I

FROM A PHOTOGRAPH (l88l) BY MESSRS. ELLIOTT AND ERY.

Frontispiece, Vol. III.

/ w r

THE

J**

LIFE AND LETTERS

OF

CHARLES DARWIN,

INCLUDING

AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL CHAPTER.

EDITED BY HIS SON,

FRANCIS DARWIN,

IN THREE VOLUMES:— Vol. IIL gOS^^S*

IUJI

4?

LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.

1887.

All Rights Reserved.

LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, Limited,

STAMFOKD STREET A1«T> CHARING CROSS.

(ujM.lt K A I

IMary)3
_ J?

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

-*o*-

VOLUME III.

PAGE

CHAPTER I. — The Spread of Evolution. 'Variation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

-*o*~

Volume III.

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

PAGE

CHAPTER XL— 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 37 1

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

Index .....••••• 377

ERRATA.

Volume III.

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

LIFE AND LETTERS

OF

CHARLES DARWIN.

-*o+-

CHAPTER I.

THE SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.

'VARIATION OF ANIMALS AND PLANTS.'

1 863-1 866.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Huxley was as usual active in guiding and stimulating
the growing tendency to tolerate or accept the views set forth
in the ' Origin of Species.' He gave a series of lectures to
working men at the School of Mines in November, 1862.
These were printed in 1863 from the shorthand notes of Mr.
May, as six little blue books, price 4a7. each, under the title,
' Our Knowledge of the Causes of Organic Nature.' When
.published they were read with interest by my father, who thus
refers to them in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker : —

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

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 :]

£ 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 (p. 105) . . .

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

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

My dear Huxley,

Yours affectionately,

Ch. Darwin.

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

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

The series of letters will continue the history of the year
1863.]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

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

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

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

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 J hours (broken by tea
by myself) with my nephew, and I was [ill] half the night.
It is a fearful evil for self and family.

Good-night. Ever yours,

C. Darwin.

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

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

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

Yours faithfully and obliged,

Ch. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker,

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

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

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

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

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

8

SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.

[I863.

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

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

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

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

1863.] 'ANTIQUITY OF MAN.' 9

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

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

IO 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 Partheno?i also speaks of it as the ablest
contribution to the literature of the subject. It delights me
when I see your work appreciated.

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

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

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
tell her that is a pitch of heroism to which only a woman is
equal. To give up the " Bloody Old Times!' as Cobbett
used to call it, would be to give up meat, drink and air.
Farewell, my dear Gray,

Yours most truly,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. LyelL

Down, March 6, [1863].

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

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

the real issues involved in the

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.' 1 3

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

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, 1 2th [March, 1863].

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

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

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, Buffon, my grandfather before
Lamarck, and others, propounded the obvious view that if
species were not created separately they must have descended
from other species, and I can see nothing else in common
between the ' Origin ' and Lamarck. I believe this way of
putting the case is very injurious to its acceptance, as it
implies necessary progression, and closely connects Wallace's
and my views with what I consider, after two deliberate
readings, as a wretched book, and one from which (I well
remember my surprise) I gained nothing. But I know you
rank it higher, which is curious, as it did not in the least
shake your belief. But enough, and more than enough.
Please remember you have brought it all down on yourself! !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1863.] 'ANTIQUITY OF MAN.' 1 5

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [March 13, 1863].

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

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

*

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, March 17 [1863].

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

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

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

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

1 863.]

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 Athenceum taking to Oken-like
transcendental philosophy written in Owenian style ! f . . . .

* The Marquis de Saporta.

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

VOL. III.

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

C

18

SPREAD OF EVOLUTION.

[1863.

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, Friday night [April 17, 1863].

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

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

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

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

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

I863-]

FALCONER ON LYELL.

19

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

do justice to old Perthes and Schmerling I shall be

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

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

[1863,

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

C. Darwin to C. LyelL

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

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

* See the next letter.

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

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

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

1863.] LETTER IN THE ' ATHENAEUM.' 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
have ever said a word for myself in any journal, and it shall,
I think, be the last. My letter is short, and no great things.
I was extremely concerned to see Falconer's disrespectful
and virulent letter. I like extremely your answer just read ;
you take a lofty and dignified position, to which you are so
well entitled .f

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

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

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

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

previous page. t It is to this affair that the

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

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

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 Athenaeum, of
May 9th, 1863 :]

Down, May 5 [1863].

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

Charles Darwin.

I863-]

LETTER IN THE ' ATHENiEUM.'

23

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

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Leith Hill Place,

Saturday [May II, 1863].

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

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

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

astonishing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Lyell's book disappointed
me, that is, the part on species, though so cleverly written. I
agree with all your remarks on the reviewers. By the way,
Lecoq* is a believer in the change of species. I, for one, can
conscientiously declare that I never feel surprised at any one
sticking to the belief of immutability ; though I am often not
a little surprised at the arguments advanced on this side. I
remember too well my endless oscillations of doubt and diffi-
culty. It is to me really laughable, when I think of the years
which elapsed before I saw what I believe to be the explana-
tion of some parts of the case ; I believe it was fifteen years
after I began before I saw the meaning and cause of the
divergence of the descendants of any one pair. You pay me
some most elegant and pleasing compliments. There is much
in your address which has pleased me much, especially your
remarks on various naturalists. I am so glad that you have
alluded so honourably to Pasteur. I have just read over this
note ; it does not express strongly enough the interest which
I have felt in reading your address. You have done, I

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

1864.] ILLNESS. 27

believe, a real good turn to the right side. Believe me, dear
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 wTrite 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, however, from
the same letter, that the proposal to give the Copley Medal
to my father in the previous year failed owing to a similar
want of courage — to Lyell's great indignation.

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

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.5 " He wrote to my father (' Life,' vol. ii. p. 384), " I
said I had been forced to give up my old faith without
thoroughly seeing my way to a new one. But I think you
would have been satisfied with the length I went."]

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley.

Down, Oct. 3 [1864].

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

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

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

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 French Academy, as one of the
two " most elaborate criticisms " of the ' Origin of Species '
of the year. He quotes the following passage : —

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

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

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

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

1865.] M. FLOURENS — DUKE OF ARGYLL. 3 1

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

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

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

* " I had ... an animated con-

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

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 yj^th of an inch longer than usual
" a new birth ; " but this is not the sense in which the term
would usually be understood. The more I work, the more I
feel convinced that it is by the accumulation of such extremely
slight variations that new species arise. I do not plead guilty
to the Duke's charge, that I forget that natural selection means
only the preservation of variations which independently arise.*
I have expressed this in as strong language as I could use,
but it would have been infinitely tedious had I on every
occasion thus guarded myself. I will cry " peccavi " when I
hear of the Duke or you attacking breeders for saying that
man has made his improved shorthorns, or pouter pigeons, or
bantams. And I could quote still stronger expressions used
by agriculturists. Man does make his artificial breeds, for his
selective power is of such importance relatively to that of the
slight spontaneous variations. But no one will attack breeders
for using such expressions, and the rising generation will not
blame me.

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

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

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

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

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

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 say how much interested I was with his address.

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

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

1865.] LYELL'S 'ELEMENTS.' 35

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, Feb. 21 [1865].

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

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

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

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

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

Believe me, my dear Lyell,

Yours most sincerely,

Charles Darwin,
d 2

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 11 [1865].

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

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

Yours affectionately,

Ch. Darwin.

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

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

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

t ' Prehistoric Times,' 1865.

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

1865.] FRITZ MULLER. 37

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

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

C. Darwin to F. Miiller.

Down, August 10 [1865].

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

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 !
Until reading your book I knew nothing of the Rhizocephala ;
pray look at my account and figures of Anelasma, for it seems
to me that this latter cirripede is a beautiful connecting link
with the Rhizocephala.

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

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

Believe me, dear Sir, with sincere respect,

Yours very faithfully,
Ch. Darwin.

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

1 865.]

CHILDREN AND PARENTS.

39

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

40 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 ; \ but
I think the latter is often vague, and gives a false appearance
of throwing light on|his subject by such phrases as " spirit of
the age," " spread of civilization," &c. I confine my reading
to a quarter or half hour per day in skimming through the
back volumes of the Annals and Magazines of Natural Hist-
ory, and find much that interests me. I miss my climbing
plants very much, as I could observe them when very
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,J and I like it
much ; but did you ever see a book so badly arranged ? The
frequency of the allusions to what will be told in the future
are quite laughable. . . . By the way, I was very much
pleased with the foot-note § about Wallace in Lubbock's last
chapter. I had not heard that Huxley had backed up Lub-
bock about Parliament. . . . Did you see a sneer some time
ago in the Times about how incomparably more interesting

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

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

Tylor. 1865. expresses admiration of Mr. Wal-

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

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

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

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

1865. of Natural Selection "unreservedly

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

1865.] DR. WELLS — CANON FARRAR. 41

politics were compared with science even to scientific men ?
Remember what Trollope says, in ' Can you Forgive her ? '
about getting into Parliament, as the highest earthly ambition.
Jeffrey, in one of his letters, I remember, says that making an
effective speech in Parliament is a far grander thing than
writing the grandest history. All this seems to me a poor
short-sighted view. I cannot tell you how it has rejoiced
me once again seeing your handwriting — my best of old
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 1 8 13 to the Royal Soc, but not [then]
printed, in which he applies most distinctly the principle of
Natural Selection to the Races of Man. So poor old Patrick
Matthew is not the first, and he cannot, or ought not, any
longer to put on his title-pages, ' Discoverer of the principle of
Natural Selection ' ! "]

C. Darwin to F. W. Farrar*

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

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

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

42 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l866.

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

Nov. 21st. — Finished 'Pangenesis.'

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

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

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

Trans. Entomolog. Soc, vol. v.

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

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

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Down, July 5 [1866].

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

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
1 Origin,' which is now almost printed off, and of which I will
of course send you a copy. I will use the term in my next
book on Domestic Animals, &c., from which, by the way, I
plainly see that you expect much too much. The term
Natural Selection has now been so largely used abroad and
at home, that I doubt whether it could be given up, and with
all its faults I should be sorry to see the attempt made.
Whether it will be rejected must now depend "on the survival
of the fittest." As in time the term must grow intelligible
the objections to its use will grow weaker and weaker. I
doubt whether the use of any term would have made the
subject intelligible to some minds, clear as it is to others ;
for do we not see even to the present day Malthus on Popu-
lation absurdly misunderstood ? This reflection about Malthus
has often comforted me when I have been vexed at the mis-
statement of my views. As for M. Janet,f he is a meta-
physician, and such gentlemen are so acute that I think they
often misunderstand common folk. Your criticism on the

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

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

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

expression of the fact ; 'natural ones."

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

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

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.' See Gar-

2ndly, for the effect or change pro- (letters' 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 Carus.

Down, November 10, 1866.

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

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

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

VOL. III. E

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

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

* Professor of Botany at Munich.

1 866.] nAgeli on species. 51

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

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

Yours faithfully,

Ch. Darwin.

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

To Dr. Falconer.

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

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

E 2

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

To Dr. Asa Gray.

[May 31, 1863?]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 866.] GOVERNOR EYRE. 53

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

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

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

* He subscribed ^10.

54 SPREAD OF EVOLUTION. [l866.

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 ' was more in accord-
ance with the hypothesis which we had been discussing, than
the fact which he had previously stated. Now, as no one knew
better than Mr. Darwin the difference between a speculation
and a fact, I thought this little exhibition of scientific con-
scientiousness very noteworthy, where the only question
concerned was of so highly speculative a character. I should
not have been so much impressed if he had thought that by
his temporary failure of memory he had put me on a wrong
scent in any matter of fact, although even in such a case he
is the only man I ever knew who would care to get out of
bed at such a time of night in order to make the correction
immediately, instead of waiting till next morning. But as
the correction only had reference to a flimsy hypothesis,
I certainly was very much impressed by this display of
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. [l866.

observed like you have done. As you are so kind, I will
mention one other point on which I am collecting facts ;
namely, the effect produced on the stock by the graft ; thus,
it is said, that the purple-leaved filbert affects the leaves of
the common hazel on which it is grafted (I have just procured
a plant to try), so variegated jessamine is said to affect
its stock. I want these facts partly to throw light on the
marvellous laburnums, Adami-trifacial oranges, &c. That
laburnum case seems one of the strangest in physiology.
I have now growing splendid, fertile, yellow laburnums (with
a long raceme like the so-called Waterer's laburnum) from
seed of yellow flowers on the C. Adami. To a man like
myself, who is compelled to live a solitary life, and sees
few persons, it is no slight satisfaction to hear that I have
been able at all [to] interest by my books observers like
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
J. D. Hooker : " I have been these
last few days vexed and annoyed
to a foolish degree by hearing that
my MS. on Dom. An. and Cult.
Plants will make 2 vols., both
bigger than the ' Origin.' The
volumes will have to be full-sized

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

60 'VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.' [1867.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

was at one time strictly military, tinguished foreigners are admitted

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

1867.]

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

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

* 'The Reign of Law,' 1867.

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

62

VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.

[1867.

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

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

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

give

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

1867.] EVOLUTION AND RELIGION. 63

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

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

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

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

That God is a personal and Infinitely good Being.

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

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

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

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

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 1 [1867].

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

VOL. III. F

66 'VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.' [1867.

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

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to J. Victor Carus.

Down, February 17 [1867].

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

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

Ch. Darwin.

* ' Bibliotheca Zoologica,' 1861.

1867.] PROFESSOR HAECKEL. 67

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

Dr. E. Krause * has given a good account of Professor
Haeckel's services to the cause of Evolution. After speak-
ing of the lukewarm reception which the ' Origin ' met with in
Germany on its first publication, he goes on to describe the
first adherents of the new faith as more or less popular
writers, not especially likely to advance its acceptance with
the professorial or purely scientific world. And he claims for
Haeckel that it was his advocacy of Evolution in his ' Radio-
laria' (1862), and at the " Versammlung " of Naturalists at
Stettin in 1863, that placed the Darwinian question for the
first time publicly before the forum of German science, and
his enthusiastic propagandism that chiefly contributed to its
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 Morphologie,' " an
attempt to work out the practical applications" of the doctrine
of Evolution to their final results, he says that it has the
" force and suggestiveness, and . . . systematising power
of Oken without his extravagance." Professor Huxley also

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

F 2

68 'VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.' [l86/.

testifies to the value of Haeckel's ' Schopfungs-Geschichte ' as
an exposition of the ' Generelle Morphologie ' " 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 Morphologie,' and ' Schopfungs-
Geschichte,' all the hatred and bitterness which Evolution
excited in certain quarters," so that, " in a surprisingly short
time it became the fashion in Germany that Haeckel alone
should be abused, while Darwin was held up as the ideal of
forethought and moderation."]

C. Darwin to E. Haeckel.

Down, May 21, 1867.

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

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

1867.] 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.' [1867.

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

1867.] MIMICRY. 71

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

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

Yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, July 18 [1867].

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

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

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

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

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

1867.] 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.' [1867.

C. Danvin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, November 17 [1867].

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

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

1 868.] publication. 75

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 Miiller, and wrote to him : —

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

C. Danvin to J, D. Hooker.

February 3 [1868].

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

76 'VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.' [l868.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, February 10 [1868].

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

Your cock-a-hoop friend,

C. D.

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

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

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

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

1 868.]

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 thenczum* showing profound contempt of me ? ... It is a
shame that he should have said that I have taken much from
Pouchet, without acknowledgment ; for I took literally nothing,
there being nothing to take. There is a capital review in the
Gardeners" Chronicle, which will sell the book if anything will.

