   QUESTIONS. 


179 


3 


I  ° 

rd     g 

fl.2 

IB 

•"    <L) 

.11 

S    M 

c3   aj 

b^S- 
s«- 

^g"o 
^"5^ 

B  w  ^ 

|s^ 


g-gig. 


s 


X    O 

"S 

-It 

S3 


3  o 

11 

Sg 

o  a 

S8 

O    g 

iss 

"£,§ 
§-|s 

>  art 

j_>      O  t+H 

o  <•>  o 


££ 

O 
U3    •*-» 

If 
.2  "^ 

OJ    O 
.S  "o3 


gr 


93& 

^c^g 

03     O    W3     rf     C 

_,   rd      3      O 

.oo.2§^ 


al  affect 
ures  of 
Cu 


> 

"o  'bb 
.^  a 

en       •I~l 

•s^g5^^ 

"l^l! 
|i  III 

in 


so 


ng 
e 


o 

,g 

"aj 

!-H 

>-, 

T3 
T3 


11 

Cy    fl) 


<L>  ~    "T3 
300 

c*  ^3  a- 

•««:§ 


0 


<u        <u 

St 
If1 


Jg-o 


3    S 


think  fairly  independent 
instances.  I  gave  up 
belief  almost  independi 
reflections. 


iifi 

oo;^^ 
^8^0 

1-g^, 
|^I^I 


es 


thinks 
so  —  i.e.)  as 
that  I  have 
I  have  ma 
common  obj 


'one,  except  for  busin 
ing  accounts,  replies 
and  investing  mone 
methodical  in  all  my  h 


11 

CO     £ 

0    g 

*" 

a  ^ 

O<+H 


.§8 

Sg 

0!/2 
Ig) 

f- a  « 
l  §  3 

en    O    O 
en    rt  ^3 

dS^ 

'iSg 

<u  *3  S 
CO 


§  ^o^ 

1-83 


N  2 


180  'DESCENT  OF  MAN '—EXPRESSION.  [1873. 

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. 


CHAPTER  V. 

MISCELLANEA,  INCLUDING  SECOND  EDITIONS  OF  'CORAL 
REEFS,'  THE  *  DESCENT  OF  MAN,'  AND  THE  'VARIATION 
OF  ANIMALS  AND  PLANTS.' 

18/4  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  Korallenriffe  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 
hat." 

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. 


C.  Darwin  to  K.  Semper. 

Down,  October  2,  1879. 

MY  DEAR  PROFESSOR  SEMPER,—  I  thank  you  for  your 
extremely  kind  letter  of  the  iQth,  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 
reefs. 

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- 


1 8/4.]  'CORAL  REEFS,'   SECOND   EDITION.  183 

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,  1881. 

.  .  .  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 
non  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 
himself." 

The  following  extract  from  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wallace  (June 
i/th)  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.  [18/4. 

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.' 

f  "Some  disputed  Points  in  Music." — c  Fortnightly  Review,'  July  1876. 


1874.]  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  ;  arid  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 


1 88  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  : — 

"  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 ;  as  for 


1874.]  DR.   GRAY.  189 

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 
'  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 
occasionally. 

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,"  great  service  to  Natural  Science  in 

in  the  series  of  Scientific  Worthies  bringing  back  to  it  Teleology  :  so 

('  Nature,'  June  4,  1874).     This  ad-  that  instead  of  Morphology  versus 

mirable  estimate  of  my  father's  work  Teleology,  we  shall  have  Morpho- 

in  science  is  given  in  the  form  of  a  logy  wedded  to  Teleology." 

comparison  and  contrast  between  %  Similar  remarks  had  been  pre- 

Robert  Brown  and  Charles  Darwin,  viously  made  by  Mr.  Huxley.     See 

f  "Let  us    recognise    Darwin's  Vol.  II.  p.  201. 


IQO  MISCELLANEA.  [1874. 

Professor  TyndalFs  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 8/4.]  ANTS.  IQI 

[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  A  ug.  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.  rufa)  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. 


192  MISCELLANEA.  [18/4. 

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  rufa) 
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 8/4-]  'COSMIC   PHILOSOPHY.'  IQ3 

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  Miiller. 


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 

*  c  Outlines  of  Cosmic  Philosophy,'  2  vols.  8vo.  1874. 
VOL.   III.  O 


194  MISCELLANEA. 

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 
'  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. 

1875. 

[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  n,  1871,  p.  26)  sneers  at  the  whole 
doctrine  with  much  acerbity  and  some  justice."  He  also 

*  '  Animals  and  Plants,'  2nd  edit.  vol.  ii.  p.  350. 


I875-]        *  ANIMALS  AND   PLANTS,'   SECOND   EDITION.          195 

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 
'  Nature'  (April  27,  1871)  should  be  mentioned.  A  paper  by 
Mr.  Galton  had  been  read  before  the  Royal  Society  (March 
30,  1871)  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 
jeopardy." 

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.  [18/5. 

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  MlSS  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.  Hew  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  Lady  Lyell  died  in  1873. 
to  Sir  Charles  Lyell. 


1 875.]  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. 


MISCELLANEA. 

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  Anton  Dohrn. 

Down  [1875  ?]• 

MY  DEAR  DR.  DOHRN,— Many  thanks  for  your  most  kind 
letter.  I  most  heartily  rejoice  t at  your  improved  health  and 
at  the  success  of  your  grand  undertaking,  which  will  have 
so  much  influence  on  the  progress  of  Zoology  throughout 
Europe. 

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. 

*  *  Umwandlung  des  Axolotl.' 


1 8/5.]  VIVISECTION.  199 

p.  157,  of  English  edition),  and  these  cases  illustrate,  I  think, 
the  sterility  of  Amblystoma.  Would  it  not  be  worth  while  to 
examine  the  reproductive  organs  of  those  individuals  of  wing- 
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. 

THE  VIVISECTION  QUESTION. 

[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.  tional  in  tone   and  declared  that 

f  He  once  made  an  attempt  to  the  writer  was  sane  and  wrongfully 

free  a  patient  in  a  mad-house,  who  confined. 

(as  he  wrongly  supposed)  was  sane.  My  father  wrote  to  the  Lunacy 

He  had  some  correspondence  with  Commissioners  (without  explaining 

the  gardener  at  the  asylum,  and  on  the  source  of  his  information)  and 

one  occasion  he  found  a  letter  from  in  due  time  heard  that  the  man  had 

a  patient  enclosed  with  one  from  been  visited  by  the  Commissioners, 

the  gardener.     The  letter  was  ra-  and  that  he  was  certainly  insane. 

[Some 


2OO  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. 


18/5.]  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- 


2O2  MISCELLANEA.  [l875- 

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  anaes-section  could  be 
invented  f)  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  seethe  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 

t  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. 


1875.]  VIVISECTION.  203 

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,  which  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. 


2O4  MISCELLANEA.  [l%7,5- 

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 
degree." 

*  Mr.  R.  B.  Litchfield,  his  son-in-law. 


1 875.]  VIVISECTION.  2O5 

The  following  letter  appeared  in  the  Times,  April  i8th, 
1881 :] 

C.  Darwin  to  Frithiof  Holmgren* 

Down,  April  14,  1881. 

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. 

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  l  Times? 

SlR, — I  do  not  wish  to %  discuss  the  views  expressed  by 
Miss  Cobbe  in  the  letter  which  appeared  in  the  Times  of  the 
I Qth  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. 

(i.)  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  Magendie."  Magendie  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,    1881,   appeared  a 
letter  from  Miss  Cobbe  in  reply.] 


C.  Darwin  to  G.  y.  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 
glad  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,  1881. — Mr.  Romanes  defended  Dr.  Sanderson  against  the 
accusations  made  by  Miss  Cobbe. 


1 8;  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 
conviction. 

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.  [lS/5- 

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  know  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' ?  J  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,3* 

"feeble  sensuality,"  are  used  with  '  Cornhill  Magazine,'  1882,  vol.  xlv. 

regard  to  the  feelings  of  the  anti-  p.  191. 
vivisectionists. 


(       211       ) 


CHAPTER  VI. 

MISCELLANEA  (continued}  —  A  REVIVAL  OF  GEOLOGICAL 
WORK — THE  BOOK  ON  EARTHWORMS — LIFE  OF  ERASMUS 
DARWIN — MISCELLANEOUS  LETTERS. 

1876-1882. 

[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.  Blomefield  (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  few 
verbal  alterations  having  been  made  at  my  father's  request  in 
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 


1 8/6.]  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 
geologists."] 

C.  Darwin  to  James  Geikie. 

Down,   November  16,  1876. 

MY  DEAR  SlR, — 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 

book, 

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  I m-      sons.'     Christiania,  1876. 
migration  of  the  Norwegian  Flora          \  By  Mr.  Archibald  Geikie. 
during  alternate  rainy  and  dry  Sea- 


2i6  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/#/// 

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 


i88i.]  WORMS.  217 

the  effects  produced  by  earthwofras  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,  i88i> 
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- 
lished." 

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/  1881. 


218  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  I7th,  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 
Darwin.' 

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  |  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.  2 19 

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 
4  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  i8th:  "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- 


22O  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  Atkenceum,  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. 


l88o.]  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  I  sle  of  sense  of  direction. 
Wight ;  when  there  he  exhibited  a 


1876-82.]  PORTRAITS.  223 

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  Institutef  in  the  Botanical  Section^ 
and  wrote  to  Dr.  Asa  Gray  : — 

"  I  see  that  we  are  both  elected  Corresponding  Members 

*  In  this  connection  may  be  '  Charles  R.  Darwin/  Berlin,  1882. 
mentioned  a  visit  (1881)  from  f  "  Lyell  always  spoke  of  it  as  a 
another  distinguished  German,  great  scandal  that  Darwin  was  so 
Hans  Richter.  The  occurrence  is  long  kept  out  of  the  French  Insti- 
otherwise  worthy  of  mention,  inas-  tute.  As  he  said,  even  if  the  de- 
much  as  it  led  to  the  publication,  velopment  hypothesis  were  objected 
after  my  father's  death,  of  Herr  to,  Darwin's  original  works  on 
Richter's  recollections  of  the  visit.  Coral  Reefs,  the  Cirripedia,  and 
The  sketch  is  simply  and  sympa-  other  subjects,  constituted  a  more 
thetically  written,  and  the  author  than  sufficient  claim." — From  Pro- 
has  succeeded  in  giving  a  true  fessor  Judd's  notes, 
picture  of  my  father  as  he  lived  at  %  The  statement  has  been  more 
Down.  It  appeared  in  the  Neue  than  once  published  that  he  was 
Tagblatt  of  Vienna,  and  was  repub-  elected  to  the  Zoological  Section, 
lished  by  Dr.  O.  Zacharias  in  his  but  this  was  not  the  case. 


224 


MISCELLANEA  (continued]. 


[1876-82. 


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 
he  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 
Love'n  was  chosen  for  the  vacant 
place.  It  appears  ('  Nature,'  August 
i,  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 
encourage." 

*  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  I5th)  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  £100, 
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 
time." 

I  find  from  my  father's  accounts  that  £100  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 
*  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  Mlinster, 
originated  the  idea  of  the  German  birthday  gift,  and  under- 

*  The  lecture  referred  to  was  given  at  the  Dublin  meeting  of  the 
British  Association. 

VOL.   III.  O 


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  1 6,  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  Histoiy  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.  22/ 

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] 

*  See  '  Nature,'  March  3,  1877. 

Q  2 


228  MISCELLANEA  (continued}.  [1876. 


MISCELLANEOUS   LETTERS — 1876-1882. 

[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- 


1 8/6.]  MR.   WALLACE.  229 

the    present   circumstances.*      Good   heavens !   how  pleased 
I  am ! " 

The  letters  which  follow  are  of  a  miscellaneous  character 
and  refer  principally  to  the  books  he  read,  and  to  his  minor 

writings.] 


C.  Darwin  to  Miss  Buckley  (Mrs.  Fisher}. 

iDown,  February  n  [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.j  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.  Darwin  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. 


18/6.]  GEOGRAPHICAL   DISTRIBUTION.  231 

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. 

Jan.  12,  1877. 

...  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 'tSe^' highest 
degree,  and  whichever  I  think  of  last,  seems  to  me  the  most 

*  My  father  contributed  a  pre-  lation  of  Prof.  Weismann's  'Stii- 
fatory  note  to  Mr.  Meldola's  trans-  dien,'  1 880-81. 