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

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

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

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 Ouatrefages), who
seems to have thought anything of this part of my work.
The amount of labour, correspondence, and care, which the
subject cost me, is more than you could well suppose. I
thought the article in the Athenaeum was very unjust; but
now I feel amply repaid, and I cordially thank you for your
sympathy and too warm praise. What labour you have
bestowed on your part of the ' Record ' ! I ought to be ashamed
to speak of my amount of work. I thoroughly enjoyed the
Sunday which you and the others spent here, and

I remain, dear Newton, yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Down, February 27 [1868].

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

* Prof, of Zoology at Cambridge.

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

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 J. D. Hooker.

Down, February 28 [1868].

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

VOL. ill. G

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.

1 868.] PANGENESIS. 83

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

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

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

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

G 2

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. Darwin to Asa Gray.

Down, May 8 [1868].

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

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

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

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

1 868.] MR. BENTHAM. 85

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

Your ungrateful but sincere friend,

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwin to G. Bentham.

Down, June 23, 1868.

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

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

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

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

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

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

could show that natural selection f Presidential Address to the

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

86 'VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.' [l868.

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

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

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

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

C. Darwin to F. Miiller.

Down, March 16 [1868].

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

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

1 868.] M. GAUDRY. 87

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

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

C. Darwin to A. Gandry.

Down, January 21 [1868].

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

influence of the Geological features of the country on the

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

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

to consider the relations of fossil animals in connection with

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

of your extensive knowledge and powers of reasoning. Your

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

of your countrymen ; but judging from the rapid spread in

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

common descent of allied species, I must think that this

belief will before long become universal. How strange it is

that the country which gave birth to Buffon, the elder

Geoffrey, and especially to Lamarck, should now cling

so pertinaciously to the belief that species are immutable

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.

: 39 )

CHAPTER III.

WORK ON 'MAN.

1 864-1 870.

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

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Down, [May?] 28 [1864].

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

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

Lythrum. Phenomena of Variation," &c.

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

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

90 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1864.

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

1867.] MR. WALLACE. 9 1

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

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

Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

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

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

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

92 WORK ON 'MAN.' [l86/.

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

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

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Down, February 22, [1867 ?]

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

1867.] 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.' [1867.

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

Believe me, yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Down, February 26 [1867].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 erowing'
into quite a large subject, which I shall introduce into my
essay on Man, supposing that I ever publish it. I had

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

96 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1867.

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

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

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

[The following letter is worth giving, as an example

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. Miiller.

Down, June 3 [1868].

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

VOL. III. H

93 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1868.

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

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

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to A. De Candolle.

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

* ' Variation of Animals and Plants.'

1 868.] agassiz. 99

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

C. Darwin to L. Agassiz.

Down, August 19, 1868.

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

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

H 2

100 WORK ON 'MAN.' [l868.

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

Yours very faithfully,

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwin to jf. D. Hooker.

Down, Sunday, August 23 [1868].

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

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

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

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

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

t The British Association was ly described,

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

ment in certain modern cromlech dent of Section A.

1 868.]

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 Athenceum
takes your snubbing * with the utmost mildness. I certainly
do rejoice over the snubbing, and hope [the reviewer] will
feel it a little. Whenever you have spare time to write again,
tell me whether any astronomers f took your remarks in ill
part ; as they now stand they do not seem at all too harsh
and presumptuous. Many of your sentences strike me as
extremely felicitous and eloquent. That of LyelFs " under-
pinning," % is capital. Tell me, was Lyell pleased ? I am so
glad that you remembered my old dedication. § Was Wallace
pleased ?

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

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

X After a eulogium on Sir Charles

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

102 WORK ON 'MAN.' [l868.

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

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

Yours ever affectionately,

C. Darwin.

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

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

1 868.] MARQUIS DE SAPORTA. 103

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

Yours faithfully and obliged,

Charles Darwin.

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

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

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

104 WORK ON 'MAN.' [l868.

C. Darwin to E. HaeckeL

Down, Nov. 19 [1868].

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

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

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

f l Die Naturliche Schopfungs-

1 868.] haeckel's books. 105

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

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

Believe me, my dear Hackel, your sincere friend,

Charles Darwin.

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

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

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

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

106 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1869.

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

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

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

expression.]

1869.

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

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

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

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

1869.] FLEEMING JENKIN. 107

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1869.

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

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

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

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

1869.] FIFTH EDITION OF THE 'ORIGIN.' 109

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

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

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

C. Darwin to Victor Cams.

Down, May 4, 1869.

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

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

HO WORK ON 'MAN.' [1869.

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

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

He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : —

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

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

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

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.5 [1869.

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

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

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

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

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

1869.] MR. WALLACE ON LYELL. 115

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

C. 'Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Down, April^i4, 1869.

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

I 2

n6

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 t
you will probably agree with what the writer says about the
uses of the bamboo.

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

Yours ever sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, May 4 [1869].

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

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

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

" action of the laws of variation, ends."

1869.] MAN — M. DE QUATREFAGES. 117

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

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

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

My dear Lyell, ever yours sincerely,

C. Darwin.

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

Down, May 28 [1869 or 1870].

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

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

Il8 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1869?

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

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

Yours very faithfully,

Charles Darwin.

1869.] MR- HUXLEY ON HAECKEL. 119

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley.

Down, October 14, 1869.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the existence of lateral rudiments tendencies, are competing with one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

120 . WORK ON 'MAN.' [1870.

1870.

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

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

C. Darwin to E. Ray Lankester.

Down, March 15 [1870].

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

I remain, yours very faithfully,

Ch. Darwin.

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

* ' Comparative Longevity.'

1870.] 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. Giinther*

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

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

122 WORK ON 'MAN.' [187O.

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

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to A . Giinther.

May 15 [1870].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Down, September 23 [undated].

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

124 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1870.

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

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

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

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

1870.] SEDGWICK. 125

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

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

Believe me, my dear Wallace,

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

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

126 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1870.

C. Darwin to B. J. Sulivan*

Down, June 30 [1870].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1870.] SOUTH AMERICAN MISSION. 1 27

1

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.' [1S70.

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

* It seems to have been in 1867.

1870.] COUSIN MARRIAGES. 1 29

C. Darwin to John Lubbock.

Down, July 17, 1870.

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

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

Believe me,

Yours very sincerely,
Charles Darwin.

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

VOL. III. K

130 WORK ON 'MAN.' [1870.

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

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

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

i3i

CHAPTER IV.

PUBLICATION OF THE ' DESCENT OF MAN.5

THE 'EXPRESSION OF THE EMOTIONS.'

187I-1873.

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

He also wrote to Dr. Gray : —

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

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

K 2

132 'DESCENT OF MAN' — EXPRESSION. [187I.

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

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

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

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

* J Contemporary Review,' 1871.

l8yi.] '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
1 Descent of Man ' had excited so much furore in Germany.
It has had an immense circulation in this country and in
America, but has met the approval of hardly any naturalists
as far as I know. Therefore I suppose it was a mistake on
my part to publish it ; but, anyhow, it will pave the way for
some better work."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

134

'DESCENT OF MAN' — EXPRESSION.

[I8;i.

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 :^3^j 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 among physiologists and phy-
sicians. He obtained much information from Professor
Donders, Sir W. Bowman, Sir James Paget, Dr. W. Ogle,
Dr. Crichton Browne, as well as from other observers.

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

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

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

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

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

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

1871.] 'DESCENT OF MAN.' 135

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

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

13^ 'DESCENT OF MAN' — EXPRESSION. [1871,

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

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

Yours ever, very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

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

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

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

I8/I.]

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, 187 1.

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

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

* Academy, March 15, 1871.

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

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

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

1871):-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i8;i.]

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, 1 871) refers to a review in the Times.]

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

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

* " I feel a full conviction that
my chapter on man will excite
attention and plenty of abuse, and
I suppose abuse is as good as
praise for selling a book." — (From
a letter to Mr. Murray, Jan. 31,
1867.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Darwin to Jolin Brodie Innes.X

Down, May 29 [1871].

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

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

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

nerii. and yet feel no shade of animosity,

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

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

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

iSyi.] EXPRESSION. 141

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

Down, March 12 [187 1].

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

day. In haste.

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

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

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

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

Ogle. t Medico-chirurg. Trans, liii.

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.

I8/I.]

EXPRESSION.

143

C. Darwin to Dr. Ogle.

Down, April 29 [187 1].

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

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

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

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

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

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

* i

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

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

1878, p. 230. be mentioned that the passage

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

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

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

1871.] 'GENESIS OF SPECIES.' 145

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

C. Darwin to CJianncey Wright.

Down, July 14, 1871.

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

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

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

Ch. Darwin.

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

VOL. III. L

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

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

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace.

Down, July 12 [187 1].

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

* July 187 1,

l8yi.] 'QUARTERLY REVIEW.' 1 47

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

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

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

L 2

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

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 reverberations
from it, even from Italy. It was this that made me ask
Chauncey Wright to publish at my expense his article, which
seems to me very clever, though ill-written. He has not
knowledge enough to grapple with Mivart in detail. I think
there can be no shadow of doubt that he is the author of the
article in the ' Quarterly Review ' . . . I am preparing a new
edition of the ' Origin,' and shall introduce a new chapter in
answer to miscellaneous objections, and shall give up the
greater part to answer Mivart's cases of difficulty of incipient
structures being of no use : and I find it can be done easily.
He never states his case fairly, and makes wonderful blunders.
. . . The pendulum is now swinging against our side, but I
feel positive it will soon swing the other way ; and no mortal
man will do half as much as you in giving it a start in the
right direction, as you did at the first commencement. God
forgive me for writing so long and egotistical a letter ; but it

iS;i.]

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 [187 1].

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

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

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

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

ISO 'DESCENT OF MAN '—EXPRESSION. [187I.

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

My dear Huxley, yours gratefully,

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwin to F. Midler.

Haredene, Albury, August 2 [1871].

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

1871.] 'PRIMITIVE CULTURE.' 151

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

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

C. Darwin to E. B. Tylor*

Down [Sept. 24, 1871].

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

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

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. 1 53

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

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

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

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

* Zoolog. Soc. Proc. 1870.

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. 155

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

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

Yours truly obliged,
Charles Darwin.

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

C. Darwin to August Weismann.\

Down, April 5, 1872.

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

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

f Professor of Zoology in Freiburg.

I56 'DESCENT OF MAN' — EXPRESSION. [1872.

chologist to investigate, viz. : whether the species of the same
genus were variable during many successive geological forma-
tions. I began to make enquiries on this head, but failed in
this, as in so many other things, from the want of time and
strength. In your remarks on crossing, you do not, as it
seems to me, lay nearly stress enough on the increased vigour
of the offspring derived from parents which have been exposed
to different conditions. I have during the last five years
been making experiments on this subject with plants, and
have been astonished at the results, which have not yet been
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,| but the interest-
ing connecting varieties or links were here absent. I rejoice
to think that I formerly said as emphatically as I could, that
neither isolation nor time by themselves do anything for the
modification of species. Hardly anything in your essay has
pleased me so much personally, as to find that you believe to
a certain extent in sexual selection. As far as I can judge,

* Prof. Wagner has written two tothe Bavarian Academy of Sciences

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

Darwin'sche Theorie und das f " Ueber Pla?iorbis multiformis

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

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

phischen Isolirung, &c.', an address demy, 1866.

1872.] ISOLATION. 157

very few naturalists believe in this. I may have erred on
many points, and extended the doctrine too far, but I feel a
strong; conviction that sexual selection will hereafter be
admitted to be a powerful agency. I cannot agree with what
you say about the taste for beauty in animals not easily vary-
ing. It may be suspected that even the habit of viewing
differently coloured surrounding objects would influence their
taste, and Fritz Miiller even goes so far as to believe that the
sight of gaudy butterflies might influence the taste of distinct
species. There are many remarks and statements in your
essay which have interested me greatly, and I thank you for
the pleasure which I have received from reading it.
With sincere respect, I remain,

My dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

Charles Darwin.

P.S. — If you should ever be induced to consider the whole
doctrine of sexual selection, I think that you will be led to
the conclusion, that characters thus gained by one sex are
very commonly transferred in a greater or less degree to the
other sex.

[With regard to Moritz Wagner's first Essay, my father
wrote to that naturalist, apparently in 1868 :]

Dear and respected Sir, — I thank you sincerely for
sending me your ' Migrationsgesetz, &c.,' and for the very
kind and most honourable notice which you have taken of my
works. That a naturalist who has travelled into so many and
such distant regions, and who has studied animals of so many
classes, should, to a considerable extent, agree with me, is, I
can assure you, the highest gratification of which I am
capable. . . . Although I saw the effects of isolation in the
case of islands and mountain-ranges, and knew of a few
instances of rivers, yet the greater number of your facts were
quite unknown to me. I now see that from the want of

158 '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 Aus-
land, May 31, 1875 :]

C. Danuin to Moritz Wagner.

Down, October 13, 1876.

DEAR SIR, — I have now finished reading your essays,
which have interested me in a very high degree, notwith-
standing that I differ much from you on various points. For
instance, several considerations make me doubt whether
species are much more variable at one period than at another,
except through the agency of changed conditions. I wish,
however, that I could believe in this doctrine, as it removes
many difficulties. But my strongest objection to your theory
is that it does not explain the manifold adaptations in struc-
ture in every organic being — for instance in a Picus for
climbing trees and catching insects — or in a Strix for catching
animals at night, and so on ad infinitum. No theory is in
the least satisfactory to me unless it clearly explains such

1872.] ISOLATION. 159

adaptations. I think that you misunderstand my views on
isolation. I believe that all the individuals of a species can
be slowly modified within the same district, in nearly the
same manner as man effects by what I have called the
process of unconscious selection. ... I do not believe that
one species will give birth to two or more new species, as
long as they are mingled together within the same district.
Nevertheless I cannot doubt that many new species have
been simultaneously developed within the same large conti-
nental area ; and in my ' Origin of Species ' I endeavoured
to explain how two new species might be developed,
although they met and intermingled on the borders of their
range. It would have been a strange fact if I had over-
looked the importance of isolation, seeing that it was such
cases as that of the Galapagos Archipelago, which chiefly
led me to study the origin of species. In my opinion the
greatest error which I have committed, has been not allowing
sufficient weight to the direct action of the environment,
i.e. food, climate, &c, independently of natural selection.
Modifications thus caused, which are neither of advantage nor
disadvantage to the modified organism, would be especially
favoured, as I can now see chiefly through your observations,
by isolation in a small area, where only a few individuals
lived under nearly uniform conditions.

When I wrote the ' Origin,' and for some years afterwards,
I could find little good evidence of the direct action of the
environment ; now there is a large body of evidence, and your
case of the Saturnia is one of the most remarkable of which I
have heard. Although we differ so greatly, I hope that you
will permit me to express my respect for your long-continued
and successful labours in the good cause of natural science.
I remain, dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

Charles Darwin.

[The two following letters are also of interest as bearing

l6o '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

1872.] ISOLATION. l6l

through my mind of late years. In North America, in going
from north to south or from east to west, it is clear that the
changed conditions of life have modified the organisms in the
different regions, so that they now form distinct races or even
species. It is further clear that in isolated districts, however
small, the inhabitants almost always get slightly modified, and
how far this is due to the nature of the slightly different
conditions to which they are exposed, and how far to mere
interbreeding, in the manner explained by Weismann, I can
form no opinion. The same difficulty occurred to me (as
shown in my 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domesti-
cation ') with respect to the aboriginal breeds of cattle, sheep,
&c, in the separated districts of Great Britain, and indeed
throughout Europe. As our knowledge advances, very slight
differences, considered by systematists as of no importance
in structure, are continually found to be functionally im-
portant ; and I have been especially struck with this fact in
the case of plants to which my observations have of late years
been confined. Therefore it seems to me rather rash to
consider the slight differences between representative species,
for instance those inhabiting the different islands of the same
archipelago, as of no functional importance, and as not in any
way due to natural selection. With respect to all adopted
structures, and these are innumerable, I cannot see how M.
Wagner's view throws any light, nor indeed do I see at all
more clearly than I did before, from the numerous cases
which he has brought forward, how and why it is that a long
isolated form should almost always become slightly modified.
I do not know whether you will care about hearing my
further opinion on the point in question, for as before
remarked I have not attended much of late years to such
questions, thinking it prudent, now that I am growing old, to
work at easier subjects.