232  MISCELLANEA  (continued}.  [1877. 

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  Neumayr*  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.| 

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- 
cation. 

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  f  '  Die  Congerien  und  Paludinen- 

Vienna.  schi'chten  Slavoniens,'  4to,  1875. 


1 8/7.]  BIOGRAPHY  OF  AN    INFANT.  233 

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,   1876.      Vol.  xxv.    of   the  Nat.  Hist.  vol.  xv. 


234  MISCELLANEA  (continued).  [1877. 

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. t 
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  I,  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 
1  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  Gtiardian,  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 
1  subject ;  and  now  there  is  almost  complete  unanimity 
j  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 


1 879.]  SOCIALISM.  237 

Dr.  Scherzer,  the  author  of  the  '  Voyage  of  the  Novara,'  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 
Selection."] 

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,  round  the  world  ;  to  the  develop- 

The  book  alluded  to  is  Prof.  Mose-  ment  of  whose  theory  I  owe  the 

ley's  '  Notes  by  a  Naturalist  on  the  principal  pleasures  and  interests  of 

Challenger?  my  life,  and  who  has  personally 

f  "  To  Charles  Darwin,  Esquire,  given  me  much  kindly  encourage- 

LL.D.,  F.R.S.,  &c.,  from  the  study  ment  in  the  prosecution  of  my 

of  whose  *  Journal  of  Researches '  I  studies,  this  book  is,  by  permission, 

mainly  derived  my  desire  to  travel  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  resumt  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  dispersal  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 
out" 

The  greater  number  of  the  answers  are  given  in  the 
annexed  table  :1 


I879-]  VISUALISING.  239 

QUESTIONS  ON  THE  FACULTY  OF  VISUALISING. 


QUESTIONS. 


REPLIES. 


Illumination  f 


Definition  ? 


Completeness  ? 
Colouring  f 


Extent  of  Field   of 
View. 


Moderate,  but  my  solitary  breakfast  was 
early,  and  the  morning  dark. 

Some  objects  quite  denned,  a  slice  of  cold 
beef,  some  grapes  and  a  pear,  the  state 
of  my  plate  when  I  had  finished,  and  a 
few  other  objects,  are  as  distinct  as  if  I 
had  photos  before  me. 


Very  moderately  so. 


The      objects 
coloured. 

Rather  small. 


above-named,      perfectly 


DIFFERENT  KINDS  OF 
IMAGERY. 

Printed  pages  ? 


Furniture  ? 
Persons  ? 

Scenery  ? 

Geography  ? 
Military  movements? 
Mechanism  ? 
Geometry  ? 

Numerals  ? 


Card  playing  f 
Chess  ? 


I  cannot  remember  a  single  sentence,  but 
I  remember  the  place  of  the  sentence 
and  the  kind  of  type. 

I  have  never  attended  to  it. 

I  remember  the  faces  of  persons  formerly 
well-known  vividly,  and  can  make  them 
do  anything  I  like. 

Remembrance  vivid  and  distinct,  and  gives 
me  pleasure. 

No. 
No. 
Never  tried. 

I  do  not  think  I  have  any  power  of  the 
kind. 

When  I  think  of  any  number,  printed 
figures  arise  before  my  mind.  I  can't 
remember  for  an  hour  four  consecutive 
figures. 

Have  not  played  for  many  years,  but  I  am 
sure  should  not  remember. 

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- 
genera. 

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  u,  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 


i88o.]  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, 
1880):] 

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  O.  C.  Marsh. 

VOL.  III.  R 


242  MISCELLANEA — (continued}.  [1880.. 

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, 
this. 

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  u,  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  Darwin's  proposition   that,   'many 

out  ('  Science  and  Culture,'  p.  317)  animal  forms   of   life    have    been 

that :    "  In  1875,  tne  discovery  of  utterly    lost,    through    which    the 

the  toothed  birds  of  the  cretaceous  early    progenitors    of   birds    were 

formation  in  N.  America,  by  Prof.  formerly  connected  with  the  early 

Marsh,    completed    the    series    of  progenitors  of  the  other  vertebrate 

transitional    forms   between    birds  classes,'  from  the  region  of  hypo- 

and    reptiles,    and    removed    Mr.  thesis  to  that  of  demonstrable  fact.'' 


1 88 1.]  SIR  WYVILLE   THOMSON.  243 

exception  to  the  term  "  extreme  variation,"  and  challenges 
Sir  Wyville  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.  Darwin  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 
*  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  Ewart.  *  Philoso- 
Echinoderms,"  by  G.  J.  Romanes  phical  Transactions,'  1881,  p.  829. 

R   2 


244  MISCELLANEA — (continued).  [iSSi. 

Thirdly,  Dr.  Roux  has  sent  me  a  book  just  published  by 
him:  '  Der  Kampf  der  Theile,'  &c.,  1881  (240  pages  in 
length). 

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 

*  Annales  des  Sciences,'  and  since  amplified  in  his  admirable 

*  Souvenirs.' 


1 88 1.]  ANIMAL   INTELLIGENCE.  245 

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  tyh, 
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].  [1881. 

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  (1881)  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. 


1 88 1.]  SIR  JOSEPH  HOOKER'S  ADDRESS.  247 

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).  [i88ii. 

I  will  now  jot  down  without  any  order  a  few  miscellaneous 
remarks. 

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. 


1 88 1.]  SIR  JOSEPH  HOOKER'S  ADDRESS.  249 

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 
essay. 

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  ! 
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  ['  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. 
1851,  and  was  killed,  with  his  guide, 


1882.]  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 
world. 

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- 

nials  are  automata  and  its  history,"  nightly     Review,'     1874,     and     in 

.an  Address  given  at    the   Belfast  '  Science  and  Culture.' 
aiieeting  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.  Linnaeus  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. 
Ogle, 

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.] 

*  '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  i8th — 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 


CHAPTER  VII. 

FERTILISATION   OF  FLOWERS. 

[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,  1861,  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 


FERTILISATION   OF   FLOWERS.  255 

venture  to  say  that  this  or  that  structure  is  useless  ? "  A 
kindred  point  is  expressed  in  a  letter  to  Sir  J.  D.  Hooker 
(May  1 4th,  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 
structure." 

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 


256  FERTILISATION 

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 
experiment." 

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 


OF   FLOWERS.  257 

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  a  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. 

VOL.  III.  S 


258  FERTILISATION  [1839. 

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,  t  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- 

t  'Das  entdeckte  Geheimniss  der      tung  der  Blumen.'     Berlin,  1793. 


1 857.]  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  ypu  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  Lathyrtis 

*  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 


260  FERTILISATION 

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 
11  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 
individuals." 

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  daily  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.  26l 

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  Papilionaceae  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 
1860  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,  1860, 

deners1  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.  1871,  p.  1166. 

t  He  was  of  course  alive  to  variety 


262  FERTILISATION  [i860. 

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  1860  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  Athen&um) 
world." 

He  was  probably  attracted  to  the  study  of  Orchids  by 
the  fact  that  several  kinds  are  common  near  Down.  The 
letters  of  1860  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  1860  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 
beautiful." 

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,  1860 : — 

"  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  1860,  busy  with  the  homologies  of  the  parts,  a 

*  June  9,1860.    This  seems  to      was  reprinted  in  the  Entomologist's 
have  attracted  some  attention,  es-       Weekly  Intelligencer,  1860. 
pecially  among  entomologists,  as  it 


264  FERTILISATION  [l86l. 

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  Cruger'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.  26$ 

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  mzich,  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. 


266  FERTILISATION  [l86l. 

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 86 1,  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 


l86l.]  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. 


268  FERTILISATION  [l86l. 

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.  1 3th  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.  I,  1861  : — 

"  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  construire  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  conside're',  &c.,''Ar-  Naturelles,'  3  erne  pe'riode.  Tome 
chives  des  Sciences  Physiques  et  vii.  481,  1882  (May). 


l86l.]  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  mos't  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.  I5th,  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 


2/0  FERTILISATION  [1862. 

The  book  was  published  May  I5th,  1862.  Of  its  reception 
he  writes  to  Mr.  Murray,  June  i$th  and  i8th  : — 

"  The  Botanists  praise  my  Orchid-book  to  the  skies.  Some 
one  sent  me  (perhaps  you)  the  '  Parthenon,'  with  a  good  review. 
The  Athencsum  *  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  ;  J  for  Asa  Gray,  about  the  most  competent 
judge  in  the  world,  thinks  almost  as  highly  of  the  book  as 
does  the  '  London  Review.'  The  A  thenczum  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  3Oth,  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.  J  Doubts  on  this  point  still,  how- 
Hooker  :  "  I  sent  to  the  nursery  ever,  occurred  to  him  about  this 
garden,  whence  I  bought  the  seed,  time.  He  wrote  to  Prof.  Oliver 
and  could  only  hear  that  it  was  (June  8)  :  "  I  am  glad  that  you  have 
'  the  common  blue  Lupine,'  the  man  read  my  Orchis-book  and  seem  to 
saying  '  he  was  no  scholard,  and  approve  of  it ;  for  I  never  published 
did  not  know  Latin,  and  that  parties  anything  which  I  so  much  doubted 
who  make  experiments  ought  to  whether  it  was  worth  publishing, 
find  out  the  names.'"  and  indeed  I  still  doubt.  The  sub- 
*  May  24,  1862.  ject  interested  me  beyond  what,  I 
f  June  14,  1862.  suppose,  it  is  worth." 


1 862.]  OF   FLOWERS. 

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 
doctrines.] 

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  i8th  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. 


2/2  FERTILISATION  [1862. 

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  PlatantJiera  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." 

VOL.  III.  T 


2/4  FERTILISATION  [1862. 

A  favourable  notice  appeared  in  the  Saturday  Review, 
October  i8th,  1862 ;  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  '  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  I5th,  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!  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,'  1871. 
been  canonised  rather  than  anathe- 


1 862.]  OF   FLOWERS.  2/5 

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  Miiller'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 


2/6  FERTILISATION  [1865. 

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.  2// 

P.S. — 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. 


278  FERTILISATION  [l868. 

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- 
servation." 

"  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  Leguminosas,  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-de- 
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- 
able." 

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 


28O  FERTILISATION  [lS66. 

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.  2&I 

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  Miiller'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  PEAR  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 


282  FERTILISATION  [1878. 

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. 


1874.]  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.  Darwin  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  Muller  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  : — ] 


284  FERTILISATION  [18/6. 

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. 
Criiger'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  Marquis  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 


I8/7-]  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 
elected. 

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  graminese  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  Coniferse,  Gneta- 


286  FERTILISATION  [1878. 

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, 
18/8  :-] 

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. 


18/8.]  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  +  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. 


288  FERTILISATION   OF  FLOWERS.  [l88o. 

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 
remarks. 

[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 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  'EFFECTS   OF  CROSS-   AND    SELF-FERTILISATION 
IN   THE  VEGETABLE  KINGDOM.'      1876. 

[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 

VOL.  HI.  U 


29O  THE  'EFFECTS  OF   CROSS-  [l866? 

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 


1 868.]  AND  SELF-FERTILISATION.'  29 1 

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 
greatly, 

Yours  very  sincerely, 

CHARLES  DARWIN. 

[An  extract  from  a  letter  to  Dr.  Gray  (March  n,  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.  Miirray. 

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 


1*876.]  AND   SELF-FERTILISATION.'  293 

very  dull.  Chapters  II.  to  VL,  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  VL,  as  there  is  here  endless,  but,  I  have  thought, 
necessary  repetition.  I  shall  be  anxious  to  hear  what  you 
decide 

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. 


2Q4  'CROSS-   AND   SELF-FERTILISATION/ 

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 


CHAPTER  IX. 

'  DIFFERENT    FORMS     OF     FLOWERS     ON     PLANTS     OF    THE 
SAME   SPECIES.'     1877. 

[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. 

(ii.)  Polygamous,  Dicecious,  and  Gynodicecious  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- 


296  'DIFFERENT  FORMS   OF  FLOWERS 

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 
individuals. 

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. 
p.  97. 


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  officinalts,  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  [1860]. 

....  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  fplants)  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 


298  'DIFFERENT   FORMS   OF   FLOWERS  [1860. 

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  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 
stigmas. 

C.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

June  8  [1860]. 

....  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,  [1860?] 

....  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 86 1,  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.  2 1st),  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. 


3OO  'DIFFERENT   FORMS   OF   FLOWERS  [l86l. 

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 
paper." 

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 : — 

rt  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.]  ON   PLANTS   OF  THE  SAME   SPECIES.'  301 

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.hyssopifolia,  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  graph.   Bot.,'  and   ordered  it  and 
case  of   trimorphism,  by   Lecoq's  hoped  that  it  was   a    good   sized 
1  Geographic  Botanique/  and  this  pamphlet,  and  nine  thick  volumes 
must  have  consoled  him  for  the  have  arrived  ! " 

trick  this  work  played  him  in  turn-  f  On  another  occasion  he  wrote 

ing  out  to  be  so  much  larger  than  (to  Dr.  Gray)  with'  regard  to  Lyth- 

he  expected.     He  wrote  to  Sir  J.  rum  :   "  I   must  hold  hard,  other- 

D.  Hooker  :  "  Here  is  a  good  joke  :  wise   I   shall  spend   my  life   over 

I  saw  an  extract  from  Lecoq,  '  Gdo-  dimorphism." 


302  'DIFFERENT   FORMS   OF   FLOWERS  [1862. 

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  ;  Nes&a  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 
summer." 

*  A  letter   to    Dr.    Gray  (July,  me  as    truly  wonderful,   that    the 

1862)  bears  on  this  point :  "  A  few  stigma    distinguishes    the    pollen; 

days  ago  I  made   an  observation  and  is  penetrated  by  the  tubes  of 

which  has  surprised  me  more  than  the  one  and  not  by  those  of  the 

it  ought  to  do— it  will  have  to  be  other;  nor  are  the  tubes  exserted. 

repeated  several  times,  but  I  have  Or  (which  is  the  same  thing)  the 

scarcely  a  doubt  of  its  accuracy.    I  stigma  of  the  one  form  acts  on  and 

stated   in  my  Primula  paper  that  is  acted  on  by  pollen,  which  produces 

the    long-styled    form    of   Linum  not  the  least  effect  on  the  stigma  of 

grandiflorum    was    utterly    sterile  the    other    form.      Taking    sexual 

with  its  own  pollen  ;   I  have  lately  power  as  the  criterion  of  difference, 

been  putting  the  pollen  of  the  two  the  two  forms  of  this  one  species 

forms  on  the  division  of  the  stigma  may    be    said    to    be    generically 

of  the  same  flower ;  and  it  strikes  distinct." 


1 862.]  ON    PLANTS   OF   THE   SAME  SPECIES.'  303 

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  dicecio- 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.  Darwin  to  Asa  Gray. 

Down,  November  26  [1862]. 

MY  DEAR  GRAY, — The  very  day  after  my  last  letter, 
^yours  of  November  loth,  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  "  Dioecio- 
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 


304  'DIFFERENT   FORMS   OF   FLOWERS  [1862. 

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 
'  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- 
fervse — 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.' 


1864.]  ON   PLANTS   OF   THE   SAME   SPECIES.'  305 

with  conceit  and  vanity  (if  not  already  turned),  and  make  me 
an  unbearable  wretch. 

With  most  cordial  thanks,  my  good  and  kind  friend, 

Farewell, 

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  l  Forms  of  Flowers,'  p.  307. 
VOL.   III.  X 


3O6  'DIFFERENT   FORMS   OF   FLOWERS  [1864. 

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- 
ation.' 

C.  Darzvin  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,  [1867?] 

....  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.  eJatior  (Jacq.),  found  only  in  the  Eastern  Counties,  is  a 
perfectly  distinct  and  good  species  ;  hardly  distinguishable 


1 868.]  ON   PLANTS  OF   THE   SAME   SPECIES.'  307 

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 
know. 

[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 


308  'DIFFERENT   FORMS   OF   FLOWERS  [1862. 

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 
estimation 

[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. 


1 877-]  ON   PLANTS   OF  THE   SAME   SPECIES.'  309 

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- 
saminece,  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.  .  .  .  Campanula  carpa- 
Ikica,  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  5.  speculum. 

['Forms  of  Flowers'  was  published  in  July  1877;  m 
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 
published. 

" ....  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." 


310  'DIFFERENT   FORMS   OF   FLOWERS.'  [1878. 

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. 


CHAPTER  X. 

CLIMBING  AND   INSECTIVOROUS   PLANTS. 

[MY  father  mentions  in  his  c  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  1 862,  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 

1827.] 

C.  Darwin  to  jF.  D.  Booker. 

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 


1863.]  INSECTIVOROUS   PLANTS.  313 

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  spontaneotis  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. 


1864.]  INSECTIVOROUS   PLANTS.  315 

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. 


i860.]  INSECTIVOROUS   PLANTS.  317 

gives  me  some  curious  cases  of  &ranc/i-c\imbers,  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, 
1875)  :  "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 
1 500  copies  was  struck  off ;  the  edition  sold  fairly  well,  and 
500  additional  copies  were  printed  in  June  of  the  following 
year.] 

INSECTIVOROUS  PLANTS. 

[In  the  summer  of  1860  he  was  staying  at  the  house  of  his 
sister-in-law,  Miss  Wedgwood,  in  Ashdown  Forest,  whence 
he  wrote  (July  29,  1860),  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 


318  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,  1 860,  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  g-gW  Pai't  °f  a  single  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,  1860)  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  -Q^^Q  or  -g-^yoo"  °f 
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,  1860)  : — 

"  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  yg^oo"  °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.,  yoVo  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.  Danvin  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 


1 862.]  INSECTIVOROUS   PLANTS.  321 

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." 

VOL.   III.  Y 


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 


I8/3-]  INSECTIVOROUS   PLANTS.  323 

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 
two. 

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  [lS/3«- 

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    2 1 8, 75° 
of  water ;    of  this   solution    I    gave   so    much    that   a   leaf 
got  -g-oW  °f  a  gra-in  °f  trie-  phosphate.     I  then  counted  the 
glands,  and  each  could  have  got  only  733  J^y  of  a  grain  ; 
this   being   absorbed   by   the   glands,  sufficed   to  cause   the 
tentacles  bearing  these  glands  to  bend  through  an  angle  of 
1 80°.     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 


I'874-]  INSECTIVOROUS   PLANTS.  325 

just  like  the  helix  of  a  human  ear,  if  you  were  to  stuff  flies 
within  the  fold. 

Yours  most  sincerely, 

CH.  DARWIN. 

C.  Darwin  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-          f  Professor   Donders,  the  well- 
rous  plant  supposed  to  subsist  on      known  physiologist  of  Utrecht, 
human  beings. 


326  CLIMBING  AND 

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  40-00-000"  °^  a  Sra*n  absorbed  by 
a  gland  clearly  makes  the  tentacle  which  bears  this  gland 
become  inflected  ;  and  I  am  fully  convinced  that  2oWooW  °^ 
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 
gland. 

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  1 874  he  was  at  work  on  the  genus 
Utricularia,  and  he  wrote  (July  i6th)  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,  I 
strongly  suspect  that  it  is  necrophagous,  i.e.  that  it  cannot 
digest,  but  absorbs  decaying  matter." 


1874.]  INSECTIVOROUS   PLANTS.  327 

He  was  indebted  to  Lady  Dorothy  Nevill  for  specimens  of 
the  curious  Utricularia  montana,  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  ^  to  y^  of  an  inch  in  size,  and 
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 


328  CLIMBING  AND   INSECTIVOROUS   PLANTS.  [1875. 

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  y.  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.] 


(    329    ) 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE   '  POWER   OF   MOVEMENT  IN   PLANTS.'       l88o. 

(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 
*  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'  (l  Nature'  Series),  p.  41. 


33°  '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  carnoscv 
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.  Darwin  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.'  331 

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.  Darzvin  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  3Oth,  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.,  movements  of  all  kinds.  Yet  it  is  worse  to  be 
idle." 

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 
ready." 

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 
'  Power  of  Movement ' :] 

C.  Darwin  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 
marvellous." 

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. 


iSSo.]  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  [l88r. 

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  Pkalaris,  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 

*  'Das  Bewegimgsvermogen  der  Pflanzen.'    Vienna,  1881. 


i88i.]  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 

VOL.  III.  Z 


338  POWER   OF   MOVEMENT   IN   PLANTS.  [l88l. 

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 
remain. 

My  dear  Sir,  yours  sincerely, 

CHARLES  DARWIN. 


(    339    ) 


CHAPTER  XII. 

MISCELLANEOUS  BOTANICAL  LETTERS. 
1873-1882. 

[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.] 

BLOOM   ON   LEAVES  AND   FRUIT. 

[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 
Kew. 

"  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  (Linncea,  1881)  has  pub-  in  1850. 

Z  2 


34O  MISCELLANEOUS. 

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 
host." 

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. 


1 877.]  BOTANICAL   LETTERS.  341 

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.  Muller. 

Down,  July  4  [1881]. 

MY  DEAR  SlR, — 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. 

VARIABILITY. 

[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  SlR, — 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. 


1876.]  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  343 

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,  1881. 

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.j  I  thought  that 
you  attributed  too  much  weight  to  the  direct  action  of  the 

*  Professor  of  Zoology  at  Wu'rz-  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. 

GALLS. 

[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.] 

AGGREGATION. 

[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  i,  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- 

t  '  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  charity  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 
rilled  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  fsuch  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. 


348  MISCELLANEOUS.  [lS/8. 

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 


1878.]  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  349 

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 


3So  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 
lifetime. 

"  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 
geography." 

Since  1840,  when  the  '  Nomenclator '  was  published,  the 
number  of  described  plants  may  be  said  to  have  doubled,  so 


352  MISCELLANEOUS.  [lS8l-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. 


l88l-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.  tit. 
VOL,  III.  2   A 


354  BOTANICAL  LETTERS.  [ 1 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.] 


(    355     ) 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

CONCLUSION. 

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 


CONCLUSION.  [iSSi. 

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,  1 88 1.  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  : — 


35$  CONCLUSION.  [1882. 

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  I5th  he  was  seized  with  giddiness  while 
sitting  at  dinner  in  the  evening,  and  fainted  in  an  attempt  to 
reach  his  sofa.  On  the  i/th  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 
came. 

He  died  at  about  four  o'clock  on  Wednesday,  April  1 9th, 
1882. 

*  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  END. 


3<50  APPENDIX  I. 


APPENDIX    I. 


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,  RICHARD  B.  MARTIN, 
NEVIL  STOREY  MASKELYNE,          FRANCIS  W.  BUXTON, 

A.  J.  MUNDELLA,  E.  L.  STANLEY, 

G.  O.  TREVELYAN,  HENRY  BROADHURST, 

LYON  PLAYFAIR,  JOHN  BARRAN, 

CHARLES  W.  DILKE,  J.  F.  CHEETHAM, 

DAVID  WEDDERBURN,  H.  S.  HOLLAND, 

ARTHUR  RUSSELL,  H.  CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, 

HORACE  DAVEY,  CHARLES  BRUCE, 

BENJAMIN  ARMITAGE,  RICHARD  FORT. 

The  Dean  was  abroad  at  the  time,  and  telegraphed  his  cordial 
acquiescence. 

The  family  had  desired  that  my  father  should  be  buried  at  Down  : 
with  regard  to  their  wishes,  Sir  John  Lubbock  wrote  : — 


APPENDIX   I.  361 

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 

Society), 

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 — 

CHARLES  ROBERT  DARWIN. 

Born  12  February,  1809. 

Died  19  April,  1882. 


362  APPENDIX  II. 


APPENDIX    II. 


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,  1832-1836.  By  Charles  Darwin.  8vo.  London, 
1839. 

Journal  of  Researches  into  the  Natural  History  and  Geology  of  the 
countries  visited  during  the  Voyage  of  H.M.S.  l  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, 
1860.  [Contains  a  postscript  dated  Feb.  i,  1860.] 

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.  410.  London, 
1839. 

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 


APPENDIX  II.  363 

Part  of  the  Geology  of  the  Voyage  of  the  '  Beagle.'    8vo.  London, 

1842. 
The  Structure  and  Distribution  of  Coral  Reefs.     2nd  edition.     8vo. 

London,  1874. 
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, 

1846. 
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 

Society.) 
A  Monograph  of  the  Sub-class  Cirripedia,  with  Figures  of  all  the 

Species.      The    Lepadidae ;    or,   Pedunculated  Cirripedes.      8vo. 

London,  1851.     (Ray  Society.) 
The   Balanidae   (or  Sessile   Cirripedes) ;   the  Verrucidag,  &c. 

8vo.  London,  1854.     (Ray  Society.) 
A   Monograph  of  the   Fossil   Balanidae   and  Vermcidse   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.  ist,  1859,  published  Nov.  24,  1859.) 