Believe me, yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin,
vol. III. M

162 < DESCENT OF MAN ' — EXPRESSION. [1872.

I hope and trust that you will throw light on these points.

P.S. — I will add another remark which I remember
occurred to me when I first read M. Wagner. When a
species first arrives on a small island, it will probably increase
rapidly, and unless all the individuals change instantaneously
(which is improbable in the highest degree), the slowly, more
or less, modifying offspring must intercross one with another,
and with their unmodified parents, and any offspring not as
yet modified. The case will then be like that of domesticated
animals which have slowly become modified, either by the
action of the external conditions or by the process which I
have called the unconscious selection by man — i.e., in contrast
with methodical selection.

[The letters continue the history of the year 1872, which
has been interrupted by a digression on Isolation.]

C. Darwin to the Marquis de Saporta.

Down, April 8, 1872.

DEAR SIR, — I thank you very sincerely and feel much
honoured by the trouble which you have taken in giving
me your reflections on the origin of Man. It gratifies me
extremely that some parts of my work have interested you,
and that we agree on the main conclusion of the derivation of
man from some lower form.

I will reflect on what you have said, but I cannot at present
give up my belief in the close relationship of Man to the
higher Simise. I do not put much trust in any single cha-
racter, even that of dentition ; but I put the greatest faith in
resemblances in many parts of the whole organisation, for I
cannot believe that such resemblances can be due to any
cause except close blood relationship. That man is closely
allied to the higher Simise is shown by the classification of

1872.] 'DESCENT OF MAN.' 1 63

Linnaeus, who was so good a judge of affinity. The man
who in England knows most about the structure of the
Simiae, namely, Mr. Mivart, and who is bitterly opposed
to my doctrines about the derivation of the mental powers,
yet has publicly admitted that I have not put man too
close to the higher Simiae, as far as bodily structure is
concerned. I do not think the absence of reversions of
structure in man is of much weight ; C. Vogt, indeed, argues
that [the existence of] Micro-cephalous idiots is a case of
reversion. No one who believes in Evolution will doubt that
the Phocae are descended from some terrestrial Carnivore.
Yet no one would expect to meet with any such reversion
in them. The lesser divergence of character in the races of
man in comparison with the species of Simiadae may perhaps
be accounted for by man having spread over the world at a
much later period than did the Simiadae. I am fully
prepared to admit the high antiquity of man ; but then we
have evidence, in the Dryopithecus, of the high antiquity of
the Anthropomorphous Simiae.

I am glad to hear that you are at work on your fossil
plants, which of late years have afforded so rich a field for
discovery. With my best thanks for your great kindness,
and with much respect, I remain,

Dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

Charles Darwin.

[In April, 1872, he was elected to the Royal Society of
Holland, and wrote to Professor Donders : —

" Very many thanks for your letter. The honour of being
elected a foreign member of your Royal Society has pleased
me much. The sympathy of his fellow workers has always
appeared to me by far the highest reward to which any
scientific man can look. My gratification has been not a
little increased by first hearing of the honour from you."]

M 2

1 64 '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

1872.]

HERBERT SPENCER.

I65

a visit to Down,* which he described in a letter f to Miss S.
Sedgwick (now Mrs. William Darwin) : " If you can imagine me
enthusiastic — absolutely and unqualifiedly so, without a but
or criticism, then think of my last evening's and this morning's
talks with Mr. Darwin. ... I was never so worked up in my
life, and did not sleep many hours under the hospitable roof.
... It would be quite impossible to give by way of report
any idea of these talks before and at and after dinner, at
breakfast, and at leave-taking ; and yet I dislike the egotism
of ' testifying ' like other religious enthusiasts without any
verification, or hint of similar experience."]

C. Darwin to Herbert Spencer.

Bassett, Southampton, June 10 [1872].

DEAR SPENCER, — I dare say you will think me a foolish
fellow, but I cannot resist the wish to express my unbounded
admiration of your article % in answer to Mr. Martineau. It is,
indeed, admirable, and hardly less so your second article on
Sociology (which, however, I have not yet finished) : I never
believed in the reigning influence of great men on the world's
progress ; but if asked why I did not believe, I should have
been sorely perplexed to have given a good answer. Every
one with eyes to see and ears to hear (the number, I

* Mr. and Mrs. C. L. Brace, who
had given much of their lives to
philanthropic work in New York,
also paid a visit at Down in this
summer. Some of their work is
recorded in Mr. Brace's 'The
Dangerous Classes of New York,'
and of this book my father wrote
to the author : —

" Since you were here my wife
has read aloud to me more than
half of your work, and it has
interested us both in the highest
degree, and we shall read every

word of the remainder. The facts
seem to me very well told, and the
inferences very striking. But after
all, this is but a weak part of the
impression left on our minds by
what we have read ; for we are both
filled with earnest admiration at
the heroic labours of yourself and
others."

t ' Letters,' p. 246-248.

\ "Mr. Martineau on Evolution,"
by Herbert Spencer, ' Contempo-
rary Review,' July 1872.

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 11, 1872),
and is well worth studying as an example of the treatment
which it is possible for science to receive from officialism. As
\ Nature ' observes, it is a paper which must be read with
the greatest indignation by scientific men in every part of the
world, and with shame by all Englishmen. The signatories
of the memorial conclude by protesting against the expected
consequences of Sir Joseph Hooker's persecution — namely his
resignation, and the loss of " a man honoured for his integrity,

1 8/2.]

TROUBLES AT KEW.

167

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.
Bree's book, 'An Exposition of
Fallacies in the Hypothesis of Mr.
Darwin,' in ' Nature,' July 25, 1872.

f " Bree on Darwinism." ' Na-
ture,'Aug. 8, 1872. The letter is
as follows : — " Permit me to state
— though the statement is almost
superfluous — that Mr. Wallace, in
his review of Dr. Bree's work, gives
with perfect correctness what I
intended to express, and what I
believe was expressed clearly, with
respect to the probable position of

man in the early part of his pedi-
gree. As I have not seen Dr.
Bree's recent work, and as his letter
is unintelligible to me, I cannot
even conjecture how he has so
completely mistaken my meaning :
but, perhaps, no one who has read
Mr. Wallace's article, or who has
read a work formerly published by
Dr. Bree on the same subject as
his recent one, will be surprised at
any amount of misunderstanding on
his part. — Charles Darwin."
Aug. 3.

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

C. Darwin to A. R. Wallace,

Down, August 28, 1872.

My DEAR WALLACE, — I have at last finished the gigantic
job of reading Dr. Bastian's book,* and have been deeply
interested by it. You wished to hear my impression, but it
is not worth sending.

He seems to me an extremely able man, as, indeed, I
thought when I read his first essay. His general argument
in favour of Archebiosist is wonderfully strong, though I
cannot think much of some few of his arguments. The result
is that I am bewildered and astonished by his statements, but
am not convinced, though, on the whole, it seems to me pro-
bable that Archebiosis is true. I am not convinced, partly
I think owing to the deductive cast of much of his reasoning ;
and I know not why, but I never feel convinced by deduction,
even in the case of H. Spencer's writings. If Dr. Bastian's
book had been turned upside down, and he had begun with
the various cases of Heterogenesis, and then gone on to
organic, and afterwards to saline solutions, and had then given
his general arguments, I should have been, I believe, much
more influenced. I suspect, however, that my chief difficulty
is the effect of old convictions being stereotyped on my brain.
I must have more evidence that germs, or the minutest frag-
ments of the lowest forms, are always killed by 2 1 2° of Fahr.
Perhaps the mere reiteration of the statements given by
Dr. Bastian [of] other men, whose judgment I respect, and who
have worked long on the lower organisms, would suffice to
convince me. Here is a fine confession of intellectual weak-
ness ; but what an inexplicable frame of mind is that of
belief!

As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being spontaneously gener-

* 1

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

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

1872.] 'BEGINNINGS OF LIFE.' 1 69

ated, my mind can no more digest such statements, whether
true or false, than my stomach can digest a lump of lead.
Dr. Bastian is always comparing Archebiosis, as well as
growth, to crystallisation ; but, on this view, a Rotifer or Tardi-
grade is adapted to its humble conditions of life by a happy
accident, and this I cannot believe. . . . He must have
worked with very impure materials in some cases, as plenty
of organisms appeared in a saline solution not containing an
atom of nitrogen.

I wholly disagree with Dr. Bastian about many points in
his latter chapters. Thus the frequency of generalised forms
in the older strata seems to me clearly to indicate the common
descent with divergence of more recent forms. Notwith-
standing all his sneers, I do not strike my colours as yet about
Pangenesis. I should like to live to see Archebiosis proved
true, for it would be a discovery of transcendent importance ;
or, if false, I should like to see it disproved, and the facts
otherwise explained ; but I shall not live to see all this. If
ever proved, Dr. Bastian will have taken a prominent part in
the work. How grand is the onward rush of science; it is
enough to console us for the many errors which we have com-
mitted, and for our efforts being overlaid and forgotten in the
mass of new facts and new views which are daily turning up.

This is all I have to say about Dr. Bastian's book, and it
certainly has not been worth saying. . . .

C. Darwin to A. De Candolle.

Down, December xi, 1872.

My dear Sir — I began reading your new book * sooner
than I intended, and when I once began, I could not stop ;
and now you must allow me to thank you for the very great
pleasure which it has given me. I have hardly ever read

* t

Histoire des Sciences et des Savants,' 1873.

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

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.

1872.] 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
70CO, and of these 5267 copies were sold at Mr. Murray's sale
in November. Two thousand were printed at the end of the
year, and this proved a misfortune, as they did not afterwards
sell so rapidly, and thus a mass of notes collected by the
author was never employed for a second edition during his
lifetime.

Among the reviews of the ' Expression of the Emotions '
may be mentioned the not unfavourable notices in the Athe-
nceum, Nov. 9, 1872, and the Times, Dec. 13, 1872. A good
review by Mr. Wallace appeared in the ' Quarterly Journal
of Science,' Jan. 1873. Mr. Wallace truly remarks that the
book exhibits certain " characteristics of the author's mind in

172

1 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 Alexander Bain.

Down, October 9, 1873.

My DEAR Sir, — I am particularly obliged to you for having
sent me your essay. Your criticisms are all written in a
quite fair spirit, and indeed no one who knows you or your
works would expect anything else. What you say about the
vagueness of what I have called the direct action of the
nervous system, is perfectly just. I felt it so at the time, and
even more of late. I confess that I have never been able
fully to grasp your principle of spontaneity,* as well as some
other of your points, so as to apply them to special cases,

* Professor Bain expounded his
theory of Spontaneity in the essay
here alluded to. It would be im-
possible to do justice to it within
the limits of a foot-note. The
following quotations may give some
notion of it : —

" By Spontaneity I understand the
readiness to pass into movement,
in the absence of all stimulation
whatever; the essential requisite
being that the nerve-centres and

muscles shall be fresh and vigorous.
.... The gesticulations and the
carols of young and active animals
are mere overflow of nervous
energy ; and although they are very
apt to concur with pleasing emotion,
they have an independent source.
.... They are not properly move-
ments of expression ; they express
nothing at all except an abundant
stock of physical power."

1 872.]

'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 1 [1872].
My DEAR Mrs. Haliburton, — I dare say you will be
surprised to hear from me. My object in writing now is to

* The review on the ' Expression
of the Emotions ' appeared in the
April number of the ' Edinburgh
Review,' 1873. The opening sen-
tence is a fair sample of the general
tone of the article : " Mr. Darwin has
added another volume of amusing
stories and grotesque illustrations
to the remarkable series of works
already devoted to the exposition
and defence of the evolutionary
hypothesis." A few other quota-
tions may be worth giving. " His
one-sided devotion to an a priori
scheme of interpretation seems thus
steadily tending to impair the
author's hitherto unrivalled powers
as an observer. However this may
be, most impartial critics will, we
think, admit that there is a marked
falling off, both in philosophical
tone and scientific interest, in the
works produced since Mr. Darwin
pommitted himself to the crude
metaphysical conception so largely

associated with his name." The
article is directed against Evolution
as a whole, almost as much as
against the doctrines of the book
under discussion. We find through-
out plenty of that effective style of
criticism which consists in the use
of such expressions as " dogma-
tism," " intolerance," " presump-
tuous," " arrogant ; " together with
accusations of such various faults
as " virtual abandonment of the
inductive method," and the use of
slang and vulgarisms.

The part of the article which
seems to have interested my father
is the discussion on the use which
he ought to have made of painting
and sculpture.

f Mrs. Haliburton is a daughter
of my father's old friend, Mr. Owen
of Woodhouse. Her husband,
Judge Haliburton, was the well-
known author of ' Sam Slick.'

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

say that I have just published a book on the ' Expression of
the Emotions in Man and Animals ;' and it has occurred to
me that you might possibly like to read some parts of it ; and
I can hardly think that this would have been the case with
any of the books which I have already published. So I send
by this post my present book. Although I have had no
communication with you or the other members of your family
for so long a time, no scenes in my whole life pass so
frequently or so vividly before my mind as those which relate
to happy old days spent at Woodhouse. I should very much
like to hear a little news about yourself and the other
members of your family, if you will take the trouble to write
to me. Formerly I used to glean some news about you from
my sisters.

I have had many years of bad health and have not been
able to visit anywhere ; and now I feel very old. As long as
I pass a perfectly uniform life, I am able to do some daily
work in Natural History, which is still my passion, as it was
in old days, when you used to laugh at me for collecting
beetles with such zeal at Woodhouse. Excepting from my
continued ill-health, which has excluded me from society, my
life has been a very happy one ; the greatest drawback being
that several of my children have inherited from me feeble
health. I hope with all my heart that you retain, at least to
a large extent, the famous " Owen constitution." With
sincere feelings of gratitude and affection for all bearing the
name of Owen, I venture to sign myself,

Yours affectionately,

Charles Darwin.

C. Darwin to Mrs. Haliburton.

Down, November 6 [1872].

My DEAR SARAH, — I have been very much pleased by
your letter, which I must call charming. I hardly ventured

I873-] '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.

i373.

[The only work (other than botanical) of this year was the
preparation of a second edition of the ' Descent of Man,' the
publication of which is referred to in the following chapter.
This work was undertaken much against the grain, as he was
at the time deeply immersed in the manuscript of ' Insec-
tivorous Plants.' Thus he wrote to Mr. Wallace (Novem-
ber 19), "I never in my lifetime regretted an interruption so
much as this new edition of the ' Descent.' " And later (in
December) he wrote to Mr. Huxley : "The new edition of the
' Descent ' has turned out an awful job. It took me ten days
merely to glance over letters and reviews with criticisms and
new facts. It is a devil of a job."

The work was continued until April 1, 1874, when he was

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 Thos. Wentworth Higginson.

Down, February 27th [1873].

My DEAR Sir, — My wife has just finished reading aloud
your ' Life with a Black Regiment,' and you must allow me to
thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in
many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes,
from the little which I have seen of them ; and I have been
delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their
character and mental powers so ably discussed. When you
were here I did not know of the noble position which you had
filled. I had formerly read about the black regiments, but
failed to connect your name with your admirable undertaking.
Although we enjoyed greatly your visit to Down, my wife
and myself have over and over again regretted that we did
not know about the black regiment, as we should have greatly
liked to have heard a little about the South from your own lips.

Your descriptions have vividly recalled walks taken forty
years ago in Brazil. We have your collected Essays, which
were kindly sent us by Mr. [Moncure] Conway, but have not
yet had time to read them. I occasionally glean a little news
of you in the ' Index ' ; and within the last hour have read an
interesting article of yours on the progress of Free Thought.
Believe me, my dear Sir, with sincere admiration,

Yours very faithfully,

Ch. Darwin.