Fifth  thousand.     8vo.  London,  1860. 

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., 

1872.) 
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.] 


364  APPENDIX   II. 

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,  1871. 

Second  edition.     8vo.  London,  1874.     (In  i  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 


APPENDIX   II.  365 

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.  Darwin  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.  31  pp. 
8vo.  Privately  printed  for  distribution  among  the  members  of  the 
Society. 

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 


366  APPENDIX   II. 

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.  i,  1837.]  Geol.  Soc. 
Proc.  ii.  1838,  pp.  574-576;  Geol.  Soc.  Trans,  v.  1840,  pp.  505- 
510. 

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., 
F.R.S.E."] 

Observations  on  the  Structure  and  Propagation  of  the  genus  Sagitta. 
Ann.  and  Mag.  Nat.  Hist.  xiii.  1844,  PP-  J-6. 

Brief  Descriptions  of  several  Terrestrial  Planarice,  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. 


APPENDIX   II.  367 

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.  1851,  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?  Chronicle,  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  ist,  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.  1860,  p.  103. 
Note  on  the  achenia  of  Pumilio  Argyrolepis.     Gardeners'  Chronicle, 

Jan.  5,  1861,  p.  4. 
Fertilisation  of  Vincas.     Gardeners'  Chronicle,  pp.   552,  831,  832. 

1861. 
On  the  Two   Forms,  or   Dimorphic  Condition,   in  the  species  of 


368  APPENDIX   II. 

Primula,  and  on  their  remarkable  Sexual  Relations.     Linn.  Soc. 
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.  vulgar  is,  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.  i,  1870,  pp.  705-706. 
Fertilisation  of  Leschenaultia.     Gardeners'  Chronicle,^.  1166,  1871. 
The  Fertilisation  of  Winter-flowering  Plants.      'Nature,'  Nov.    18, 

1869,  vol.  i.  p.  85. 

Pangenesis.     *  Nature,'  April  27,  1871,  vol.  iii.  p.  502. 
A  new  view  of  Darwinism.     '  Nature,'  July  6,  1871,  vol.  iv.  p.  180. 
Bree  on  Darwinism.     '  Nature,'  Aug.  8,  1872,  vol.  vi.  p.  279. 


APPENDIX   II.  369 

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,  v°l-  vm'-  P-  244- 
On  the  Males  and  Complemental  Males  of  Certain  Cirripedes,  and 

on  Rudimentary  Structures.     'Nature/  Sept.  25,  1873,  vol.  viii. 

P.  43L 
Recent  researches  on  Termites  and  Honey-bees.     'Nature/  Feb.  19, 

1874,  vol.  ix.  p.  308. 
Fertilisation  of  the  Fumariacese.     '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.  1 8. 
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.     Gardeners1  Chronicle,  vol.  vii.  p.  246, 

1877. 

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.  i,  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 


37O  APPENDIX   II. 

The  Movements  of  Leaves.      l  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. 


(    371    ) 


APPENDIX    III. 


PORTRAITS. 


Date. 

Description. 

Artist. 

In  the  Possession  of 

1838 

Water-colour 

G,  Richmond     . 

The  Family. 

1851 

Lithograph  . 

Ipswich     British 

Assn.  Series. 

1853 

Chalk  Drawing  . 

Samuel  Lawrence 

The  Family. 

1853? 

Chalk  Drawing  * 

Samuel  Lawrence 

Prof.  Hughes, 

Cambridge. 

1869 

Bust,  marble 

T.  Woolner,  R.  A. 

The  Family. 

1875 

Oil  Painting  f     . 

W.  Ouless,  R.A. 

The  Family. 

Etched  by 

P.  Raj  on. 

1879 

Oil  Painting 

W.  B.  Richmond 

The   University  of 

Cambridge. 

1881 

Oil  Painting  t    . 

Hon.  John  Collier 

The  Linnean 

Society. 

Etched  by 

Leopold  Flameng 

CHIEF  PORTRAITS  AND  MEMORIALS  NOT  TAKEN  FROM  LIFE 


Statue     .      .      . 

Joseph     Boehm, 

Museum,        South 

R.A. 

Kensington. 

Bust        .      .      . 

Chr.  Lehr,  Junr. 

Plaque    . 

T.  Woolner,  R.A., 

Christ's  College,  in 

and        Josiah 

Charles  Darwin's 

Wedgwood  and 

Room. 

Sons. 

Deep  Medallion 

J.  Boehm,  R.A. 

To    be    placed   in 

Westminster 

Abbey. 

*  Probably  a  sketch  made  at  one  of 
the  sittings  for  the  last-mentioned. 

A  replica  by  the  artist  is  in  the 
possession  of  Christ's  College,   Cam- 


bridge. 

\  A  replica  by  the  artist  is  in  the 
possession  of  W.  E.  Darwin,  Esq., 
Southampton. 

2    B    2 


3/2  APPENDIX  III. 

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  l  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     ) 


APPENDIX   IV* 


HONOURS,  DEGREES,  SOCIETIES,  &c. 

Order.— Prussian  Order,  <  Pour  le  Me'rite.'    1867. 
Office. — County  Magistrate.     1857. 


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 
the  diplomas  and  letters  in  my  father's 
possession,  and  is  no  doubt  incomplete, 
as  he  seems  to  have  lost  or  mislaid 
some  of  the  papers  received  from 
foreign  Societies.  Where  the  name  of 
a  foreign  Society  (excluding  those  in  the 


United  States)  is  given  in  English,  it 
is  a  translation  of  the  Latin  (or  in  one 
case  Russian)  of  the  original  Diploma. 

f  See  vol.  i.  p.  163. 

J  He  afterwards  became  a  Fellow 
of  the  Society. 


3/4  APPENDIX   IV. 

Literary  and  Philosophical  Society  of  Manchester.     Hon.  Member, 

1868. 

Watford  Nat.  Hist  Society.     Hon.  Member,  1877. 
Asiatic  Society  of  Bengal.     Hon.  Member,  1871. 
Royal  Society  of  New  South  Wales.     Hon.  Member,  1879. 
Philosophical  Institute  of  Canterbury,  New  Zealand.    Hon.  Member, 

1863. 
New  Zealand  Institute.     Hon.  Member,  1872. 

Foreign  Societies. 
AMERICA. 

Sociedad  Cientifica  Argentina.     Hon.  Member,  1877. 

Academia  Nacional  de  Ciencias,  Argentine  Republic.    Hon.  Member, 

1878. 

Sociedad  Zoolojica  Arjentina.     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,  1860. 
New  York  Academy  of  Sciences.     Hon.  Member,  1879. 
Gabinete  Portuguez  de  Leitura  em  Pernambuco.     Corresp.  Member, 

1879. 

Academy  of  Natural  Sciences  of  Philadelphia.    Correspondent,  1860. 
American  Philosophical  Society,  Philadelphia.     Member,  1869. 

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. 

Imperial  Academy  of  Sciences  of  Vienna.     Foreign  Corresponding 

Member,  1871 ;  Hon.  Foreign  Member,  1875. 
Anthropologische  Gesellschaft  in  Wien.     Hon.  Member,  1872. 
K.  k.  Zoologische  botanische  Gesellschaft  in  Wien.     Member,  1867. 
Magyar  Tudoma"nyos  Akaddmia,  Pest,  1872. 

BELGIUM. 

Socie'te'  Royale  des  Sciences  Medicales  et  Naturelles  de  Bruxelles. 

Hon.  Member,  1878. 
Socie'te'  Royale  de  Botanique  de  Belgique.    '  Membre  Associe,'  ]  88  r. 


APPENDIX  IV.  375 

Acad&nie  Royale  des  Sciences,  &c.,  de  Belgique.     'Associe'  de  la 
Classe  des  Sciences.'     1870. 

DENMARK. 
Royal  Society  of  Copenhagen.     Fellow,  1879. 

FRANCE. 

Societe  d'Anthropologie  de  Paris.     Foreign  Member,  1871. 
Societe  Entomologique  de  France.     Hon.  Member,  1874. 
Socie'te  Geologique  de  France.     Life  Member,  1837. 
Institut  de  France.     '  Correspondant '  Section  of  Botany,  1878. 

GERMANY. 

Royal    Prussian   Academy   of   Sciences    (Berlin).      Corresponding 

Member,  1863;  Fellow,  1878. 
Berliner     Gesellschaft    fur    Anthropologie,     &c.       Corresponding 

Member,  1877. 
Schlesische  Gesellschaft  fiir  Vaterlandische  Cultur  (Breslau).     Hon. 

Member,  1878. 

Caesarea  Leopoldino-Carolina  Academia  Naturae  Curiosorum  (Dres- 
den).*    1857. 
Senkenbergische  Naturforschende  Gesellschaft  zu  Frankfurt  am  Main. 

Corresponding  Member,  1873. 

Naturforschende  Gesellschaft  zu  Halle.     Member,  1879. 
Siebenbiirgische  Verein  fiir    Naturwissenschaften   (Hermannstadt). 

Hon.  Member,  1877. 
Medicinisch  -  naturwissenschaftliche    Gesellschaft    zu  Jena.      Hon. 

Member,  1878. 
Royal   Bavarian   Academy  of   Literature    and  Science   (Munich). 

Foreign  Member,  1878. 

HOLLAND. 

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  Casarea  Leo-  My  father  seems  to  have  been  named 

poldino- Carolina  Academia,  that  each  after    the    traveller    John     Reinhold 

new  member  should  receive  as  a  '  cog-  Forster. 
nomen,'    a   name    celebrated    in  that 


3/6  APPENDIX  IV. 

Socie'te'  Hollandaise  des  Sciences  a  Harlem.    Foreign  Member,  1877. 
Zeeuwsch  Genootschap  der  Wetenschappen  te  Middelburg.     Foreign 
Member,  1877. 

ITALY. 

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. 

PORTUGAL. 

Sociedade    de    Geographia  de   Lisboa   (Lisbon).      Corresponding 
Member,  1877. 

RUSSIA. 

Society  of  Naturalists  of  the  Imperial  Kazan  University.      Hon. 

Member,  1875. 
Societas   Caesarea  Naturae  Curiosorum  (Moscow).     Hon.  Member, 

1870. 
Imperial  Academy  of  Sciences   (St.   Petersburg).      Corresponding 

Member,  1867. 

SPAIN. 
Institucion  Libre  de  Ensenanza  (Madrid).     Hon.  Professor,  1877. 

SWEDEN. 

Royal  Swedish  Acad.  of  Sciences  (Stockholm).     Foreign  Member, 

1865. 
Royal  Society  of  Sciences  (Upsala).     Fellow,  1860. 

SWITZERLAND. 

Socie'te    des    Sciences    Naturelles   du    Neufchatel.      Corresponding 
Member,  i863k 


(    377    ) 


INDEX. 


ABBOTT.  1 

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,  i37>  i38»  !39>  HO,  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, 


rALPINE. 

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  v  Origin '  in 
*  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  Dioiuza,  iii.  323. 

Albums  of  photographs  received  from 
Germany  and  Holland,  iii.  225. 

Alca  impennis,  Professor  W.  Preyer  on, 
iii.  1 6  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, 
Hi.  233. 

'All  the  Year  Round,'  notice  of  the 
'Origin*  in,  ii.  319. 

Allfrey,  Mr.,  treatment  by,  iii.  357. 

Almond  Tumbler,  J.  Eaton  on  the,  ii. 

51. 

Alpine  plants,  American,  ii.  61  ;  Euro- 
pean and  American,  connexion  of, 
through  Greenland,  ii.  89  ;  hairiness 
of,  ii.  91,  92,  96,  98 ;  flowers  of,  iit 
92,  97- 


378 


INDEX. 


ALPS. 

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 

Bo  wen  in  the  memoirs  of  the,  ii.  349, 

354- 

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 
'  Fertilisation  of  Orchids,'  in  the, 
iii.  272. 

American  type  in  the  Galapagos,  ii. 
209. 

Civil  War,  the,  ii.  374,  377, 

38l>  385.  386  ;  iii.  272. 

'  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.  318, 

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- 

Anelasma,  iii.  38. 
Aner gates,  iii.  191. 
Angiospermous    plants   in    Cretaceous 

beds  of  the  United  States,  iii.  248. 
Angrcecum,    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. 


ARISTOCRACY. 