I373-]

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.

V

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

i78

' DESCENT OF MAN ' — EXPRESSION.

[1873-

Pi

x

<

&
O
J*

Nominally to Church of England.

Liberal.

Good throughout life, except from gout.

Very broad and corpulent.

0

• t— (

X

0

Q,

a
0
u

endurance although feeling
as after consultations, after
very active — not restless —
no travels. My father said
ered much from sense of
worked very hard.

'rt

t-H
H-l

O

9-1

O

'o
U

0

PQ

-M

•

G

Sanguine.

Great power of
much fatigue,
long journeys ;
very early riser,
his father suff
fatigue, that he

YOURSELF.

Science, and field sports to a passionate
degree during youth.

Nominally to Church of England.

Liberal or Radical.

Good when young — bad for last 33 years.

Measurement round
inside of hat.

H|Tf

n

0

eu

I— H

rj |

s

0

u

*

0

en

^<
CO

-t->

t nervous.

lown by much activity, and whilst I
.alth, power of resisting fatigue. I
s other man were alone able to fetch
9r a large party of officers and sailors
prostrated. Some of my expeditions
merica were adventurous. An early
the morning.

n..

Sh
3

fcjO

Spare, whilst
young rather
stout.

0

0
'o
U

O

pq

-4->

fcJO

CU

Somewha

Energy s'
had he
and on
water f
utterly
in S. A
riser in

O
&

a

Specify any interests that
have becii very actively
pursued

Religion f

Politics?

Health ?

ex.

i373.]

MR. GALTON'S QUESTIONS.

179

sg5

0 a*

CP

dl-L .

£ o

o <~>

,rt P<

to 1+-.

• 2

^§
. • »— i

00

to

U

o
d

(U > X;
CU

0
>

Joo

"5 '5 "§

3 rt ?

xi co

• -- r- ( cu

-Q. O r-j
rt > 4->

CU^

rd o

cu 2
bo-"
as rt

3 e

o -S

^O

rdrd

.rH TO

rd CU

£ "P

ft^ «

CU d <u

bo rt

{T3

co r-j

CO

U

d

<U

bo

rH CU

O >i

d

ft ^^

O lU r-H

•3 d/2

<U 4-1 H

0)

d>5 M

cu

""0

d
o

c

rH

a,

d dr-2

.d d ^3

r-n
TJ I

cu bo>

a

d o <+H

000

X o
0) 3

cu.2
• > o

CJ CD

CD Ji

>- bo

d tJ

CU 03
c to

d H

O

co

.2-5 .

■"d to co

3 4-> cu

to .rt O

VrH rr-

CU rt

o u o

>->

CD
rP

CO

5— (
CU

co

*4 d:

S^

o

co ■*->
§ ^

bo d

JJH cu

aj rP

CU

d ^

a> cu
r-Hrrt

.5 03
rd *

**&

4-1
cu «s3

CU £

in

1 <*-

13 to

d d

§°

to -
Jh rt
tu ,0

Ph"~

bo

rt .5
cu c_>

bO^
rt p^

rd t,_

S3 *

a p<

u d

d «

bo d
■C <u

4-> *4— 1 1— I

a o rt

CU >-i

b ^ 2
bo cu d

rW rj bO

d
rt

d§

•^rd

Efl

d
3
0
o
u
a ^-£

2 > "

l*H CO

e*% o

O -3 o

rt — '

d 4-> .

— rt ,;
<u rt bo

H Pirr-J

3 2 a>

ai
►d

4->

o

d

rt

0)

d

rH

v2

CU

b0

rt

rt
cu
rt

co

CU

« to
to S3

cu o

d '""'
d G

CU

rt

*4->

o

rt

u

d
u

d

cot;

.r-, 4-> C3

. CU

6 rtO
a

S.2^

«> Dn.rt
4_> cu ■*-
rt <J

cucy2 o

bo

to

•^ to rt
d in

rt cu to

d 4-. 0

.S rH

««+h d

^ OU

*5 co

rt cu

rt
a

cu

bod

• d to

a, rt

W rrH

d cu

dnd

o

d

rt

to

bO

d

rH

d

. to
u rt .
o a; rd
00^4^

bo >

d cu P

Ord «
♦H 4-> rH

CO

bo
d

H • rH

>
O 'bo

:z; d

^3 'to
bo O

• ~^ rH

to CU

CU fH

h2 bo

44 d
o'bb

^O rt

Hd -rH

CU ^ T3
d CU CU

drd o-

d rt '-'

8 °^

I to „

rt rt d

— ' ^ 09

tj ° d

rt co ^

TO

to ^ Gn

d 4-1 .

O UTj

rt, O C3

b0"G ~

rn CO CO
CU

>. CU -rH

•— ' d cu
,h rt a,

O d«*H

rd 0 0

co

bJ3 d.

d o

d ;-,

Cj CU

CU r-j

"^ CU

*d bo

-a
d
rt

rt CO

boo

d .rt

, jr*. rH >^,

c° rt rt

rt 2 §

^ dC

rH •'H O

rt bo -y

rQ 4^ CU
^>v ^ r-H
r^rQ O

0 u

> •*> cu
cu *"*

bo 2

d >~> rt

OrO >

to

4->

d

cu

s

cu

rH

cr1
a

rt

cu
bO

rH

rt

O

d

4->

d

rQ

to

d
o

• r- «

d

4->

to

>,

rH

CU

O 00 G
d d >

<U --H O
> bO

•d S >-.

bo cu d

SdS

OP

i~~ 1 rt cH

d ^^
■y d

d S >>

rQOTl

<-> d
••> tu

r2 ^ 8

d 2 cu
cu bo.S

rH r— I 4-)

.d to
>, 2 •

r-V • d CO

^ ft d3 d
3 o rt.o

^5.2^

.5 co 7^ or:

M CU

"dS co

.5 o

H J2_,

*« r-H

O to

to o

d +-»

O rH

d rt

cu bo

3 2

to M

o

•4— »

d-d

O CU

+J CJ

to cj

cu cu

r-H

^ ft

d.2

bo cu

o °

CJ

|H co

co d.^J

rt

ft

rt rH

CO irt

• 1— c ^^

^ CO
r-4 •«

d <^

o

to

to

£ H3
O

r] H) U

to^d O

CU 2 rP

> g o

r^ *— *

— • cu o

h-< > d

f3 rH

rtrd d

rd O

+3h y

cu 2

CJ d

r-4 0J
r*» d

rP O

rrt Ph'

flj ^

o 2,

d rH

r o

cu u

CO

to
cu
d

* rH ""^T

CO r-H

3 <U

rQ *

rH »>

O co

«Hd 4->

to
0)

"rH

cu

>

cu

-H .

cu to

>.d!

rP

cu —1
d ^

O rH

bort
d d

»- H CO .

P4 5 <u ^,

cu P

CJ CJ

X u

cu rt

>.2

d x5
•rt o

2~ b^ *

S G r- ^

O -rH Q r-

a

d d

rt rt

to

u

.rt

cu
d

cu

rd

o <*->

rQ P

rt cu
g cu

•fi s

d o
cu co

rt t««

cu bo

t-. rt

bo-P •

I d co

I rt d

to CU O

tO f ' j

CJ rl U

.S h £

^ 2 rt

rt rd rt

cu 4-> d

CO

ex..

5>

GV..

j*

-v

^»

'ti

5:

^

.^

©0.

ft

"fe.

^1

<o

s

J^l

^3

O,,

rv

>s.

"^

"-0

•^>»

^

o».

s

^2

6, *«.

*«. r> 'o <^

.5

»>»

**«i r* ^\ ^

^ ^ Ci Si
r-o

N 2

l80 '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.

( i8i )

CHAPTER V.

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

1874 AND 1875.

[The year 1 874 was given up to ' Insectivorous Plants,' with
the exception of the months devoted to the second edition of
the ' Descent of Man,' (see Vol. III. p. 175) and with the further
exception of the time given to a second edition of his ' Coral
Reefs ' (1874). The Preface to the latter states that new facts
have been added, the whole book revised, and " the latter
chapters almost rewritten." In the Appendix some account
is given of Professor Semper's objections, and this was the
occasion of correspondence between that naturalist and my
father. In Professor Semper's volume, ' Animal Life ' (one of
the International Series), the author calls attention to the
subject in the following passage which I give in German, the
published English translation being, as it seems to me,
incorrect : " Es scheint mir als ob er in der zweiten Ausgabe
seines allgemein bekannten Werks iiber KorallenrirTe einem
Irrthume iiber meine Beobachtungen zum Opfer gefallen ist,
indem er die Angaben, die ich allerdings bisher immer nur
sehr kurz gehalten hatte, vollstandig falsch wiedergegeben
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. [1874.

C. Darwin to K. Semper.

Down, October 2, 1879.

My dear Professor Semper, — I thank you for your
extremely kind letter of the 19th, and for the proof-sheets. I
believe that I understand all, excepting one or two sentences,
where my imperfect knowledge of German has interfered.
This is my sole and poor excuse for the mistake which I
made in the second edition of my ' Coral ' book. Your
account of the Pellew Islands is a fine addition to our know-
ledge on coral reefs. I have very little to say on the subject,
even if I had formerly read your account and seen your maps,
but had known nothing of the proofs of recent elevation,
and of your belief that the islands have not since subsided. I
have no doubt that I should have considered them as formed
during subsidence. But I should have been much troubled
in my mind by the sea not being so deep as it usually is
round atolls, and by the reef on one side sloping so gradually
beneath the sea ; for this latter fact, as far as my memory
serves me, is a very unusual and almost unparalleled case. I
always foresaw that a bank at the proper depth beneath the
surface would give rise to a reef which could not be distin-
guished from an atoll, formed during subsidence. I must
still adhere to my opinion, that the atolls and barrier reefs in
the middle of the Pacific and Indian Oceans indicate subsi-
dence ; but I fully agree with you that such cases as that of
the Pellew Islands, if of at all frequent occurrence, would
make my general conclusions of very little value. Future
observers must decide between us. It will be a strange fact
if there has not been subsidence of the beds of the great
oceans, and if this has not affected the forms of the coral
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-

1 874.] 'CORAL REEFS/ SECOND EDITION. 1 83

cellent. There is nothing about M. Wagner, as I expected
to find. I suppose that you have seen Moseley's last book,
which contains some good observations on dispersion.

I am glad that your book will appear in English, for then I
can read it with ease. Pray believe me,

Yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

[The most recent criticism on the Coral-reef theory is by
Mr. Murray, one of the staff of the Challenger, who read a
paper before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, April 5, 1880.*
The chief point brought forward is the possibility of the
building up of submarine mountains, which may serve as
foundations for coral reefs. Mr. Murray also seeks to prove
that " the chief features of coral reefs and islands can be
accounted for without calling in the aid of great and general
subsidence." The following letter refers to this subject :]

C. Darwin to A . Agassiz.

Down, May 5, 188 1.

. . . You will have seen Mr. Murray's views on the forma-
tion of atolls and barrier reefs. Before publishing my book, I
thought long over the same view, but only as far as ordinary
marine organisms are concerned, for at that time little was
known of the multitude of minute oceanic organisms. I
rejected this view, as from the few dredgings made in the
Beagle, in the south temperate regions, I concluded that shells,
the smaller corals, &c, decayed, and were dissolved, when not
protected by the deposition of sediment, and sediment could
not accumulate in the open ocean. Certainly, shells, &c,
were in several cases completely rotten, and crumbled into
mud between my fingers ; but you will know well whether

* An abstract is published in vol. x. of the ' Proceedings,' p. 505, and
in ' Nature,' August 12, 1880.

1 84 MISCELLANEA. [1874.

this is in any degree common. I have expressly said that a
bank at the proper depth would give rise to an atoll, which
could not be distinguished from one formed during subsidence.
I can, however, hardly believe in the former presence of as
many banks (there having been no subsidence) as there are
atolls in the great oceans, within a reasonable depth, on which
minute oceanic organisms could have accumulated to the thick-
ness of many hundred feet. . . . Pray forgive me for troubling
you at such length, but it has occurred [to me] that you
might be disposed to give, after your wide experience, your
judgment. If I am wrong, the sooner I am knocked on the
head and annihilated so much the better. It still seems to
me a marvellous thing that there should not have been much,
and long continued, subsidence in the beds of the great
oceans. I wish that some doubly rich millionaire would take
it into his head to have borings made in some of the Pacific
and Indian atolls, and bring home cores for slicing from a
depth of 500 or 600 feet. . . .

[The second edition of the ' Descent of Man ' was published
in the autumn of 1874. Some severe remarks on the
"monistic hypothesis" appeared in the July* number of
the ' Quarterly Review ' (p. 45). The reviewer expresses his
astonishment at the ignorance of certain elementary dis-
tinctions and principles {e.g. with regard to the verbum
mentale) exhibited, among others, by Mr. Darwin, who " does
not exhibit the faintest indication of having grasped them,
yet a clear perception of them, and a direct and detailed
examination of his facts with regard to them, was a sine qua
11011 for attempting, with a chance of success, the solution of
the mystery as to the descent of man."

Some further criticisms of a later date may be here alluded
to. In the 'Academy,' 1876 (pp. 562, 587), appeared a review
of Mr. Mivart's 'Lessons from Nature,' by Mr. Wallace.

* The review necessarily deals with the first edition of the ' Descent
of Man.'

1 874.] MR. MIVART. 185

When considering the part of Mr. Mivart's book relating to
Natural and Sexual Selection, Mr. Wallace says : " In his
violent attack on Mr. Darwin's theories our author uses
unusually strong language. Not content with mere argu-
ment, he expresses ' reprobation of Mr. Darwin's views ' ; and
asserts that though he (Mr. Darwin) has been obliged,
virtually, to give up his theory, it is still maintained by
Darwinians with ' unscrupulous audacity,' and the actual
repudiation of it concealed by the ' conspiracy of silence.' '
Mr. Wallace goes on to show that these charges are without
foundation, and points out that, " If there is one thing more
than another for which Mr. Darwin is pre-eminent among
modern literary and scientific men, it is for his perfect literary
honesty, his self-abnegation in confessing himself wrong, and
the eager haste with which he proclaims and even magnifies
small errors in his works, for the most part discovered by
himself."

The following extract from a letter to Mr. Wallace (June
17th) refers to Mr. Mivart's statement ('Lessons from Nature,'
p. 144) that Mr. Darwin at first studiously disguised his views
as to the " bestiality of man " : —

" I have only just heard of and procured your two articles
in the 'Academy.' I thank you most cordially for your
generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the ' Origin '
I did not discuss the derivation of any one species ; but that
I might not be accused of concealing my opinion, I went out
of my way, and inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and
still so seems) to disclose plainly my belief. This was quoted
in my ' Descent of Man.' Therefore it is very unjust ... of
Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base fraudulent concealment."

The letter which here follows is of interest in connection
with the discussion, in the ' Descent of Man,' on the origin of
the musical sense in man :]

1 86 MISCELLANEA. [ [1874.

C. Darwin to E. Gurney*

Down, July 8, 1876.

My DEAR Mr. GURNEY, — I have read your article f with
much interest, except the latter part, which soared above my
ken. I am greatly pleased that you uphold my views to a
certain extent. Your criticism of the rasping noise made by
insects being necessarily rhythmical is very good ; but though
not made intentionally, it may be pleasing to the females,
from the nerve cells being nearly similar in function through-
out the animal kingdom. With respect to your letter, I
believe that I understand your meaning, and agree with you.
I never supposed that the different degrees and kinds of
pleasure derived from different music could be explained by
the musical powers of our semi-human progenitors. Does
not the fact that different people belonging to the same
civilized nation are very differently affected by the same
music, almost show that these diversities of taste and pleasure
have been acquired during their individual lives ? Your
simile of architecture seems to me particularly good ; for in
this case the appreciation almost must be individual, though
possibly the sense of sublimity excited by a grand cathedral
may have some connection with the vague feelings of terror
and superstition in our savage ancestors, when they entered
a great cavern or gloomy forest. I wish some one could
analyse the feeling of sublimity. It amuses me to think how
horrified some high-flying aesthetic men will be, at your
encouraging such low degraded views as mine.