340 ;  terrestrial  hermaphrodite,    not 

fitted  for  self-impregnation,  iii.  260. 
Animism,  iii.  157. 
'  Anses-section,'  iii.  202. 
'  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.  248  ;  Tertiary,  iii.  231. 
fossil  plants,  ignorance   of,  iii. 

247. 

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.    191  ;  slave-making, 

ii.  129. 
Apocyneae,  twisting  of  shoots  of,  iii. 

313. 
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, 

ii-  75- 

Archebiosis,  iii.  1 68. 

Archipelagoes,  oceanic,  ii.  77. 

Arctic  fossil  plants,  importance  of,  iii. 
247. 

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,  33  ; 
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. 


INDEX. 


379 


ART-CRITICISM. 

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,     upon    Sir 

Joseph  Hooker,  iii.    101 ;    letter  to 

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 

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. 

Athenaeum  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. 

35- 

*  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. 


BATS. 

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.  198. 
Azores,   ii.   74,  77 ;  Boulders  on   the, 

ii.  112,  113. 


BABBAGE  and  Carlyle,  i.  77. 
Bachelor   of    Arts,    degree    taken,    i. 

47- 

Backgammon-playing,  i.  123. 

Bar,  Karl  Ernst  von,  ii.  231  ;  assent 
of,  to  evolutionist  views,  ii.  1 86 
note ;  opinion  of  the  theory,  ii.  329, 

330. 

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. 
172. 

Balanus  armatus,  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. 

Balsaminese,  insect  agency  requisite 
for  the  fertilisation  of  some,  iii. 

3°9- 

Barmouth,  visit  to,  i.  168,  178. 

Bastian's  '  Beginnings  of  Life,'  iii. 
168. 

Bates,  H.  W.,  on  the  Glacial  period  in 
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. 

77- 

Bats  in  New  Zealand,  ii.  336  ;  Indian, 
killing  frogs,  ii.  336 ;  on  Oceanic 
islands,  iii.  20. 


INDEX. 


BEAGLE. 
'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. 

260. 
Bees'  cells,  ii.  305,  350 ;  angles  of,  ii. 

in  ;  Sedgwick  on,  ii.  249. 

combs,  ii.  146. 

Beetles,  collecting,  at  Cambridge,  &c., 

i-,  50,  56,  168,  169,  172;    ii.   140, 

141. 

,   Lamellicorn,    stridulating   or- 
gans of,  iii.  97. 
Begnis,  J.  de,  i.  180. 
Begonia  frigida,  ii.  275,  290. 
Behrens,  W.,  letter  to,  on  fertilisation, 

iii.  282. 
,  '  Geschichte  der  Bestaubungs- 

Theorie,'  iii.  282. 
Belfast,  British  Association  meeting  at, 

1874,  iii.  189. 
Bell,    Professor  Thomas,  i.  274,  275  ; 

ii.  363- 

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. 

188. 
Bemmelen,  A.  van,  letter  to,  on  receipt 

of  an  album  of  Dutch  men  of  science, 

iii.  226. 


BIRMINGHAM. 

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. 

'  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.. 


293- 

,  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. 
270. 

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. 

i?  297. 

Biddenham  gravel-pits,  Lyell's  visit  to 
the,  ii.  364. 

Bignonia  capreolata,  questions  as  to 
conditions  of  climbing  of,  iii.  314. 

Billiards,  ii.  151. 

*  Biographical  sketch  of  an  Infant,'  iii. 

233- 

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. 


INDEX. 


381 


BIRMINGHAM. 

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.  1 80. 
Blocks,  erratic,   Mr.   D.   Mackintosh's 

work  on,  iii.  235. 
Blomefield,  Rev.  L.,  see  JENYNS,  REV. 

L. 
•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. 
Ely th,  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. 

64. 
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,  1 6  note, 

19. 
Boulders,  erratic,   of  South  America, 

paper  on  the,   i.   70 ;   paper  on  the 

transportal  of,  i.  328. 


BRODERIP. 
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. 
141. 

Bree,  Dr.  C.  R.,  'Species  not  trans- 
mutable,'  ii.  358  ;  on  *  Fallacies  in 
the  hypothesis  of  Mr.  Darwin,'  iii. 
167. 

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.  1 66;  at  Norwich,  1868,  Sir 
Joseph  Hooker's  address  to  the,  iii. 
IOO ;  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,  1881,  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,  W.  J.,  i.  274  note,  275. 


382 


INDEX. 


BRONN. 

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. 
30. 

Brown,  Robert,  i.  274,  282,  294;  ac- 
quaintance with,  i.  68-73  J  recom- 
mendation of  Sprengel's  book,  iii. 
258. 

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. 

1 10,  386. 

Buckley,  Miss,  letters  to  : — on  the  death 
of  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  iii.  196,  197  ; 
on  her  '  History  of  Natural  Science,' 

111.  229. 
Bud-variation,  iii.  57,  86. 

Buffon's  notions  analogous  to   Pange- 

nesis,  iii.  44,  45. 
Bullfinch,  sexual  differences  of  the,  iii. 

124. 

Bulwer's  '  Professor  Long,'  i.  81. 
Bunbury,  Sir  C.,  his  opinion  of  the 

theory,  ii.  285. 
Business  habits,  i.  I2O. 
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, 

284. 
of  the  Alps,  tamer  than  those  of 

lowlands,  iii.  170. 


CACTUS,  seedling,  movements  of,   iii. 

330. 

Cader  Idris,  iii.  106. 
Caerdeon,  residence  at,  iii.  106. 
Cairns,  Prof.  J.  E.,  lecture  on    '  The 

Slave-power,'  iii.  ii. 
CalatniteSy  i.  357- 
Call- duck,  ii.  50. 
"  Callisection,"  iii.  202  note. 
Cambridge,    gun-practice    at,   i.     34 ; 


CARPENTER'S. 

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. 
257. 

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, 

"•  335- 

Cants  magellanicus,  iii.  118. 

Cape  of  Good  Hope,  bloom-covered 
plants  at  the,  iii.  341. 

Cape  Verd  Islands,  i.  228,  241. 

Carabidse,  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,  iii.  17  ;  Dr.*  Carpenter's 
reply,  iii.  18,  19  ;  G.  Bentham  on,  iii. 
24. 


INDEX. 


383 


CARUS. 

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. 

Catasetum,  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,  iii.,  102. 

Cats,  mesmerising,  i.  374. 

and  mice,  ii.  312. 

with  blue  eyes,  deafness  of,  ii. 

348. 

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. 
285. 

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,  i. 
355  ;  author  of  the  'Vestiges,'  i. 
356 ;  on  ancient  Sea-margins,  i. 
362  ;  remarks  on  the  *  Essays  and 
Reviews,'  ii.  363. 

'  Chance,'  supposed  influence  of,  in 
Evolution,  ii.  199. 

Change,  slowness  of,  ii.  124. 


CLIMBING. 

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. 
279. 

'  Christian  Examiner,'  review  of  the 
'Origin'  in  the,  ii.  318,  319. 

Church,  destination  to  the,  i.  45,  46, 
171. 

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. 

3I3- 

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, 

,  .I37\ 

Climbing  plants,  i.  92;  iii.,  27,  311- 

317. 


334 


INDEX. 


CLIMBING. 

'  Climbing  Plants,'  publication  of  the, 
iii.  317. 

Coal,  supposed  marine  origin  of,  i. 
356-36o. 

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. 
Confer  vse,  conjugation  of,  iii.  304. 
Coniferse,  origin  of  the  flowers  of,  iii. 

285. 
Conscientiousness,  extreme,  anecdotes 

illustrative  of,  iii.  53-55. 
Consideration  for  the  feelings  of  others, 

iii-  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. 

247 


CORRESPONDENCE. 

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, 
233. 

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 
'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, 
1842-1854,  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 
'  Man,'  iii.  89-180  ;  miscellaneous, 
iii.  181-253  ;  on  botanical  researches, 
iii.  254-354. 


INDEX. 


385 


CORYANTHES. 

CoryantkeS)  water-reservoir  in  labellum 

of,  iii.  284. 

CorydaliS)  Hildebrand  on  cross-fertili- 
sation in,  iii.  280. 

Cosmogony,  Pentateuchal,  ii.  187. 

*  Cosmos,'  English  translation  of  the, 
i.  344  ;  ii.  30. 

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.  1 8. 

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  in,  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. 

Criiger,  Dr.,  observation  on  Catasttum 
and  Coryanthes,  iii.  264,  284. 

Crustacea,  unequal  numbers  of  sexes 
in,  iii.  97  ;  lower,  clasping  pincers 
in  males  of,  iii.  in. 

Crustaceans  and  fishes,  ii.  334. 

Cryptogamia,  dispersal  of,  i.  328  note. 

Cucurbitaceae,  irritability  of  tendrils  of, 

iii.  3!3- 

Cycas,  seedling,  movements  of,  iii.  330. 
Cychnoches,  iii.  268. 
Cypripedium^  pollen  of,  iii.  265. 

VOL.   III. 


DARWIN. 

DAILY  Life  at  Down,  i.  108. 

'Daily  Review,'  review  of  the  'Varia- 
tions of  Animals  and  Plants  '  in  the3 
iii.  85. 

Dallas,  W.  S.,  index  to  the  'Variation 
of  Animals  and  Plants,'  iii.  74  note; 
translation  of  Fritz  Miiller'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  » 

Autobiography  of,  i.  26-107  J  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,  L,  56-58; 
on  the  voyage  of  the  '  Beagle,'  i.  58- 
67  ;  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.  99-10x3  ; 
mental  qualities,  i.  100-107. 

,  Reminiscences  of,  i.  108-160 ; 

personal  appearance,  i.  109,  in; 
mode  of  walking,  i.  109,  in  ;  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 


336 


INDEX. 


DARWIN. 

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.  132-138; 
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  Mai- 

donado,  i.  244  ;  from  East  Falkland 
Island,  i.  251  ;  from  Valparaiso,  i. 
256. 

-,  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. 


DESCENT. 

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.  i,  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, 
368. 

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; 'send- 
ing him  the  'Origin  of  Species,'  ii. 
216  ;  on  his  '  Phytographie,'  iii.  332. 

Decoctions  and  extracts,  action  of,  upon 
leaves  oiDrosera  and  Diontza,  iii.  323. 

Deer,  American,  iii.  101. 

Degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  taken,  i.  47, 
183,  185. 

Degrees,  Honours  and  Societies,  list  of, 
iii-  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. 


INDEX.  387 


DESCENT. 

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. 
371. 

Descriptive  work,  blunting    effect    of, 

".  379; 
Design  in  Nature,  i.  315,  iii.  353,  373, 

377>  378,  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. 

303- 

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.  285. 

Dieffenbach,  Dr.,  translation  of  the 
'Journal '  by,  i.  323. 

Dielytra,  iii.  259. 

Diet,  i.  1 1 8,  123. 

Differences,  individual,  and  single  varia- 
tions, relative  importance  of,  iii.  107, 
109. 

,  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, 

325. 
,  process  of,    in  Pinguicula,  iii. 

324. 
Dimorphism  and  trimorphism  in  plants, 

papers  on,  i.  91. 
'  Dicecio-dimorphism,'  iii.  303. 
Dioncea,  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 


DUBOIS-REYMOND. 

extensions,    ii.    77 ;    means    of,    ii. 

82. 
,  geographical,  ii.  79,   149 ;  iii. 

230. 

Divergence,  principle  of,  i.  84  ;  ii.  124. 
Dogs,  fondness  for,  i.  30,  113. 
,  Mongrdisation  of,  in  Bey  rout, 

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. 

163. 

,  letter  to,  on  Drosera^  iii.  325. 

Donkey,  stripes  on  the  legs  of  the,  ii. 

112. 

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. 

Droscra,  observations  on,  i.  95  ;  iii. 
317-327  j  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. 
319. 

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 


388 


INDEX. 


DUCK. 

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. 

357. 

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  Pinguicula,  iii. 
324 ;  on  movement  in  plants,  iii. 
33°>  33  *  >  334  J  on  ^he  '  bloom '  of 
leaves  and  fruit,  iii.  341. 

Dysteleology,  iii.  119  note. 


EAR,  human,  infolded  point  of  the,  iii. 
140. 

Earle,  Erasmus,  i.  2. 

Early  rising,  i.  112. 

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 ;  first 
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. ,  249 ;  letter  to  Miss  C.  Darwin 
from,  i.  251. 

Eccremocarpus  scaber,  climbing  of,  iii. 
314. 

Echidna,  ii.  335. 

Echinocystis  lobata,  irritability  of  the 
tendrils  of,  iii.  311  ;  twisting  of  the 
upper  internode  of,  iii.  312. 


ENGLISH. 

Echinoderms,  Romanes  and  Ewart  on 
the  locomotor  system  of,  iii.  243. 

Echium  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. 
31-33- 

,  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, 
304,  311,  313;  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. 
294. 

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  Chtirchman,  review  of  the 
'Origin'  in  the,  ii.  241. 


INDEX. 


389 


ENGRAVINGS. 

Engravings,  fondness  for,  i.  170. 

*  Enoch  Arden,'  quotation  from,  iii.  4. 
Entomological  Society,  concurrence  of 

the  members  of  the,  iii.  69. 
Epidendrunt,  iii.  265. 
Equator,   ceremony  at  crossing  the,  i. 

230. 

Equisetum,  upright  oolitic,  i.  360. 
Eyuust  species  of  the  genus,  ii.  101. 
Erratic  blocks,  at  Glen  Roy,   i.,  293; 

Mr.  D.   Mackintosh's  work  on,  iii. 

235; 

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,  «•  35* 

*  Essays  and  Reviews,'  R.    Chambers 

on  the,  ii.  363. 
Eucalypti,  "'bloom"  common  on  the, 

iii.  341. 
Euphorbia  peplits,  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.  112. 

in  the  Malays,  iii.  95,  96. 

Expression  of  the  Emotions,  work  on 

the,  iii.  133. 
'  Expression  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- 


FERTILISATION. 

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. 
53- 


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  Tacsonia, 
iii.  279. 

Fawcett,  Henry,  letter  from  W.  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. 

'  Fertilisation  of  Orchids,'  publication 
of  the,  i.  90,  97  ;  iii.  270. 

* of  Orchids,'  publication  of 

second  edition  of  the,  iii.  286. 

< •  of  Orchids,'  reviews  of  the  ; 


390 


INDEX. 


FERTILISATION. 

in  the  'Parthenon,'  iii.  270;  in 
the  Atkenteum}  iii.  270 ;  in  the 
'  London  Review,'  iii.  270  ;  in  '  Silli- 
man's  Journal,'  iii.  272,  304  ;  in  the 
Saturday  Review1,  iii.  274 ;  in  the 
Literary  Chtirchman,  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, 

in.  135. 

and  crustaceans,  ii.  334. 

Fiske,    J.,    letter   to,  on  his    '  Cosmic 

Philosophy,'  iii.  193. 
Fitton,  W.  H.,  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, 

332. 

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  larvse  of,  i.  39. 
Forbes,    David,    on    the    geology    of 

Chile,  ii.  355. 


FRANCE. 

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, 
304- 

Forel,  Auguste,  letter  to,  on  ants,  iii. 
191. 

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, 
218. 

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, 
21 1 ;  from  Botofogo  Bay,  i.  233; 
from  Lima,  i.  262  ;  in  1836-1842  ; 
i.  277,  278,  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 ; 
persistence  of  belief  in  immutability 
of  species  in,  iii.  87. 


INDEX. 


391 


FRANCE. 

France  and  Germany,  contrast  of  pro- 
gress of  theory  in,  iii.  118. 

'Eraser'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>  S8?  ;  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.  1 10. 

Fuegians,  condition  of  the,  i.  243,  255  ; 

mission  to  the,  iii.  127,  128. 
Fumaria,  iii.  259. 
Fumariacese,  fertilisation    of    the,    iii. 

280. 
Funeral   in   Westminster    Abbey,    iii. 

360. 


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. 

Callus  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. 

238. 

,  note  to,  on  the  life  of  Erasmus 

Darwin,  iii.  220. 

Ganoid  fishes  confined  to  fresh  water, 
ii.  143- 


GEOLOGICAL. 

Gardeners'  Chronicle,  article  by  W.  H. 
Harvey  in  the,  ii.  274,  275,  276  ; 
review  of  the  '  Origin '  in  the,  ii. 
267 ;  letters  from  Prof.  Westwooi 
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.  2J3- 

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  Morphologic,'  Hackel's, 
projected  translation  of,  iii.  104. 

'  Genesis,'  changed  treatment  of,  ii.  181. 

Geoffrey  St.  Hilaire,  ii.  207. 

Geographical  distribution,  ii.  79,  149, 
230. 

'  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  j 
Prof.  Geikie's  notes  on  the,  i.  326. 


392 


INDEX. 


GEOLOGICAL. 

'  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, 
285-287. 

Geological  time,  iii.  109. 

work  in  the  Andes,  i.  260. 

*  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, 
68. 

,  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  N  ew  Zealand,  iii.  6. 


GRAY. 

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. 

71- 

Glaciers,  ancient,  of  Caernarvonshire, 
paper  on,  i.  302. 

Glands,  sticky,  of  the  pollinia,  iii. 
263. 

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. 

Glossotheritini)  i.  276. 

Gnetacese,  origin  of  the  flowers  of,  iii. 
285. 

Godron's  'Florula  juvenalis,'  ii. 
60. 

Gold-crested  Wren,  sexual  differences 
of  the,  iii.  124. 

Goldfinch,  sexual  differences  of  the,  iii. 
124. 

Goodacre,  Dr.,  observations  on  the 
fertility  of  hybrids  from  the  common 
and  Chinese  goose,  iii.  240. 

Good  Success  Bay,  landing  in,  i. 
247. 

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.  1 88. 

Gravity,  light,  &c.,  acting  asi  stmuli,. 

i".  336,  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  5  reply  to  Agassiz  and  others, 
ii.  333 ;  article  by,  reprinted  in  the 
'  Annals  of  Natural  History,'  ii.  353, ;, 
comparison  of  rain  drops  and  varia- 


INDEX. 


393 


GRAY. 

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. 
1 20 ;  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 


GURNEY. 

1  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  ;  oncross- 
and  self-fertilisation,  iii.  290,  292, 
293  ;  on  different  forms  of  flowers  in 
species  of  Primula^  iii.  298,  300 ;  on 
Lythrum,  iii.  301  ;  an.  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,  capreolata, 
iii.  314  ;  on  climbing  plants,  iii.  316  ; 
on  Drosera,  iii.  318,  322,  325  ;  on 
the  "  bloom  "  of  leaves  and  fruit,  iii. 
340. 

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,  279. 

Greeks,  ancient,  high  intellectual 
development  of  the,  ii.  295. 

Greenland,  connexion  of  American  and 
European  Alpine  plants  through,  ii. 
89. 

Grote,  A.,  meeting  with,  i.  76. 

Gully,  Dr.,  his  belief  in  mesmerism  and 
clairvoyance,  i.  373. 

Gtinther,  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. 


394 


INDEX. 


HAAST. 

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. 
226. 

Hackel's  'Freedom  in  Science  and 
Teaching,'  iii.  236. 

'  Generelle  Morphologic,'  '  Ra- 

diolaria,'  '  Schopfungs-Geschichte,' 
and  '  Ursprung  des  Menschen-Gesch- 
lechts,'  iii.  67,  68,  104. 

*  Natiirliche  Schopfungs-Ges- 
chichte,' iii.  104;  Huxley's  review  of, 

111.  119. 

Hague,  James,  on  the  reception  of  the 

*  Descent  of  Man,'  iii.  133. 

Hair    and    teeth,    correlation    of,    iii. 

95- 
Hairiness  of  Alpine  plants,  ii.  91,  92, 

96. 
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  Gardeners'  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. 

375- 

Haughton,  Professor  S.,  opinion  on  the 
new  views  of  Wallace  and  Darwin, 


HERBERT. 

i.  85  ;  criticism  on  the  theory  of  the 

origin  of  species,  ii.  157. 
Hawks,   pellets    cast    up    by,    ii.    84, 

86. 
Health,  i.  in,  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. 
Hedychiunt)  removal  of  the  pollen  of, 

by  the  wings  of  butterflies,  iii.  283, 

284. 

tfedysamm^  habits  of,  ii.  59- 
Heliotropism    of    seedlings,    iii.    336, 

337- 

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, 
1 86 ;  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,  of  ii.  372. 

,  letter  from,  on  the  offer  of  the 

appointment  to  the  '  Beagle,'  i.   192  ; 

,  letter  to,  from  Rev.  G.  Peacock, 

i.  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  :— 1836-1842,  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,  1 66,  171  ;  letter 
to,  i.  172  ;  letter  to,  from  Botofogo 
Bay,  i.  238;  from  Maldonado,  i. 


INDEX. 


395 


HERBERT. 

246  ;  letter  to,  on  the  *  South  Ameri- 
can Geology,'  i.  334. 
Herbert,  Hon.  and  Rev.  W.,  visit  to, 

i-  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. 

Hieracittin,  protean  forms  of,  iii.  1 88. 

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. 

331. 

Hildebrand,  Prof.  F.,  letters  to: — on 

the  fertilisation  of  Salvia^  Corydalis, 

<fcc. ,    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. 
Him&ntopiiS)   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. 
i       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. 

163. 


HOOKER. 

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  Satyrus^  gap  between,  ii. 
227. 

Homoeopathic  explanation  of  origin  of 
species,  ii.  383. 

Homologues,  non-electrical,  of  the 
electrical  organs  of  fishes,  ii. 

353- 
Honours,  Degrees  and  Societies,  list  of, 

i".  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,  iu  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, 
240. 

,  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 


396 


INDEX. 


HOOKER. 

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.  73  ;  on  continental  extension,  ii. 
So,  81  ;  on  geographical  distribu- 
tion, ii.  83,  84,  85,  86 ;  on  natural 
selection,  ii.  86  ;  on  the  definition  of 

*  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.  100;  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. 
J33>  J37>  *39>  J42  >  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 


HOOKER. 

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  Athenaum 
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, 
"•  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, 'iii.  7,  15  ; 
on  the  origin  of  life,  iii.  17;  on 
Falconer's  article  on  Lyell's  book, 
iii.  1 8  ;  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  > 


INDEX. 


397 


HOOKER. 

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 
'  Vaiiation  under  Domestication,'  iii. 
74,  75,  76,  77  5  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.  1 88  ;  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  W.,  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, 

257- 
Hope,  Rev.  F.  W.,  i.  174,  178,  181. 


HUXLEY. 

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. 

Humbold-t,  Baron  A.  von,  i.  336  ;  ii. 
43  ;  meeting  with,  i.  74. 

as  a  scientific  traveller,  iii. 

247. 

Humboldt's  '  Personal  Narrative/  i. 
55- 

Huth,  Mr.,  on  "Consanguineous  Mar- 
riage,' i.  106. 

Hutton,  Capt.  F.  W.,  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 


398 


INDEX. 


HUXLEY. 

Species, :  ii.  231  j  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  j 
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,  iii.  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  Athenaum,  iii. 
14. 

Hyatt,  Prof.  A.,  letter  to,  on  errors  in 
the  sixth  edition  of  the  '  Origin,'  iii. 

154- 
,  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.    I IO ;  Asa  Gray  on,  ii. 

272. 

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.  8 1,  85. 

Hypothesis  and  Theory,  ii.  286. 


INSECTS. 
ICE,  boulders  transported  by  floating, 

paper  on,  i.  302. 
Icebergs,  stranding  of,  on  the  Azores 

ii.  112. 
Ichneumonidae,   and  their  function,  ii. 

312. 
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. 

99- 

Ill-health,  i.  69,  80,  81,  85,  107,  284, 
299-302,  350,  352-163  ;  iii.  i, 
27. 

Imitation,  protective,  iii.  15 1. 

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. 
287. 

Individual  differences  and  single  varia- 
tions, relative  importance  of,  iii.  107, 
109. 

Infant,  biographical  sketch  of  an,  iii. 

233- 

Infra-homo,  ii.  227. 

Infusoria,  Secondary,  ii.  210. 

Inheritance  of  sexual  characters,  iii. 
123. 

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-,  anecdote  illus- 
trative of  Mr.  Darwin's  extreme 
conscientiousness,  iii.  53  ;  letter 
to,  on  the  'Descent  of  Man,'  iii. 
140. 

'  Insectivorous  Plants,'  work  on  the, 
iii.  181  ;  publication  of,  i.  96  j  iii. 
328. 

Insects,  i.  35  ;  absence  of,  in  small 
islands,  ii.  30  ;  agency  of,  in  cross- 
fertilisation,  iii.  258  ;  blind,  in  caves, 
ii.  265  ;  *  bloom '  sometimes  a  protec- 


INDEX. 