Believe me, yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

[The letters which follow are of a miscellaneous interest.
The first extract (from a letter, Jan. 18, 1874) refers to
a spiritualistic seance, held at Erasmus Darwin's house, 6

* Author of ' The Power of Sound.'

t " Some disputed Points in Music." — ' Fortnightly Review,' July 1876.

1 874.] SPIRITUALISM. 187

Queen Anne Street, under the auspices of a well-known
medium :

"... We had grand fun, one afternoon, for George hired a
medium, who made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick,
and fiery points jump about in my brother's dining-room, in a
manner that astounded every one, and took away all their
breaths. It was in the dark, but George and Hensleigh
Wedgwood held the medium's hands and feet on both sides
all the time. I found it so hot and tiring that I went away
before all these astounding miracles, or jugglery, took place.
How the man could possibly do what was done passes my
understanding. I came downstairs, and saw all the chairs,
&c, on the table, which had been lifted over the heads of
those sitting round it.

The Lord have mercy on us all, if we have to believe
in such rubbish. F. Galton was there, and says it was a good
seance. ..."

The seance in question led to a smaller and more carefully
organised one being undertaken, at which Mr. Huxley was
present, and on which he reported to my father :]

C. Darwin to Professor T. H. Huxley.

Down, January 29 [1874].

My DEAR HUXLEY, — It was very good of you to write so
long an account. Though the seance did tire you so much
it was, I think, really worth the exertion, as the same sort of

things are done at all the seances, even at 's ; and now to

my mind an enormous weight of evidence would be requisite
to make one believe in anything beyond mere trickery. . . .
I am pleased to think that I declared to all my family, the
day before yesterday, that the more I thought of all that
I had heard happened at Queen Anne St., the more convinced
I was it was all imposture .... my theory was that [the

188 MISCELLANEA. [1874.

medium] managed to get the two men on each side of him to
hold each other's hands, instead of his, and that he was thus
free to perform his antics. I am very glad that I issued my
ukase to you to attend.

Yours affectionately,

Ch. Darwin.

[In the spring of this year (1874) he read a book which
gave him great pleasure and of which he often spoke with
admiration : — The ' Naturalist in Nicaragua/ by the late
Thomas Belt. Mr. Belt, whose untimely death may well be
deplored by naturalists, was by profession an Engineer, so
that all his admirable observations in natural history, in
Nicaragua and elsewhere, were the fruit of his leisure. The
book is direct and vivid in style and is full of description and
suggestive discussions. With reference to it my father
wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : —

11 Belt I have read, and I am delighted that you like it so
much ; it appears to me the best of all natural history
journals which have ever been published."]

C. Darwin to the Marquis de Saporta.

Down, May 30, 1874.

Dear Sir, — I have been very neglectful in not having
sooner thanked you for your kindness in having sent me your
' Etudes sur la Vegetation,' &c, and other memoirs. I have
read several of them with very great interest, and nothing can
be more important, in my opinion, than your evidence of the
extremely slow and gradual manner in which specific forms
change. I observe that M. A. De Candolle has lately quoted
you on this head versus Heer. I hope that you may be able
to throw light on the question whether such protean, or poly-
morphic forms, as those of Rubus, Hieracium, &c, at the
present day, are those which generate new species j as for

1 874-]

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
1 Nature,' and the last two paragraphs were not included in
the slip sent before. I wrote yesterday and cannot remember
exactly what I said, and now cannot be easy without again
telling you how profoundly I have been gratified. Every one,
I suppose, occasionally thinks that he has worked in vain, and
when one of these fits overtakes me, I will think of your
article, and if that does not dispel the evil spirit, I shall know
that I am at the time a little bit insane, as we all are
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,"
in the series of Scientific Worthies
(' Nature,' June 4, 1874). This ad-
mirable estimate of my father's work
in science is given in the form of a
comparison and contrast between
Robert Brown and Charles Darwin.

t "Let us recognise Darwin's

great service to Natural Science in
bringing back to it Teleology : so
that instead of Morphology versus
Teleology, we shall have Morpho-
logy wedded to Teleology."

X Similar remarks had been pre-
viously made by Mr. Huxley. See
Vol. II. p. 201.

190 MISCELLANEA. [1874.

Professor Tyndall's brilliant presidential address, in which a
sketch of the history of Evolution is given, culminating in an
eloquent analysis of the ' Origin of Species/ and of the nature
of its great success. With regard to Prof. Tyndall's address,
Lyell wrote (* Life,' vol. ii. p. 455) congratulating my father
on the meeting, " on which occasion you and your theory of
Evolution may be fairly said to have had an ovation." In
the same letter Sir Charles speaks of a paper * by Professor
Judd, and it is to this that the following letter refers :]

C. Darwin to C. Lyell.

Down, September 23, 1874.

My dear Lyell, — I suppose that you have returned, or
will soon return, to London ; f and, I hope, reinvigorated by
your outing. In your last letter you spoke of Mr. Judd's paper
on the Volcanoes of the Hebrides. I have just finished it,
and to ease my mind must express my extreme admiration.

It is years since I have read a purely geological paper
which has interested me so greatly. I was all the more
interested, as in the Cordillera I often speculated on the
sources of the deluges of submarine porphyritic lavas, of
which they are built ; and, as I have stated, I saw to a
certain extent the causes of the obliteration of the points of
eruption. I was also not a little pleased to see my volcanic
book quoted, for I thought it was completely dead and
forgotten. What fine work will Mr. Judd assuredly do ! . . . .
Now I have eased my mind ; and so farewell, with both
E. D.'s and C. D.'s very kind remembrances to Miss Lyell.

Yours affectionately,

Charles Darwin.

* "On the Ancient Volcanoes f Sir Charles Lyell returned from

of the Highlands." — 'Journal of Scotland towards the end of Sep-
Geolog. Soc.,' 1874. tember.

1 874.] ANTS. 191

[Sir Charles Lyell's reply to the above letter must have
been one of the latest that my father received from his old
friend, and it is with this letter that the last volume of
Lyell's published correspondence closes.]

C. Darwin to Aug. For el.

&

Down, October 15, 1874.

My DEAR Sir, — I have now read the whole of your admir-
able work * and seldom in my life have I been more in-
terested by any book. There are so many interesting facts
and discussions, that I hardly know which to specify ; but I
think, firstly, the newest points to me have been about the
size of the brain in the three sexes, together with your sugges-
tion that increase of mind-power may have led to the sterility
of the workers. Secondly about the battles of the ants, and
your curious account of the enraged ants being held by their
comrades until they calmed down. Thirdly, the evidence of
ants of the same community being the offspring of brothers
and sisters. You admit, I think, that new communities will
often be the product of a cross between not-related ants.
Fritz Miiller has made some interesting observations on this
head with respect to Termites. The case of Anergates is
most perplexing in many ways, but I have such faith in the
law of occasional crossing that I believe an explanation will
hereafter be found, such as the dimorphism of either sex and
the occasional production of winged males. I see that you
are puzzled how ants of the same community recognize each
other ; I once placed two (F. rufci) in a pill-box smelling
strongly of asafcetida and after a day returned them to their
homes ; they were threatened, but at last recognized. I
made the trial thinking that they might know each other by

* <

Les Fourmis de la Suisse,' 4to, 1874.

I92 MISCELLANEA. [1874.

their odour ; but this cannot have been the case, and I have
often fancied that they must have some common signal.
Your last chapter is one great mass of wonderful facts and
suggestions, and the whole profoundly interesting. I have
seldom been more gratified than by [your] honourable mention
of my work.

I should like to tell you one little observation which I
made with care many years ago ; I saw ants (Formica rtifd)
carrying cocoons from a nest which was the largest I ever saw
and which was well known to all the country people near, and
an old man, apparently about eighty years of age, told me
that he had known it ever since he was a boy. The ants
carrying the cocoons did not appear to be emigrating ;
following the line, I saw many ascending a tall fir-tree still
carrying their cocoons. But when I looked closely I found
that all the cocoons were empty cases. This astonished me,
and next day I got a man to observe with me, and we again
saw ants bringing empty cocoons out of the nest ; each of us
fixed on one ant and slowly followed it, and repeated the
observation on many others. We thus found that some ants
soon dropped their empty cocoons ; others carried them for
many yards, as much as thirty paces, and others carried them
high up the fir-tree out of sight. Now here I think we have
one instinct in contest with another and mistaken one. The
first instinct being to carry the empty cocoons out of the nest,
and it would have been sufficient to have laid them on the
heap of rubbish, as the first breath of wind would have blown
them away. And then came in the contest with the other
very powerful instinct of preserving and carrying their
cocoons as long as possible ; and this they could not help
doing although the cocoons were empty. According as the
one or other instinct was the stronger in each individual ant,
so did it carry the empty cocoon to a greater or less distance.
If this little observation should ever prove of any use to you,
you are quite at liberty to use it. Again thanking you

1 874.] 'COSMIC PHILOSOPHY.' 193

cordially for the great pleasure which your work has given
me, I remain with much respect,

Yours sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

P.S. — If you read English easily I should like to send
you Mr. Belt's book, as I think you would like it as much as
did Fritz Mullen

C. Darwin to J. Fiske.

Down, December 8, 1874.

My dear Sir, — You must allow me to thank you for the
very great interest with which I have at last slowly read the
whole of your work.* I have long wished to know some-
thing about the views of the many great men whose doctrines
you give. With the exception of special points I did not
even understand H. Spencer's general doctrine ; for his style
is too hard work for me. I never in my life read so lucid an
expositor (and therefore thinker) as you are ; and I think
that I understand nearly the whole — perhaps less clearly
about Cosmic Theism and Causation than other parts. It is
hopeless to attempt out of so much to specify what has
'interested me most, and probably you would not care to hear.
I wish some chemist would attempt to ascertain the result of
the cooling of heated gases of the proper kinds, in relation
to your hypothesis of the origin of living matter. It pleased
me to find that here and there I had arrived from my own
crude thoughts at some of the same conclusions with you ;
though I could seldom or never have given my reasons for
such conclusions. I find that my mind is so fixed by the
inductive method, that I cannot appreciate deductive reason-
ing : I must begin with a good body of facts and not from a
principle (in which I always suspect some fallacy) and then

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

194 MISCELLANEA. [l^7S-

as much deduction as you please. This may be very narrow-
minded ; but the result is that such parts of H. Spencer as I
have read with care impress my mind with the idea of his
inexhaustible wealth of suggestion, but never convince me ;
and so I find it with some others. I believe the cause to lie
in the frequency with which I have found first-formed
theories [to be] erroneous. I thank you for the honourable
mention which you make of my works. Parts of the
1 Descent of Man ' must have appeared laughably weak to
you : nevertheless, I have sent you a new edition just
published. Thanking you for the profound interest and
profit with which I have read your work, I remain,

My dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

Ch. Darwin.

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 11, 1871, p. 26) sneers at the whole
doctrine with much acerbity and some justice." He also

* 1

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

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
1 Nature' (April 27, 1871) should be mentioned. A paper by
Mr. Galton had been read before the Royal Society (March
30, 1 871) in which were described experiments, on intertrans-
fusion of blood, designed to test the truth of the hypothesis
•of pangenesis. My father, while giving all due credit to Mr.
Galton for his ingenious experiments, does not allow that
pangenesis has " as yet received its death-blow, though from
presenting so many vulnerable points its life is always in
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. [1875.

which took place on February 22nd, 1875, in his seventy-
eighth year.]

C. Darwin to Miss Buckley (now Mrs. Fisher)*

Down, February 23, 1875.

My dear Miss Buckley, — I am grieved to hear of the
death of my old and kind friend, though I knew that it could
not be long delayed, and that it was a happy thing that his
life should not have been prolonged, as I suppose that his
mind would inevitably have suffered. I am glad that Lady
Lyell f has been saved this terrible blow. His death makes
me think of the time when I first saw him, and how full of
sympathy and interest he was about what I could tell him of
coral reefs and South America. I think that this sympathy
with the work of every other naturalist was one of the finest-
features of his character. How completely he revolutionised
Geology : for I can remember something of pre-Lyellian days.

I never forget that almost everything which I have done in
science I owe to the study of his great works. Well, he has
had a grand and happy career, and no one ever worked with a
truer zeal in a noble cause. It seems strange to me that I
shall never again sit with him and Lady Lyell at their break-
fast. I am very much obliged to you for having so kindly
written to me.

Pray give our kindest remembrances to Miss Lyell, and I
hope that she has not suffered much in health, from fatigue
and anxiety.

Believe me, my dear Miss Buckley,

Yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

* Mrs. Fisher acted as Secretary f LadY LYe11 die(l in l873-

to Sir Charles Lyell.

j 875.] lyell's death. 197

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, February 25 [1875].

My DEAR Hooker, — Your letter so full of feeling has
Interested me greatly. I cannot say that I felt his [Lyell's]
death much, for I fully expected it, and have looked for some
little time at his career as finished.

I dreaded nothing so much as his surviving with impaired
mental powers. He was, indeed, a noble man in very many
ways ; perhaps in none more than in his warm sympathy with
the work of others. How vividly I can recall my first con-
versation with him, and how he astonished me by his interest
in what I told him. How grand also was his candour and
pure love of truth. Well, he is gone, and I feel as if we were
all soon to go. ... I am deeply rejoiced about West-
minster Abbey,* the possibility of which had not occurred to
me when I wrote before. I did think that his works were the
most enduring of all testimonials (as you say) to him ; but
then I did not like the idea of his passing away with no out-
ward sign of what scientific men thought of his merits. Now
all this is changed, and nothing can be better than West-
minster Abbey. Mrs. Lyell has asked me to be one of the
pall-bearers, but I have written to say that I dared not, as I
should so likely fail in the midst of the ceremony, and have
my head whirling off my shoulders. All this affair must have
cost you much fatigue and worry, and how I do wish you
were out of England. . . .

[In 1 88 1 he wrote to Mrs. Fisher in reference to her article
on Sir Charles Lyell in the ' Encyclopaedia Britannica ' : —

" For such a publication I suppose you do not want to say
much about his private character, otherwise his strong sense
of humour and love of society might have been added. Also
his extreme interest in the progress of the world, and in the

* Sir Charles Lyell was buried in Westminster Abbey.

198 MISCELLANEA. [1875.

happiness of mankind. Also his freedom from all religious
bigotry, though these perhaps would be a superfluity."

The following refers to the Zoological station at Naples, a
subject on which my father felt an enthusiastic interest :]

C. Darwin to Anto?i Dohrn.

Down [1875 ?]•

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

* c Umwandlung des Axolotl.'

I875-]

VIVISECTION.

199

p. 157, of English edition), and these cases illustrate, I think,
the sterility of Amblystoma. Would it not be worthwhile to
examine the reproductive organs of those individuals of whig-
less Hemiptera which occasionally have wings, as in the case
of the bed-bug? I think I have heard that the females of
Mutilla sometimes have wings. These cases must be due to
reversion. I dare say many anomalous cases will be hereafter
explained on the same principle.

I hinted at this explanation in the extraordinary case of
the black-shouldered peacock, the so-called Pavo nigripennis
given in my ' Var. under Domest. ; ' and I might have been
bolder, as the variety is in many respects intermediate between
the two known species.