399 


INSTINCT. 

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. 
92. 

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. 

Jardiae,  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,  327%^;  reminiscences 
of  insect-collecting  in  Cambridge- 
shire, i.  364  note. 

,  letters  to : — i.  181 ;  with  charac- 


KINGSLEY. 

ter  of  Henslow,  i.  186,  188  ;  on  the 
'  Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  219,  263  ;  on 
the  '  Naturalists'  Pocket  Almanack,' 
i-  353  '>  on  the  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. 

355- 

'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. 
60. 

Juan  Fernandez,  ii.  94. 

Judd,  Prof.,  on  Mr.  Darwin's  inten- 
tion to  devote  a  certain  sum  to  the 
advancement  of  scientific  interests, 
iii.  352. 

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. 
287. 

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. 

352- 
Kew,  Sir  Joseph  Hooker's  troubles  at, 

iii.  166. 
Keyserling,  Count,  his  opinion  of  the 

'  Origin  ,'ii.  261. 
Kidney-beans,  fertilisation  of,  iii.  259, 

260. 
King,    Dr.,    letter  of  thanks   to,    or 

information     on     Earthworms,     iii. 

216. 
Kingsley,  Rev.  Charles,  letter  from,  on 

the  '  Origin  of  Species,'  ii.  287 ;  on 


400 


INDEX. 


KIRBY. 

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. 

234. 

Kolliker's  *  Ueber  die  Darwin'sche 
Schopfungstheorie,'  answered  by 
T.  H.  Huxley,  iii.  29. 

Kolreuter    on  sexuality  in    plants,   iii. 

257. 

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  5  i".  2. 


LABURNUMS,  iii.  57. 
Laccadive  islands,  ii.  77. 
Lake-basins  and  glacial  action,  iii.  35. 
Lamarck's  '  Philosophic  Zoologique,'  ii. 

189. 

«•  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 

*  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. 
Lathyrus  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. 


LINUM. 

Laughing,  i.  ill. 

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  '  Geographic  Botanique,'  iii. 
301. 

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. 
150. 

Lepidosiren,  ii.  143. 

Leschenaultia,  fertilisation  of,  iii.  261. 

Lesquereux,  L.,  conversion  of,  iii.  31 
note. 

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. 
247. 

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. 

343- 

Lindley,  John,  i.  389. 

Lmgula,  ii.  340. 

Linnean  Society,  joint  paper  with  A. 
R.  Wallace,  read  before  the,  ii.  115, 
116,  117,  118,  119,  120,  125,  126, 
128,  129,  130;  portrait  at  the,  iii. 
223 ;  reading  of  the  paper  on 
Prinmla  before  the,  iii.  299. 

Linum,  Dimorphic  species  of,  iii.  297. 


INDEX. 


401 


LINUM. 

Linumflavum,  dimorphism  of,  i.  91. 

3L,ist  of  naturalists  who  had  adopted  the 
theory  in  March,  1860,  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. 

274. 

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 

'  Origin '  in  the,  ii.  328  ;  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.  77. 

Lowell,  J.  A.,  review  of  the  '  Origin  '  in 
the  Christian  Examiner y  ii.  318, 
319. 

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  Athentzum,  iii.  21 ; 
his  support  of  Darwin's  views,  ii.  185  ; 
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 

VOL.   III. 


LYELL. 

British   Association  at   Aberdeen  in 
1859,  ii.  1 66  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  J 
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 


4O2 


INDEX. 


LYELL. 

'  Annals,'  ii.  284  ;  on  objections,  ii. 
289 ;  on  the  intellectual  develop- 
ment of  the  Greeks,  ii.  295  ;  on  the  re- 
view of  the  '  Origin,'  in  the  Spectator , 
ii.  297  ;  on  the  reviews  in  the  '  Me- 
dical and  ChirurgicaP^  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  ; 
3I7»  31°,  331,  349  5  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,'  iii.  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, 
190-192. 

'Antiquity  of  Man,'  iii.  8,  lo, 

ii,  13,  15,  16,  26. 

LytJirum,  iii.  27,  31  ;  paper  on,  iii. 
89;  trimorphism  of,  i.  92;  iii.  301, 
302. 


MAMMALIA. 

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. 
Macrauchenia,  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. 

285. 

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. 

81. 
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, 


INDEX. 


403 


MAMMALIA. 

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  note ;  work  on,  iii.  89, 
91,  92. 

Manchester,  Dean  of,  visit  to,  i.  343. 

Mantegazza,  anticipation  of  the  theory 
of  Pangenesis  by,  in  his  '  Element! 
di  Igiene,'  iii.  195. 

Maranteoe,  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.  100. 
*  Medico-Chirurgical   Review,'   review 

of  the  '  Origin '  in  the,  by  W.  B.  Car- 

penter,  ii.  299,  380. 
Megatherium,  i.  360. 
Mdiponci)  ii.  316. 


MONISTIC. 
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, 

357- 

Migration  and  climate,  ii.  135,  136,  137. 
Mildew,  varieties  of  the  peach  not  liable 

to,  iii.  348. 

'  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,  if,_ 

392. 

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.  119  ;  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. 
109. 

Monads,  continued  creation  of,  ii.  210. 

'  Monistic  hypothesis,'  remarks  on  the, 
in  the  '  Quarterly  Review,'  iii.  184. 

2   D   2 


404 


INDEX. 


MONKEYS. 

Monkeys,  possible  means  of  communi- 
cation between,  ii.  391. 

Monoecious  species,  conversion  of,  into 
hermaphrodites,  iii.  286. 

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. 

99- 

,  water-cure  at,  ii.  67,112. 

Moore,  Dr.  Norman,  treatment  by,  iii. 

357- 

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?  iii.  237. 

Moths,  feathered  antennae  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. 
216. 
1 '  Mount,'    the,     Shrewsbury,     Charles 

Darwin's  birthplace,  i.  9,  II. 
^Mountains  of  existing  continents,  ii.  75, 
76. 

,  tropical,  forms   of   temperate 

climates  on,  ii.  136. 

M  tiller,  Fritz,  embryological  researches 
of,  i.  89. 

,   '  Fur  Darwin,'  iii.  37  ;  '  Facts 

and  arguments  for  Darwin,'  iii.  86. 

,  letters  to,  on  his  work  '  Fur 

Darwin,'  iii.  37  ;  on  mimicry,  iii.  7°  J 
on  pangenesis,  iii.  83  ;  on  the  trans- 
lation of  '  Fur  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. 


NlGELI. 

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, 

284. 

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. 
183. 

Murray,  John, letters  to: — relating  to  the 
publication  of  the  '  Origin  of  Species, 
ii.  155, 159  161, 178;  on  the  reception 
of  the  '  Origin  '  in  the  United  States, 
ii.  269  note  j  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. 


INDEX. 


405 


NAMES. 
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. 

28. 
'Natural  History  Review,'   project  of 

establishing  the,  ii.  328. 
Natural  selection,  ii.  78,  87,  123,   128, 

138,  3i7>-33°- 

,  applicability  of  the  term,  ii. 

278 ;  belief  in,  founded  on  general 
considerations,  iii.  25  ;  H.  C.  Watson 
on,  ii.  226  ;  priority  in  the  theory  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,  1860,  ii.  293. 

'  Naturalists'  Pocket  Almanack,'  letter 
to  Rev.  L.  Jenyns  on  the,  i.  353. 

'Nature,'  letter  to,  in  answer  to  Dr. 
Bree,  iii.  167  note;  review  of 
'Different  Forms  of  Flowers,'  in, 
iii.  310. 

Naudin's  theory,  ii,  246,  247. 

Neale,  Mr.,  on  'Typical  Selection,'  ii. 

359- 

Nearctic  and  Palsearctic  regions,  separa- 
tion of  the,  iii.  230. 

Nepenthes,  iii.  97. 

"Nervous  matter,"  something  analo- 
gous to,  in  Drosera  and  Dioncza,  iii. 
318,  319,  322. 

system,  direct  action  of  the,  iii. 

172. 

Nescea  vertidllata,  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. 


OBSERVATION. 

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  j  glacial  period  in, 
iii.  6  ;  supposed  tracks  of  Mammalia 
in,  iii.  6  ;  spread  of  European  birds 
and  insects  in,  iii.  6  ;  plants  of,  ii. 

143- 
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. 

135- 
'  North  American  Review,'  review    of 

the  '  Origin '  in  the,  by  Prof.  Bo  wen, 

ii.  304,  305. 
'  North  British  Review,'  review  of  the 

'  Origin'  in  the,  ii.  311,  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. 
Noterus,  new  species  found,  i.  237. 
Noles,  mode  of  keeping,  iii.  333. 
Novara  Expedition,  ii.  93. 
Novels,  liking  for,  i.  101,  122-124. 
Nuptial  dress  of  animals,  iii.  123. 
Nuthatch,  iii.  118. 
Nymphcea,  petals  of,  perhaps  modified 

stamens,  iii.  285. 


OBSERVATION,  methods  of,  i.  148-150  ; 

iii.  278. 
,  power  of,  i.  103. 


406 


INDEX. 


OBSERVING. 

Observing,  pleasure  of,  ii.  341. 
Oceanic  islands,  ii.   162;  volcanic,   ii. 

76. 
Oceans    and    Continents,    permanence 

of,  iii.  247. 

Oceans,  antiquity  of,  ii.  76. 
Octopus,    change   of   colour  in   an,    i. 

235- 

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  ofSaZvia,  iii. 

278. 

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>  35^  >  m 
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-i  14  ;  differences  in  the  two  editions 
of  the  'Journal'  with  regard  to  the, 
ii.  1-5  ;  extracts  from  note-books  on 


ORNITHORHYNCHUS. 
the,  ii.  5-10  ;  first  sketch  of  work  on 
the,  ii.  10 ;  essay  of  1844  on  the,  ii. 
11-16. 

'Origin  of  Species,'  publication  of  the 
first  edition  of  the,  i.  86  ;  ii.  205  ;  suc- 
cess of  the,  i.  87;  reviews  of  the,  in  the 
Atheneeum,  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 
'  Eraser'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  D^^bliH 
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. 

152. 
,  the  '  Coming  of  Age,'   of  the, 

iii.  240. 

Ornaments  of  male  animals,  iii.  Ill,  112. 
Ornithorhynchits,    ii.    143,    335,    340 ; 

mammary  glands  of,  ii.  214. 


INDEX. 


40/ 


ORTHOPTERA. 

Orthoptera,  auditory  organs  of,  iii.  97  ; 
musical  organs  of  male,  iii.  94,  112. 

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  of  land-shells 
on,  ii.  109. 

Paging  of  separate  copies  of  papers,  iii. 
141. 

Palsearctic  and  N  earctic  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,  re  view  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. 

IBS- 

Pampaean  formation  near  Buenos  Ayres, 

paper  on  the,  iii.  2. 
Pangenesis,  iii.  72,  73,  74,  75,  78,  79, 

80,81,82,83,84,  86,  93,  1 10,  119, 

120,   169. 

,  Dr.  Lionel  Beale's  criticism  of, 

iii.  194  ;  anticipation  of  the  theory  in 
Mantegazza's  '  Elementi  di  Igiene,' 
iii.  195- 


PENGELLY. 

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. 

194. 

Panniculus  carnosus,  iii.  99. 

Papers,  scientific,  list  of,  iii.  365-370. 

Papilionaceae,  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  Ccphalaspis,  ii.  334 
note. 

'Parthenon,'  review  of  the  'Fertilisa- 
tion of  Orchids  '  in  the,  iii.  270. 

Partridge,  female,  coloration  of  the,  iii. 
124. 

,  mud  on  feet  of,  ii.  86. 

Pants,  iii.  118. 

Parus  cceruleus,  sexual  differences  of, 
iii.  124. 

Passiflora,  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,  Wm.,  ii.  376. 


408 


INDEX. 


PENGUIN. 

Penguin,  wing  of,  ii.  214. 
Pentateuchal  cosmogony,  ii.  187. 
Personal  appearance  and  habits,  i.  109, 

in. 
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. 
Phpcce,    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  or,  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.  112. 
Pigs,  black,  in  the  Everglades  of  Vir- 
ginia, ii.  300. 

Finguicul&i  power  of  movement  of  the 
leaves  of,  iii.  324;  digestion  in,  iii. 

324- 
"  Pipes  "  in  the  chalk,  ii.  332. 


POLLEN. 