With much respect,

Yours sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

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.

f He once made an attempt to
free a patient in a mad-house, who
(as he wrongly supposed) was sane.
He had some correspondence with
the gardener at the asylum, and on
one occasion he found a letter from
a patient enclosed with one from
the gardener. The letter was ra-

tional in tone and declared that
the writer was sane and wrongfully
confined.

My father wrote to the Lunacy
Commissioners (without explaining
the source of his information) and
in due time heard that the man had
been visited by the Commissioners,
and that he was certainly insane.

[Some

200 MISCELLANEA. [1875.

The remembrance of screams, or other sounds heard in
Brazil, when he was powerless to interfere with what he
believed to be the torture of a slave, haunted him for years,
especially at night. In smaller matters, where he could inter-
fere, he did so vigorously. He returned one day from his walk
pale and faint frOm having seen a horse ill-used, and from the
agitation of violently remonstrating with the man. On
another occasion he saw a horse-breaker teaching his son to
ride, the little boy was frightened and the man was rough ;
my father stopped, and jumping out of the carriage reproved
the man in no measured terms.

One other little incident may be mentioned, showing that
his humanity to animals was well known in his own neigh-
bourhood. A visitor, driving from Orpington to Down, told
the cabman to go faster. "Why," said the man, "if I had
whipped the horse this much, driving Mr. Darwin, he would
have got out of the carriage and abused me well."

With respect to the special point under consideration, — the
sufferings of animals subjected to experiment, — nothing could
show a stronger feeling than the following extract from a
letter to Professor Ray Lankester (March 22, 1871) : —

" You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree
that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology ; but
not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a
subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say
another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night."

An extract from Sir Thomas Farrer's notes shows how
strongly he expressed himself in a similar manner in con-
versation : —

" The last time I had any conversation with him was at my
house in Bryanston Square, just before one of his last seizures.
He was then deeply interested in the vivisection question ;

Some time afterwards the patient that he had undoubtedly been in-
was discharged, and wrote to thank sane when he wrote his former
my father for his interference, adding letter.

1 87 5-] VIVISECTION. 201

and what he said made a deep impression on me. He was a
man eminently fond of animals and tender to them ; he would
not knowingly have inflicted pain on a living creature ; but
he entertained the strongest opinion that to prohibit experi-
ments on living animals, would be to put a stop to the know-
ledge of and the remedies for pain and disease."

The Anti- Vivisection agitation, to which the following
letters refer, seems to have become specially active in 1874, as
may be seen, e.g. by the index to ' Nature ' for that year, in
which the word " Vivisection " suddenly comes into promi-
nence. But before that date the subject had received the
earnest attention of biologists. Thus at the Liverpool
Meeting of the British Association in 1870, a Committee
was appointed, whose report defined the circumstances and
conditions under which, in the opinion of the signatories,
experiments on living animals were justifiable. In the spring
of 1875, Lord Hartismere introduced a Bill into the Upper
House to regulate the course of physiological research.
Shortly afterwards a Bill more just towards science in its
provisions was introduced to the House of Commons by
Messrs. Lyon Playfair, Walpole, and Ashley. It was
however, withdrawn on the appointment of a Royal Com-
mission to inquire into the whole question. The Commis-
sioners were Lords Cardwell and Winmarleigh, Mr. W. E.
Forster, Sir J. B. Karslake, Mr. Huxley, Professor Erichssen,
and Mr. R. H. Hutton : they commenced their inquiry in
July, 1875, and the Report was published early in the follow-
ing year.

In the early summer of 1876, Lord Carnarvon's Bill,
entitled, " An Act to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to
Animals," was introduced. It cannot be denied that the
framers of this Bill, yielding to the unreasonable clamour of
the public, went far beyond the recommendations of the
Royal Commission. As a correspondent in ' Nature ' put it
(1876, p. 248), " the evidence on the strength of which legisla-

202 MISCELLANEA. [1875.

tion was recommended went beyond the facts, the Report
went beyond the evidence, the Recommendations beyond the
Report ; and the Bill can hardly be said to have gone beyond
the Recommendations ; but rather to have contradicted them."
The legislation which my father worked for, as described
in the following letters, was practically what was introduced
as Dr. Lyon Playfair's Bill.]

C. Darwin to Mrs. 'Litchfield*

January 4, 1875.

MY DEAR H. — Your letter has led me to think over vivisec-
tion (I wish some new word like anses-section could be
invented t) for some hours, and I will jot down my conclu-
sions, which will appear very unsatisfactory to you. I have
long thought physiology one of the greatest of sciences, sure
sooner, or more probably later, greatly to benefit mankind ;
but, judging from all other sciences, the benefits will accrue
only indirectly in the search for abstract truth. It is certain
that physiology can progress only by experiments on living
animals. Therefore the proposal to limit research to points
of which we can now see the bearings in regard to health, &c,
I look at as puerile. I thought at first it would be good to
limit vivisection to public laboratories ; but I have heard only
of those in London and Cambridge, and I think Oxford ; but
probably there may be a few others. Therefore only men
living in a few great towns would carry on investigation, and
this I should consider a great evil. If private men were per-
mitted to work in their own houses, and required a licence, I
do not see who is to determine whether any particular man
should receive one. It is young unknown men who are the

* His daughter. abstract of which was published

f He communicated to ' Nature' (p. 517). Dr. Wilder advocated the

(Sept. 30, 1880) an article by Dr. use of the word ' Callisection ' for

Wilder, of Cornell University, an painless operations on animals.

1 875.] VIVISECTION. 20

5

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, wrhich has been until
within the last few years at a standstill in England, will
languish or quite cease. It will then be carried on solely on
the Continent ; and there will be so many the fewer workers
on this grand subject, and this I should greatly regret. By
the way, F. Balfour, who has worked for two or three years
in the laboratory at Cambridge, declares to George that he
has never seen an experiment, except with animals rendered
insensible. No doubt the names of doctors will have great
weight with the House of Commons ; but very many prac-
titioners neither know nor care anything about the progress
of knowledge. I cannot at present see my way to sign any
petition, without hearing what physiologists thought would
be its effect, and then judging for myself. I certainly could
not sign the paper sent me by Miss Cobbe, with its monstrous
(as it seems to me) attack on Virchow for experimenting on
the Trichinae. I am tired and so no more.

Yours affectionately,
Charles Darwin.

204 MISCELLANEA. [1875.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, April 14 [1875].
My DEAR HOOKER. — I worked all the time in London on
the vivisection question ; and we now think it advisable to go
further than a mere petition. Litchfield* drew up a sketch
of a Bill, the essential features of which have been approved
by Sanderson, Simon and Huxley, and from conversation,
will, I believe, be approved by Paget, and almost certainly, I
think, by Michael Foster. Sanderson, Simon and Paget wish
me to see Lord Derby, and endeavour to gain his advocacy
with the Home Secretary. Now, if this is carried into effect,
it will be of great importance to me to be able to say that the
Bill in its essential features has the approval of some half-
dozen eminent scientific men. I have therefore asked
Litchfield to enclose a copy to you in its first rough form ;
and if it is not essentially modified, may I say that it meets
with your approval as President of the Royal Society ? The
object is to protect animals, and at the same time not to
injure Physiology, and Huxley and Sanderson's approval
almost suffices on this head. Pray let me have a line from
you soon.

Yours affectionately,

Charles Darwin.

[The Physiological Society, which was founded in 1876, was
in some measure the outcome of the anti-vivisection move-
ment, since it was this agitation which impressed on Physiolo-
gists the need of a centre for those engaged in this particular
branch of science. With respect to the Society, my father
wrote to Mr. Romanes (May 29, 1876) : —

" I was very much gratified by the wholly unexpected
honour of being elected one of the Honorary Members.
This mark of sympathy has pleased me to a very high
degree."

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

1 875.] VIVISECTION. 205

The following letter appeared in the Times, April 18th,
1 881:]

*

C, Darwin to Frithiof Holmgren.

Down, April 14, i88r.

Dear Sir, — In answer to your courteous letter of April 7,
I have no objection to express my opinion with respect to
the right of experimenting on living animals. I use this latter
expression as more correct and comprehensive than that of
vivisection. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter
which you may think fit, but if published I should wish the
whole to appear. I have all my life been a strong advocate
for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my
writings to enforce this duty. Several years ago, when the
agitation against physiologists commenced in England, it
was asserted that inhumanity was here practised, and useless
suffering caused to animals ; and I was led to think that it
might be advisable to have an Act of Parliament on the
subject. I then took an active part in trying to get a Bill
passed, such as would have removed all just cause of com-
plaint, and at the same time have left physiologists free to
pursue their researches, — a Bill very different from the Act
which has since been passed. It is right to add that the
investigation of the matter by a Royal Commission proved
that the accusations made against our English physiologists
were false. From all that I have heard, however, I fear that
in some parts of Europe little regard is paid to the sufferings
of animals, and if this be the case, I should be glad to hear of
legislation against inhumanity in any such country. On the
other hand, I know that physiology cannot possibly progress
except by means of experiments on living animals, and I
feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress
of physiology commits a crime against mankind. Any one

* Professor of Physiology at Upsala.

206 MISCELLANEA. [1875.

who remembers, as I can, the state of this science half a
century ago, must admit that it has made immense progress,
and it is now progressing at an ever-increasing rate. What
improvements in medical practice may be directly attributed
to physiological research is a question which can be properly
discussed only by those physiologists and medical practitioners
who have studied the history of their subjects ; but, as far as
I can learn, the benefits are already great. However this may
be, no one, unless he is grossly ignorant of what science has
done for mankind, can entertain any doubt of the incalculable
benefits which will hereafter be derived from physiology, not
only by man, but by the lower animals. Look for instance
at Pasteur's results in modifying the germs of the most
malignant diseases, from which, as it so happens, animals will
in the first place receive more relief than man. Let it be
remembered how many lives and what a fearful amount of
suffering have been saved by the knowledge gained of
parasitic worms through the experiments of Virchow and
others on living animals. In the future every one will be
astonished at the ingratitude shown, at least in England, to
these benefactors of mankind. As for myself, permit me to
assure you that I honour, and shall always honour, every one
who advances the noble science of physiology.

Dear Sir, yours faithfully,

Charles Darwin.

[In the Times of the following day appeared a letter headed
" Mr. Darwin and Vivisection," signed by Miss Frances Power
Cobbe. To this my father replied in the Times of April 22,
1 88 1. On the same day he wrote to Mr. Romanes : —

" As I have a fair opportunity, I sent a letter to the Times
on Vivisection, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to
bear my share of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner
on all physiologists."]

1 875.] VIVISECTION. 207

C. Darwin to the Editor of the ' Times!

Sir, — I do not wish to discuss the views expressed by
Miss Cobbe in the letter which appeared in the Times of the
19th inst. ; but as she asserts that I have "misinformed" my
correspondent in Sweden in saying that "the investigation of
the matter by a Royal Commission proved that the accu-
sations made against our English physiologists were false,"
I will merely ask leave to refer to some other sentences
from the report of the Commission.

(1.) The sentence — " It is not to be doubted that in-
humanity may be found in persons of very high position as
physiologists," which Miss Cobbe quotes from page 17 of the
report, and which, in her opinion, "can necessarily concern
English physiologists alone and not foreigners," is imme-
diately followed by the words " We have seen that it was so
in Majendie." Majendie was a French physiologist who
became notorious some half century ago for his cruel
experiments on living animals.

(2.) The Commissioners, after speaking of the "general
sentiment of humanity " prevailing in this country, say
(p. 10) :—

"This principle is accepted generally by the very highly
educated men whose lives are devoted either to scientific
investigation and education or to the mitigation or the
removal of the sufferings of their fellow-creatures ; though
differences of degree in regard to its practical application
will be easily discernible by those who study the evidence as
it has been laid before us."

Again, according to the Commissioners (p. 10) : —

" The secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, when asked whether the general tendency
of the scientific world in this country is at variance with
humanity, says he believes it to be very different, indeed,
from that of foreign physiologists ; and while giving it as the

208 MISCELLANEA. [1875..

opinion of the society that experiments are performed which
are in their nature beyond any legitimate province of science,
and that the pain which they inflict is pain which it is not
justifiable to inflict even for the scientific object in view, he
readily acknowledges that he does not know a single case of
wanton cruelty, and that in general the English physiologists
have used anaesthetics where they think they can do so with
safety to the experiment."

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Charles Darwin.

April 21.

[In the Times of Saturday, April 23, 188 1, appeared a
letter from Miss Cobbe in reply.]

C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.

Down, April 25, 1881.

My dear Romanes, — I was very glad to read your last
note with much news interesting to me. But I write now to
say how I, and indeed all of us in the house, have admired
your letter in the Times* It was so simple and direct. I was
particularly glad about Burdon Sanderson, of whom I have
been for several years a great admirer. I was also especially
elad to read the last sentences. I have been bothered with

o

several letters, but none abusive. Under a selfish point of
view I am very glad of the publication of your letter, as I
was at first inclined to think that I had done mischief by
stirring up the mud. Now I feel sure that I have done good-
Mr. Jesse has written to me very politely, he says his Society
has had nothing to do with placards and diagrams against
physiology, and I suppose, therefore, that these all originate
with Miss Cobbe Mr. Jesse complains bitterly that the

* April 25, 1 88 1. — Mr. Romanes defended Dr. Sanderson against the
accusations made by Miss Cobbe.

1 87 5.] VIVISECTION. 209

Times will " burke " all his letters to this newspaper, nor am
I surprised, judging from the laughable tirades advertised in
' Nature.'

Ever yours, very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

[The next letter refers to a projected conjoint article on
vivisection, to which Mr. Romanes wished my father to
contribute :]

C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.

Down, September 2, 1881.

My dear Romanes, — Your letter has perplexed me
beyond all measure. I fully recognise the duty of every one
whose opinion is worth anything, expressing his opinion pub-
licly on vivisection ; and this made me send my letter to the
Times. I have been thinking at intervals all morning what I
could say, and it is the simple truth that I have nothing worth
saying. You and men like you, whose ideas flow freely, and
who can express them easily, cannot understand the state
of mental paralysis in which I find myself. What is most
wanted is a careful and accurate attempt to show what physi-
ology has already done for man, and even still more strongly
what there is every reason to believe it will hereafter do.
Now I am absolutely incapable of doing this, or of discussing
the other points suggested by you.

If you wish for my name (and I should be glad that it
should appear with that of others in the same cause), could
you not quote some sentence from my letter in the Times
which I enclose, but please return it. If you thought fit you
might say you quoted it with my approval, and that after still
further reflection I still abide most strongly in my expressed
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. [1875.

Allow me to demur to your calling your conjoint article a
" symposium " strictly a " drinking party." This seems to me
very bad taste, and I do hope every one of you will avoid any
semblance of a joke on the subject. I knoiu that words, like
a joke, on this subject have quite disgusted some persons not
at all inimical to physiology. One person lamented to me
that Mr. Simon, in his truly admirable Address at the Medical
Congress (by far the best thing which I have read), spoke of
the fantastic sensuality* (or some such term) of the many
mistaken, but honest men and women who are half mad on
the subject. . . .

[To Dr. Lauder Brunton my father wrote in February
1882 :—

"Have you read Mr. [Edmund] Gurney's articles in the * Fort-
nightly' f and ' Cornhill ' ? % They seem to me very clever,
though obscurely written, and I agree with almost everything
he says, except with some passages which appear to imply that
no experiments should be tried unless some immediate good
can be predicted, and this is a gigantic mistake contradicted
by the whole history of science."]

* 'Transactions of the Interna- f "A chapter in the Ethics of

tional Medical Congress,' 1881, vol. Pain," ' Fortnightly Review,' 1881,

iv. p. 413. The expression " lacka- vol. xxx. p. 778.

daisical " (not fantastic) , and % " An Epilogue on Vivisection,"

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

regard to the feelings of the anti- p. 191.
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. Blomfield (Jenyns), written
in March, 1877, shows what was my father's estimate of his
own powers of work at this time : —

" My dear Jenyns (I see I have forgotten your proper
names), — Your extremely kind letter has given me warm
pleasure. As one gets old, one's thoughts turn back to the
past rather than to the future, and I often think of the
pleasant, and to me valuable, hours which I spent with you on
the borders of the Fens.

" You ask about my future work ; I doubt whether I shall
be able to do much more that is new, and I always keep

before my mind the example of poor old , who in his old

age had a cacoethes for writing. But I cannot endure doing
nothing, so I suppose that I shall go on as long as I can
without obviously making a fool of myself. I have a great
mass of matter with respect to variation under nature ; but so
much has been published since the appearance of the ' Origin
of Species,' that I very much doubt whether I retain power of
mind and strength to reduce the mass into a digested whole.
I have sometimes thought that I would try, but dread the
attempt. . . ."

P 2

212 MISCELLANEA (continued). [1876.

His prophecy proved to be a true one with regard to any
continuation of any general work in the direction of Evolu-
tion, but his estimate of powers which could afterwards prove
capable of grappling with the 'Movements of Plants,' and
with the work on ' Earthworms,' was certainly a low one.

The year 1876, with which the present chapter begins,
brought with it a revival of geological work. He had been
astonished, as I hear from Professor Judd, and as appears
in his letters, to learn that his books on ' Volcanic Islands,'
1844, and on 'South America,' 1846, were still consulted
by geologists, and it was a surprise to him that new editions
should be required. Both these works were originally
published by Messrs. Smith and Elder, and the new edition
of 1876 was also brought out by them. This appeared in
one volume with the title ' Geological Observations on the
Volcanic Islands, and Parts of South America visited during
the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle.' He has explained in the
preface his reasons for leaving untouched the text of the
original editions : " They relate to parts of the world which
have been so rarely visited by men of science, that I am not
aware that much could be corrected or added from observa-
tions subsequently made. Owing to the great progress which
Geology has made within recent times, my views on some
few points may be somewhat antiquated ; but I have thought
it best to leave them as they originally appeared."

It may have been the revival of geological speculation,
due to the revision of his early books, that led to his re-
cording the observations of which some account is given in the
following letter. Part of it has been published in Professor '
James Geikie's ' Prehistoric Europe,' chaps, vii. and ix.,* a fe\A
verbal alterations having been made at my father's request 11
the passages quoted. Mr. Geikie lately wrote to me : " The

* My father's suggestion is also America,' given at Edinburgh, Nov
noticed in Prof. Geikie's address on 20, 1884.
the ' Ice Age in Europe and North

1876.] GEOLOGY. 213

views suggested in his letter as to the origin of the angular
gravels, &c., in the South of England will, I believe, come
to be accepted as the truth. This question has a much
wider bearing than might at first appear. In point of fact
it solves one of the most difficult problems in Quaternary
Geology — and has already attracted the attention of German
geologists."]

C. Danvin to James Geikie.

Down, November 16, 1876.

My DEAR Sir, — I hope that you will forgive me for
troubling you with a very long letter. But first allow me to
tell you with what extreme pleasure and admiration I have
just finished reading your ' Great Ice Age.' It seems to me
admirably done, and most clear. Interesting as many
chapters are in the history of the world, I do not think that
any one comes [up] nearly to the glacial period or periods.
Though I have steadily read much on the subject, your book
makes the whole appear almost new to me.

I am now going to mention a small observation, made by
me two or three years ago, near Southampton, but not fol-
lowed out, as I have no strength for excursions. I need say
nothing about the character of the drift there (which includes
palaeolithic celts), for you have described its essential features
in a few words at p. 506. It covers the whole country [in an]
even plain-like surface, almost irrespective of the present
outline of the land.

The coarse stratification has sometimes been disturbed. I
find that you allude " to the larger stones often standing on
end ;" and this is the point which struck me so much. Not
only moderately sized angular stones, but small oval pebbles
often stand vertically up, in a manner which I have never seen
in ordinary gravel beds. This fact reminded me of what
occurs near my home, in the stiff red clay, full of unworn flints
over the chalk, which is no doubt the residue left undissolved

214 MISCELLANEA {continued). [1876.

by rain water. In this clay, flints as long and thin as my arm
often stand perpendicularly up ; and I have been told by the
tank-diggers that it is their " natural position " ! I presume
that this position may safely be attributed to the differential
movement of parts of the red clay as it subsided very slowly
from the dissolution of the underlying chalk ; so that the
flints arrange themselves in the lines of least resistance. The
similar but less strongly marked arrangement of the stones in
the drift near Southampton makes me suspect that it also
must have slowly subsided ; and the notion has crossed my
mind that during the commencement and height of the glacial
period great beds of frozen snow accumulated over the south
of England, and that, during the summer, gravel and stones
were washed from the higher land over its surface, and
in superficial channels. The larger streams may have cut
right through the frozen snow, and deposited gravel in lines
at the bottom. But on each succeeding autumn, when the
running water failed, I imagine that the lines of drainage
would have been filled up by blown snow afterwards con-
gealed, and that, owing to great surface accumulations of snow,
it would be a mere chance whether the drainage, together with
gravel and sand, would follow the same lines during the next
summer. Thus, as I apprehend, alternate layers of frozen
snow and drift, in sheets and lines, would ultimately have
covered the country to a great thickness, with lines of drift
probably deposited in various directions at the bottom by
the larger streams. As the climate became warmer, the
lower beds of frozen snow would have melted with extreme
slowness, and the many irregular beds of interstratified drift
would have sunk down with equal slowness ; and during this
movement the elongated pebbles would have arranged them-
selves more or less vertically. The drift would also have been
deposited almost irrespective of the outline of the under-
lying land. When I viewed the country I could not per-
suade myself that any flood, however great, could have depo-

1876.] GEOLOGY. 215

sited such coarse gravel over the almost level platforms

between the valleys. My view differs from that of Hoist,

p. 415 ['Great Ice Age'], of which I had never heard, as his

relates to channels cut through glaciers, and mine to beds

of drift interstratified with frozen snow where no glaciers

existed. The upshot of this long letter is to ask you to

keep my notion in your head, and look out for upright

pebbles in any lowland country which you may examine,

where glaciers have not existed. Or if you think the notion

deserves any further thought, but not otherwise, to tell any

one of it, for instance Mr. Skertchly, who is examining such

districts. Pray forgive me for writing so long a letter, and

again thanking you for the great pleasure derived from your

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 Im- sons.' Christiania, 1876.
migration of the Norwegian Flora f By Mr. Archibald Geikie.

during alternate rainy and dry Sea-

216 MISCELLANEA (continued). [1881.

and though I knew how kind-hearted [he was], yet the book
has raised him greatly in my respect, notwithstanding his
foibles and want of broad philosophical views.

[The only other geological work of his later years was
embodied in his book on earthworms (1881), which may
therefore be conveniently considered in this place. This
subject was one which had interested him many years before
this date, and in 1838 a paper on the formation of mould
was published in the Proceedings of the Geological Society
(see vol. i. p. 284).

Here he showed that " fragments of burnt marl, cinders, &c.,.
which had been thickly strewed over the surface of several
meadows were found after a few years lying at a depth of
some inches beneath the turf, but still forming a layer." For
the explanation of this fact, which forms the central idea of
the geological part of the book, he was indebted to his uncle
Josiah Wedgwood, who suggested that worms, by bringing
earth to the surface in their castings, must undermine any
objects lying on the surface and cause an apparent sinking.

In the book of 1881 he extended his observations on this
burying action, and devised a number of different ways of
checking his estimates as to the amount of work done.* He
also added a mass of observations on the habits, natural
history and intelligence of worms, a part of the work which
added greatly to its popularity.

In 1877 Sir Thomas Farrer had discovered close to his
garden the remains of a building of Roman-British times,
and thus gave my father the opportunity of seeing for himself

* He received much valuable trouble which you have taken,

help from Dr. King, of the Botanical You have attended exactly and fully

Gardens, Calcutta. The following to the points about which I was

passage is from a letter to Dr. King, most anxious. If I had been each

dated January 18, 1873 : — evening by your side, I could not

" I really do not know how to have suggested anything else."
thank you enough for the immense

1 88 1.] worms. 217

the effects produced by earthworms on the old concrete-floors,
walls, &c. On his return he wrote to Sir Thomas Farrer : —

" I cannot remember a more delightful week than the last.
I know very well that E. will not believe me, but the worms
were by no means the sole charm."

In the autumn of 1880, when the 'Power of Movements in
Plants ' was nearly finished, he began once more on the
subject. He wrote to Professor Carus (September 21) : —

" In the intervals of correcting the press, I am writing a
very little book, and have done nearly half of it. Its title
will be (as at present designed), ' The Formation of Vegetable
Mould through the Action of Worms.' * As far as I can judge
it will be a curious little book."

The manuscript was sent to the printers in April, 1881,,
and when the proof-sheets were coming in he wrote to Pro-
fessor Carus : "The subject has been to me a hobby-horse, and
I have perhaps treated it in foolish detail."

It was published on October 10, and 2000 copies were sold
at once. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker, " I am glad that
you approve of the 'Worms.' When in old days I was to
tell you whatever I was doing, if you were at all interested, I
always felt as most men do when their work is finally pub-
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/ 188 1.

2i8 MISCELLANEA {continued). [1879.

book may be roughly estimated by the fact that, in the three
years following its publication, 8500 copies were sold — a
sale relatively greater than that of the ' Origin of Species.'

It is not difficult to account for its success with the non-
scientific public. Conclusions so wide and so novel, and so
easily understood, drawn from the study of creatures so
familiar, and treated with unabated vigour and freshness,
may well have attracted many readers. A reviewer remarks :
*' In the eyes of most men. . . the earthworm is a mere
blind, dumb, senseless, and unpleasantly slimy annelid.
Mr. Darwin undertakes to rehabilitate his character, and the
earthworm steps forth at once as an intelligent and beneficent
personage, a worker of vast geological changes, a planer
down of mountain sides ... a friend of man . . . and an
ally of the Society for the preservation of ancient monu-
ments." The St. James's Gazette, of October 17th, 1881,
pointed out that the teaching of the cumulative importance
of the infinitely little is the point of contact between this
book and the author's previous work.

One more book remains to be noticed, the ' Life of Erasmus
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 t an
English translation of the Essay.

* The same number contains a list of my father's publications,

good biographical sketch of my f The wish to do so was shared

father, of which the material was to by his brother, Erasmus Darwin

a large extent supplied by him to the younger, who continued to be

the writer, Prof. Preyer of Jena. associated with the project.
The article contains an excellent

1 879.] ERASMUS DARWIN. 219

His chief reason for writing a notice of his grandfather's
life was " to contradict flatly some calumnies by Miss Seward."
This appears from a letter of March 27, 1879, to his cousin
Reginald Darwin, in which he asks for any documents and
letters which might throw light on the character of Erasmus.
This led to Mr. Reginald Darwin placing in my father's hands
a quantity of valuable material, including a curious folio
common-place book, of which he wrote : " I have been
deeply interested by the great book, .... reading and
looking at it is like having communion with the dead ....
[it] has taught me a good deal about the occupations and
tastes of our grandfather." A subsequent letter (April 8) to
the same correspondent describes the source of a further
supply of material : —

" Since my last letter I have made a strange discovery ;
for an old box from my father marked ' Old Deeds,' and
which consequently I had never opened, I found full of
letters — hundreds from Dr. Erasmus — and others from old
members of the family : some few very curious. Also a
drawing of Elston before it was altered, about 1750, of which
I think I will give a copy."

Dr. Krause's contribution formed the second part of the
* Life of Erasmus Darwin,' my father supplying a " preliminary
notice." This expression on the title-page is somewhat mis-
leading ; my father's contribution is more than half the book,
and should have been described as a biography. Work of
this kind was new to him, and he wrote doubtfully to Mr.
Thiselton Dyer, June 18th: "God only knows what I shall
make of his life, it is such a new kind of work to me." The
strong interest he felt about his forebears helped to give
zest to the work, which became a decided enjoyment to him.
With the general public the book was not markedly success-
ful, but many of his friends recognised its merits. Sir J. D.
Hooker was one of these, and to him my father wrote,
•" Your praise of the Life of Dr. D. has pleased me exceed-

220 MISCELLANEA {continued). [1880.

ingly, for I despised my work, and thought myself a perfect
fool to have undertaken such a job."

To Mr. Galton, too, he wrote, November 14 : —

" I am extremely glad that you approve of the little ' Life *
of our grandfather, for I have been repenting that I ever
undertook it, as the work was quite beyond my tether."

The publication of the ' Life of Erasmus Darwin ' led to an
attack by Mr. Samuel Butler, which amounted to a charge
of falsehood against my father. After consulting his friends,
he came to the determination to leave the charge unanswered,
as being unworthy of his notice.* Those who wish to know
more of the matter, may gather the facts of the case from Ernst
Krause's ' Charles Darwin/ and they will find Mr. Butler's
statement of his grievance in the Athenceum^ January 31, 1880,
and in the St. James's Gazette, December 8, 1880. The affair
gave my father much pain, but the warm sympathy of those
whose opinion he respected soon helped him to let it pass into
a well-merited oblivion.

The following letter refers to M. J. H. Fabre's ' Souvenirs
Entomologiques.' It may find a place here, as it contains
a defence of Erasmus Darwin on a small point. The post-
script is interesting, as an example of one of my father's
bold ideas both as to experiment and theory :]

C. Darwin to J. H. Fabre.

Down, January 31, 1880.

My DEAR Sir, — I hope that you will permit me to have
the satisfaction of thanking you cordially for the lively
pleasure which I have derived from reading your book.
Never have the wonderful habits of insects been more vividly
described, and it is almost as good to read about them as to

* He had, in a letter to Mr. oversight which caused so much
Butler, expressed his regret at the offence.

1880.] ERASMUS DARWIN. 221

see them. I feel sure that you would not be unjust to even
an insect, much less to a man. Now, you have been misled
by some translator, for my grandfather, Erasmus Darwin,
states ('Zoonomia,' vol. i. p. 183, 1794) that it was a wasp
(guepe) which he saw cutting off the wings of a large fly. I
have no doubt that you are right in saying that the wings are
generally cut off instinctively ; but in the case described by
my grandfather, the wasp, after cutting off the two ends of
the body, rose in the air, and was turned round by the wind ;
he then alighted and cut off the wings. I must believe, with
Pierre Huber, that insects have " une petite dose de raison."
In the next edition of your book, I hope that you will alter
part of what you say about my grandfather.

I am sorry that you are so strongly opposed to the Descent
theory ; I have found the searching for the history of each
structure or instinct an excellent aid to observation ; and
wonderful observer as you are, it would suggest new points to
you. If I were to write on the evolution of instincts, I could
make good use of some of the facts which you give. Permit
me to add, that when I read the last sentence in your book, I
sympathised deeply with you.*

With the most sincere respect,

I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully,

Charles Darwin.

P.S. — Allow me to make a suggestion in relation to your
wonderful account of insects finding their way home. I for-
merly wished to try it with pigeons : namely, to carry the
insects in their paper " cornets," about a hundred paces in the
opposite direction to that which you ultimately intended to
carry them ; but before turning round to return, to put the
insect in a circular box, with an axle which could be made to

* The book is intended as a father's assistant in his observations
memorial of the early death of on insect life.
M. Fabre's son, who had been his

222 MISCELLANEA {continued). [1876-82.

revolve very rapidly, first in one direction, and then in.
another, so as to destroy for a time all sense of direction in
the insects. I have sometimes imagined that animals may
feel in which direction they were at the first start carried.* If
this plan failed, I had intended placing the pigeons within an
induction coil, so as to disturb any magnetic or dia-magnetic
sensibility, which it seems just possible that they may
possess. C. D.