Pithing  of  lassoed  cows,  by  theGauchos 
of  La  Plata,  iii.  245. 

PlanaricE,  Terrestrial,  ii.  36  ;  mimetic 
coloration  of,  iii.  71. 

Planorbis,  Professor  Weismann  on  the 
species  of,  in  the  freshwater  limestone 
of  Steinheim,  iii.  156. 

Plantago,  two  forms  of,  iii.  305. 

Plants,  American  Alpine,  ii.  6 1  ;  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. 

Platanthera  Hookeri  and  hyperborea^, 
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  clima'e,  ii.  135. 

Poetry,  taste  for,  i.  33  ;  failure  of  tasts 

for,  i.  loo. 

Poinsettia,  nature  of  petals  of,  iiL 
285. 

Poisons,  experiments  with,  on  Drosera, 
iii.  319,  323. 

Pollen,  conveyance  of,  by  the  wings  ot 
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, 


INDEX. 


409 


POLLEN. 

poisonous  action    of, 


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. 

136- 
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 
'  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.  1  6  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. 
306. 

--  sinensis,  two  forms  of  flowers 

in,  iii.  299. 
Primula,    said  to  have  produced  seed 

without  access  of  insects,  i.  105. 
Princess  Royal,  Sir  C.  Lyell's  conversa- 

tion with  the,  on  Darwinism,  iii.  32. 
Priority,  law  of,  i.  366,  372. 


REIGN. 

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  ;  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  bein^  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  alburn  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. 


4io 


INDEX. 


RELIGIOUS. 

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 

note. 

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. 

234. 

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. 

363. 

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. 

265. 
Rotifers,  spontaneous  generation  of,  iii. 

1 68. 
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. 

2OI. 

Medical  Society,  Edinburgh,  i. 

40. 
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, 

29. 

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.  1 10. 

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>  235  >  geology  of,  i.  65. 
St.  John's  College,    Cambridge,  strict 

discipline  at,  i.  164. 


INDEX. 


411 


ST.  KILDA. 
St.    Kilda,    nestling    petrels    at,    with 

exotic  seeds  in  their  crops,  ii.   147, 

148. 
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. 

367. 

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.  Burden,  letter  to, 
on  Drosera,  iii.  323. 

"  Sand   walk,"   last   visit   to   the,    iii. 

357- 

Sand-wasps,  instincts  of,  iii.  244,  245. 
Sandwich  Islands,  Labiatee  of  the,  ii. 

24. 
San  Salvador,  letter  to  R.  W.  Darwin 

from,  i.  226. 
Saporta,   Marquis   de,  his    opinion  in 

1863,  iii.  17. 

,  letters  to,  iii.  188  ;  oa  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  Rei'ieiv,  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. 

Satyrus  and  Homo,  gap  between,  ii. 
227. 

Savages,  first  sight  of,  i.  243,  255. 

Scalpellum,  complemental  males  of,  iii. 

38. 
Scalp-muscles,  inheritance  of  the,  iii. 

99. 
Scandinavia,  evidence  from  peat-beds 

of  former  changes  of  climate  in,  iii. 

249. 


SEEDS. 

Scarlet-runner,  Sir  Thomas  Farrer  on 
the  fertilisation  of  the,  iii.  277. 

Scelidotherium,  i.  276. 

Scenery,  love  of,  i.  129. 

Scepticism,  effects  of,  in  science,  i. 
104. 

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>  5^  > 
floating,  ii.  56,  58 ;  sinking  of,  in 
sea-water,  ii.  56 ;  tropical,  found  in 


412 


INDEX. 


SELBORNE. 

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  ; 

iofluence   of,    upon   the   aristocracy, 

ii.  385  ;  iii.  91. 

,  natural,  ii.  87. 

— ,  sexual,  iii.  92,  94  ;  iii.  156,  157  ; 

in  lower  animals,  iii.  ill  ;  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. 

123. 

characters,  secondary,  iii.  in. 

• 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. 

9°>  95>  96  ;  in  Lepidoptera,  iii.  150; 

in  lower  animals,  iii.  in   ;  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. 


SPECIES. 

Sigillaria,  i.  356,  357,  358,  359. 

'  Silas  Marner,'  iii.  40. 

Silurian,  plants  in  the,  iii.  248. 

and  carboniferous  formations, 

amount  of  subsidence  indicated  by, 
ii.  77. 

Simise,  relation  of  man  to  the  higher, 
iii.  162. 

Simon,  Mr.,  Address  to  the  Inter- 
national Medical  Congress,  1881,  iii. 
210. 

Sifta,  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. 
91,  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,  Heibert  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,  of 
widely  represented  genera,  ii.  25 


INDEX. 


413 


SPECIFIC. 

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.  H-i6. 

Specific  centres,  ii.  82,  83. 

•  forms,  slowness  of  change  of, 

iii.  188. 

Spectator,  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. 

55- 
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, 

282. 
— ,  '  Das  entdeckte  Geheimniss  der 

Natur,'  i.  90. 
Squib,  serio-comic,  by  W.  H.  Harvey, 

ii.  3H- 
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.  HO. 
Stephens,  J.  F.,  i.  175. 
Sterility,    in    heterostyled  plants,    iii. 


SURVIVAL. 

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.  in  ;  on  the  legs 
of  the  donkey,  ii.  112. 

Strix,  special  adaptation  of,  iii.  158. 

'  Struggle  for  Existence,'  i.  83 ;  ii.  99, 
123. 

Struthio  rhea,  i.  249. 

Style,  i.  155-157  ;  defects  of,  ii.  157, 
379- 

Stylidium,  sensitive  pistil  of,  iii.  287. 

Suarez,  T.  H.  Huxley's  study  of,  iii. 
147- 

Sublime,  sense  of  the,  iii.  54,  186. 

Submergence  of  continents,  effects  of, 
ii.  75- 

Subsidence,  amount  of,  ii.  77. 

Success,  qualities  producing,  i.  107. 

Sudbrooke,  residence  at,  1860,  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. 

221. 

Surprise,  influence  of,  on  breathing,  iii. 

141. 
"  Survival  of  the  fittest,"  Wallace  on  the 

term,  iii.  46. 


414 


INDEX. 


SUTHERLAND. 

Sutherland,  Dr.,  paper  on  ice-action,  i. 

329. 

Swim-bladder,  ii.  214;  iii.  135. 
Sydney,  letter  to  J.  S.  Henslow  from, 

i.  264. 
Systematic  work,  blunting  effect  of,  ii. 

379- 


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. 

52. 

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  dealbata,    sensitive  flowers   of, 

iii.  286. 

Theism,  ii.  202. 

Theologians,  opinions  of,  ii.  181. 
Theological  views,  ii.  311  ;  iii.  63,  64, 

236. 

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. 

275- 

Thomson,  Dr.  Thomas,  notes  on,  ii. 
307,  308. 


TURIN. 

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, 

iii-  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  Felis, 

and  of  a  fossil  elephant's  tooth  in,  ii. 

162. 
Title-page,  proposed,  of  the  '  Origin  of 

Species,'  ii.  152. 
Torbitt,    James,    experiments    on    the 

potato   disease,   iii.  348-351  ;   letter 

to,  iii.  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  5  first  note-book  on 

the,  i,  276. 
Trees,    tendency  of,    to   be   dioecious, 

monoecious  or  polygamous,  ii.  89. 
Trichina;,    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. 

51- 

Turin,    Royal   Academy  of,    award  of 
the  Bressa  prize  by  the,  iii.  225. 


INDEX. 


415 


TWINING. 

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. 

40. 
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. 
Ty phi  ops,  ii.  210. 


'  UNFINISHED  Book,'  ii.  67. 

Unitarianistn,  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. 
69-78. 

Usborne,    A.  B.,  reminiscences   of  C. 
Darwin,  i.  224. 

Ufricularia,    observations  on,  iii.  326, 
327  ;  a  carrion-feeder,  iii.  327. 

—  montana,  observations  on,  iii. 
327. 


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 ;  of  species  in  large  genera,  ii. 


VIRCHOW. 

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.  i;  iii.  42; 
publication  of,  i.  93  ;  iii.  59,  75  ; 
American  edition  of  the,  iii.  84 ; 
preparation  of  second  edition  of  the, 
iii.  194. 

' ,'  reviews  of  the,  in  the  Pall 

Mall  Gazette,  iii.  76 ;  in  the  Athe- 
ntzum,  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. 
73- 

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 
note. 

Vinca  major,  action  of  insects  on,  iii. 
261. 

Vines,  S.  H.,  letter  to,  on  aggregation 
in  plant-cells,  iii.  346. 

Viola,  cleistogamic  flowers  of,  iii.  307, 
308,  309. 

canina,  fertilisation  of,  by  in- 
sects, iii.  309. 

Virchow,  Prof.,  connection  of  socialism 
with  the  theory  of  descent,  iii.  236, 
237. 

Virchow's  experiments  on  Trichina, 
iii.  203. 


416 


INDEX. 


VIRGINIA. 

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? 
proposed  French  translation  of  the, 
iii.  1 02  note. 


WAGNER,  MORITZ,  letters  to,  on  the 
influence  of  isolation,  iii.  157,  158  ; 
A.  Weismann's  remarks  upon,  iii. 
156. 

Wagner,  R.  on  Agassiz  and  Darwin,  ii. 

330. 

Walking,  mode  of,  i.  109,  ill, 

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,  117. 


WATER-CURE. 
Wallace,  '  Geographical  Distribution  of 

Animals,'  iii.  230. 
,  A.   R.,  'Malay  Archipelago,' 

iii.    113;    article  in   the  'Quarterly 

Review,'  April  1869,  iii.   114,    115, 

117. 

,  '  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  Selefction, 
iii.  121  ;  on  sexual  differences,  iii. 
123;  on  the  'Descent  of  Man,'  iii. 
J34>  J37J  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  Life,'  iii. 
1 68  ;  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  j  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.  67,  158;  at 
Ilkley,  ii.  171,  175  ;  205  ;  at  Moor 
Park,  ii.  67,  91,  112  ;  at  Sudbrooke, 
ii.  256. 

Water-cure,    effects    of  treatment,    i. 

350. 
,  treatment  at  Malvern,  i.  379. 


INDEX, 


417 


WATER. 

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  '  Origin  of  Species,' 
ii.  226  ;  on  species  and  varieties,  i. 

354- 

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. 
198. 

•,  Miss  Julia,  character  of  Eras- 
mus A.  Darwin,  i.  23 ;  letter  to,  i. 

SIS- 

,  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. 

231. 
Wells,    Dr.,    application    of    Natural 

Selection  to  the  Races  of  Man,  in  his 

'  Essay  on  Dew,'  iii.  41. 
Westminster  Abbey,  funeral  in,  iii.  360. 
1  Westminster  Review,'  review  of  the 

«  Origin'  in  the,  by  T.  H.  Huxley,  ii. 

300. 
Westwood,  J.  O.,  letters  from,  to  the 

Gardener?  Chronicle,  ii.  267. 
Whale,  secondary,  ii.  235. 
Whewell,  Dr.,   acquaintance  with,   i. 

54  ;  his  opinion  of  the  *  Origin,'  ii. 

261  note. 

VOL.  III. 


WRIGHT. 

'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  j  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. 

'  Wonders  of  the  World,'  i.  33. 

Wood,  Searles  V.,  ii.  293. 

Woodpecker,    Pampas,    iii.    153 ;    ii. 

351- 

Woodhouse,  shooting  at,  i.  42,  43. 

Woodward,  S.  P.,  ii.  331  ;  on  conti- 
nental extension,  ii.  72,  73,  74. 

Woolner,  Mr.,  bust  by,  iii.  105  ;  dis- 
covery of  the  infolded  point  of  the 
human  ear  by,  iii.  140. 

Work,  i.  U2,  122;  method  of,  i.  100, 

144-154- 

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. 
143- 

2    E 


4i  8 


INDEX. 


WRIGHT. 

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, 


ZOOLOGY. 

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. 
'  Zoology  of  the  Voyage  of  the  Beagle J 

arrangements  for  publishing  the,  i. 

281,   283,   288;    Government   grant 

obtained  for  the,  i.  284 ;  publication 

of  the,  i.  71. 


LONDON:  PRINTED  BY  WILLIAM  CLOWES  AND  SONS,  LIMITED, 

STAMFORD  STREET  AND   CHARING  CROSS. 


DARWIN,   CHARLES 
Life  and  letters. 


•OH 

31 

,D2A2 

tr.3 


m :   i 

m  I 

mm