[During the latter years of my father's life there was a
growing tendency in the public to do him honour. In 1877
he received the honorary degree of LL.D. from the University
of Cambridge. The degree was conferred on November 17,
and with the customary Latin speech from the Public Orator,
concluding with the words : " Tu vero, qui leges naturae tarn
docte illustraveris, legum doctor nobis esto.,}

The honorary degree led to a movement being set on foot
in the University to obtain some permanent memorial of my
father. A sum of about £400 was subscribed, and after the
rejection of the idea that a bust would be the best memorial,,
a picture was determined on. In June 1879 he sat to Mr. W.
Richmond for the portrait in the possession of the University,
now placed in the Library of the Philosophical Society at
Cambridge. He is represented seated in a Doctor's gown,
the head turned towards the spectator : the picture has many
admirers, but, according to my own view, neither the attitude
nor the expression are characteristic of my father.

A similar wish on the part of the Linnean Society — with
which my father was so closely associated — led to his sitting

* This idea was a favourite one marked desire to go eastward, even,

with him, and he has described in when his stable lay in the opposite

' Nature' (vol. vii. 1873, p. 360) the direction. In the same volume of

behaviour of his cob Tommy, in 'Nature,' p. 417, is a letter on the

whom he fancied he detected a sense ' Origin of Certain Instincts,' which

of direction. The horse had been contains a short discussion on the

taken by rail from Kent to the Isle of sense of direction.
Wight ; when there he exhibited a

1876-82.]

PORTRAITS.

225

in August, 1 88 1, to Mr. John Collier, for the portrait now in
the possession of the Society. Of the artist, he wrote,
' Collier was the most considerate, kind and pleasant painter a
sitter could desire." The portrait represents him standing
facing the observer in the loose cloak so familiar to those who
knew him, and with his slouch hat in his hand. Many of
those who knew his face most intimately, think that Mr.
Collier's picture is the best of the portraits, and in this
judgment the sitter himself was inclined to agree. According
to my feeling it is not so simple or strong a representation of
him as that given by Mr. Ouless. There is a certain expres-
sion in Mr. Collier's portrait which I am inclined to consider
an exaggeration of the almost painful expression which
Professor Cohn has described in my father's face, and which he
had previously noticed in Humboldt. Professor Cohn's remarks
occur in a pleasantly written account of a visit to Down*
in 1876, published in the Breslauer Zeitung, April 23, 1882.

Besides the Cambridge degree, he received about the same
time honours of an academic kind from some foreign societies.

On August 5, 1878, he was elected a Corresponding
Member of the French Institute! in the Botanical Section,]:
and wrote to Dr. Asa Gray : —

" I see that we are both elected Corresponding Members

* In this connection may be
mentioned a visit (1881) from
another distinguished German,
Hans Richter. The occurrence is
otherwise worthy of mention, inas-
much as it led to the publication,
after my father's death, of Herr
Richter's recollections of the visit.
The sketch is simply and sympa-
thetically written, and the author
has succeeded in giving a true
picture of my father as he lived at
Down. It appeared in the Nene
Tagblatt of Vienna, and was repub-
lished by Dr. O. Zacharias in his

' Charles R. Darwin/ Berlin, 1882.

t " Lyell always spoke of it as a
great scandal that Danvin was so
long kept out of the French Insti-
tute. As he said, even if the de-
velopment hypothesis were objected
to, Darwin's original works on
Coral Reefs, the Cirripedia, and
other subjects, constituted a more
than sufficient claim." — From Pro-
fessor Judd's notes.

% The statement has been more
than once published that he was
elected to the Zoological Section,
but this was not the case.

224

miscellanea {continued).

[I876-S2.

of the Institute. It is rather a good joke that I should be
elected in the Botanical Section, as the extent of my know-
ledge is little more than that a daisy is a Compositous plant
and a pea a Leguminous one."

In the early part of the same year he was elected a Corre-
sponding Member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and
lie wrote (March 12) to Professor Du Bois Reymond, who had
proposed him for election : —

" I thank you sincerely for your most kind letter, in which
you announce the great honour conferred on me. The know-
ledge of the names of the illustrious men, who seconded the
proposal is even a greater pleasure to me than the honour itself."

The seconders were Helmholtz, Peters, Ewald, Pringsheim
and Virchow.

In 1879 he received the Baly Medal of the Royal College
of Physicians.*

He received twenty-six votes out
of a possible 39, five blank papers
were sent in, and eight votes were
recorded for the other candidates.

In 1872 an attempt had been
made to elect him to the Section of
Zoology, when, however, he only
received 15 out of 48 votes, and
Loven was chosen for the vacant
place. It appears (' Nature,' August
1, 1872), that an eminent member
of the Academy, wrote to Les
Mondes to the following effect : —

" What has closed the doors of
the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that
the science of those of his books
which have made his chief title to
fame— the ' Origin of Species,' and
still more the ' Descent of Man,' is
not science, but a mass of assertions
and absolutely gratuitous hypo-
theses, often evidently fallacious.
This kind of publication and these
theories are a bad example, which

a body that respects itself cannot
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 15th) to thank him and the other
naturalists at the Zoological Station, my father added : —

" Perhaps you saw in the papers that the Turin Society
honoured me to an extraordinary degree by awarding me
the Bressa Prize. Now it occurred to me that if your station
wanted some piece of apparatus, of about the value of ^"ioo,
I should very much like to be allowed to pay for it. Will
you be so kind as to keep this in mind, and if any want
should occur to you, I would send you a cheque at any
time."

I find from my father's accounts that ^"ioo was presented
to the Naples Station.

He received also several tokens of respect and sympathy of
a more private character from various sources. With regard
to such incidents, and to the estimation of the public generally,
his attitude may be illustrated by a passage from a letter to
Mr. Romanes :* —

"You have indeed passed a most magnificent eulogium
upon me, and I wonder that you were not afraid of hearing
1 oh ! oh ! ' or some other sign of disapprobation. Many
persons think that what I have done in science has been
much overrated, and I very often think so myself; but my
comfort is that I have never consciously done anything to
gain applause. Enough and too much about my dear self."

Among such expressions of regard he valued very highly
the two photographic albums received from Germany and
Holland on his birthday, 1877. Herr Emil Rade of Miinster,
originated the idea of the German birthday gift, and under-

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

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 16, 1877) : —

" The album has just arrived quite safe. It is most superb.*
It is by far the greatest honour which I have ever received,
and my satisfaction has been greatly enhanced, by your most
kind letter of February 9. ... I thank you all from my
heart. I have written by this post to Herr Rade, and I hope
he will somehow manage to thank all my generous friends."

To Professor A. van Bemmelen he wrote, on receiving a
similar present from a number of distinguished men and
lovers of Natural History in the Netherlands : —

" Sir, — I received yesterday the magnificent present of the
album, together with your letter. I hope that you will
endeavour to find some means to express to the two hundred
and seventeen distinguished observers and lovers of natural
science, who have sent me their photographs, my gratitude
for their extreme kindness. I feel deeply gratified by this
gift, and I do not think that any testimonial more honourable
to me could have been imagined. I am well aware that my
books could never have been written, and would not have
made any impression on the public mind, had not an immense
amount of material been collected by a long series of admir-
able observers ; and it is to them that honour is chiefly due.
I suppose that every worker at science occasionally feels
depressed, and doubts whether what he has published has
been worth the labour which it has cost him, but for the few

* The album is magnificently of an artist, Herr A. Fitger of
bound and decorated with a beauti- Bremen, who also contributed the
fully illuminated titlepage, the work dedicatory poem.

1 882.] BIRTHDAY GIFTS. 227

remaining years of my life, whenever I want cheering-, I will
look at the portraits of my distinguished co-workers in the
field of science, and remember their generous sympathy.
When I die, the album will be a most precious bequest to my
children. I must further express my obligation for the very
interesting history contained in your letter of the progress of
opinion in the Netherlands, with respect to Evolution, the
whole of which is quite new to me. I must again thank all
my kind friends, from my heart, for their ever-memorable
testimonial, and I remain, Sir,

Your obliged and grateful servant,

Charles R. Darwin."

[In the June of the following year (1878) he was gratified
by learning that the Emperor of Brazil had expressed a wish
to meet him. Owing to absence from home my father was
unable to comply with this wish ; he wrote to Sir J. D.
Hooker : —

" The Emperor has done so much for science, that every
scientific man is bound to show him the utmost respect,
and I hope that you will express in the strongest language,
and which you can do with entire truth, how greatly I feel
honoured by his wish to see me ; and how much I regret my
absence from home."

Finally it should be mentioned that in 1880 he received an
address personally presented by members of the Council of
the Birmingham Philosophical Society, as well as a memorial
from the Yorkshire Naturalist Union presented by some of
the members, headed by Dr. Sorby. He also received in the
same year a visit from some of the members of the Lewisham
and Blackheath Scientific Association, — a visit which was, I
think, enjoyed by both guests and host]

Q 2

228 MISCELLANEA {continued). [1876.

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-

1876.] MR. WALLACE. ' 229

the present circumstances.* Good heavens ! how pleased

lam!"

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).

Down, February 11 [1876].

My dear Miss Buckley, — You must let me have the
pleasure of saying that I have just finished reading with very
great interest your new book.f The idea seems to me a
capital one, and as far as I can judge very well carried out.
There is much fascination in taking a bird's eye view of all
the grand leading steps in the progress of science. At first I
regretted that you had not kept each science more separate ;
but I dare say you found it impossible. I have hardly any
criticisms, except that I think you ought to have introduced
Murchison as a great classifier of formations, second only to
W. Smith. You have done full justice, and not more than
justice, to our dear old master, Lyell. Perhaps a little more
ought to have been said about botany, and if you should ever
add this, you would find Sachs' ' History,' lately published,
very good for your purpose.

You have crowned Wallace and myself with much honour
and glory. I heartily congratulate you on having produced
so novel and interesting a work, and remain,

My dear Miss Buckley, yours very faithfully,

Ch. Darwin.

* Mr. Gladstone was then in opening of Parliament (Jan. 6).

office, and the letter must have been f 'A Short History of Natural

written when he was overwhelmed Science.'
with business connected with the

230 - MISCELLANEA (continued}. [1876.

C. Darzuin to A. R. Wallace.

[Hopedene] *, June 5, 1876.

My dear Wallace, — I must have the pleasure of ex-
pressing to you my unbounded admiration of your book,f
tho' I have read only to page 184 — my object having been
to do as little as possible while resting. I feel sure that you
have laid a broad and safe foundation for all future work on
Distribution. How interesting it will be to see hereafter
plants treated in strict relation to your views ; and then all
insects, pulmonate molluscs and fresh-water fishes, in greater
detail than I suppose you have given to these lower animals.
The point which has interested me most, but I do not say the
most valuable point, is your protest against sinking imaginary
continents in a quite reckless manner, as was stated by Forbes,
followed, alas, by Hooker, and caricatured by Wollaston and
[Andrew] Murray ! By the way, the main impression that
the latter author has left on my mind is his utter want of all
scientific judgment. I have lifted up my voice against the
above view with no avail, but I have no doubt that you will
succeed, owing to your new arguments and the coloured chart.
Of a special value, as it seems to me, is the conclusion that
we must determine the areas, chiefly by the nature of the
mammals. When I worked many years ago on this subject,
I doubted much whether the now called Palaearctic and
Nearctic regions ought to be separated ; and I determined if I
made another region that it should be Madagascar. I have,
therefore, been able to appreciate your evidence on these
points. What progress Palaeontology has made during the
last 20 years ; but if it advances at the same rate in the
future, our views on the migration and birth-place of the
various groups will, I fear, be greatly altered. I cannot feel
quite easy about the Glacial period, and the extinction of large

* Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood's f ' Geographical Distribution,'

house in Surrey. 1876.

1876.] GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 23 1

mammals, but I must hope that you are right. I think you
will have to modify your belief about the difficulty of
dispersal of land molluscs ; I was interrupted when beginning
to experimentize on the just hatched young adhering to the
feet of ground-roosting birds. I differ on one other point,
viz. in the belief that there must have existed a Tertiary
Antarctic continent, from which various forms radiated to the
southern extremities of our present continents. But I could
go on scribbling for ever. You have written, as I believe, a
grand and memorable work which will last for years as the
foundation for all future treatises on Geographical Distribution,
My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

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

[The following letters illustrate my father's power of taking
a vivid interest in work bearing on Evolution, but unconnected
with his own special researches at the time. The books
referred to in the first letter are Professor Weismann's
' Studien zur Descendenzlehre,' * being part of the series of
essays by which the author has done such admirable service
to the cause of Evolution :]

C. Darwin to Aug. Weismann.

... I read German so slowly, and have had lately to read
several other papers, so that I have as yet finished only half
of your first essay and two-thirds of your second. They
have excited my interest and admiration in the highest
degree, and whichever I think of last, seems to me the most

* My father contributed a pre- lation of Prof. Weismann's ' Stu-
fatory note to Mr. Meldola's trans- dien,' 1880-81.

232 miscellanea {continued). [l%77*

valuable. I never expected to see the coloured marks on
caterpillars so well explained ; and the case of the ocelli
delights me especially. . . .

. . . There is one other subject which has always seemed
to me more difficult to explain than even the colours of cater-
pillars, and that is the colour of birds' eggs, and I wish you
would take this up.

C. Darwin to Melchior Nenmayr* Vienna.

Down, Beckenham, Kent, March 9, 1877.

Dear Sir, — From having been obliged to read other books,
I finished only yesterday your essay on ' Die Congerien,' &c.f

I hope that you will allow me to express my gratitude for
the pleasure and instruction which I have derived from read-
ing it. It seems to me to be an admirable work ; and is by
far the best case which I have ever met with, showing the
direct influence of the conditions of life on the organization.

Mr. Hyatt, who has been studying the Hilgendorf case,
writes to me with respect to the conclusions at which he has
arrived, and these are nearly the same as yours. He insists
that closely similar forms may be derived from distinct lines
of descent ; and this is what I formerly called analogical
variation. There can now be no doubt that species may
become greatly modified through the direct action of the
environment. I have some excuse for not having formerly
insisted more strongly on this head in my ' Origin of Species/
as most of the best facts have been observed since its publi-
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 t ' Die Congerien und Paludinen-

Vienna. schichten Slavoniens,' 4to, 1875.

1877.] 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, 1S76. Vol. xxv. of the Nat. Hist. vol. xv.

234 MISCELLANEA (continued). [i877-

C. Darwin to G. Croom Robertson*

Down, April 27, 1877.

Dear Sir, — I hope that you will be so good as to take the
trouble to read the enclosed MS., and if you think it fit for
publication in your admirable journal of ' Mind,' I shall be
gratified. If you do not think it fit, as is very likely, will you
please to return it to me. I hope that you will read it in an
extra critical spirit, as I cannot judge whether it is worth
publishing from having been so much interested in watching
the dawn of the several faculties in my own infant. I may
add that I should never have thought of sending you the
MS., had not M. Taine's article appeared in your Journal.f
If my MS. is printed, I think that I had better see a proof.
I remain, dear Sir,

Yours faithfully,

Ch. Darwin.

[The two following extracts show the lively interest he
preserved in diverse fields of inquiry. Professor Cohn, of
Breslau, had mentioned, in a letter, Koch's researches on
Splenic Fever ; my father replied, January 3 : —

" I well remember saying to myself, between twenty and
thirty years ago, that if ever the origin of any infectious
disease could be proved, it would be the greatest triumph to
science ; and now I rejoice to have seen the triumph."

In the spring he received a copy of Dr. E. von Mojsisovics'
'Dolomit Riffe;' his letter to the author (June 1, 1878) is
interesting, as bearing on the influence of his own work on
the methods of geology.

" I have at last found time to read the first chapter of your
' Dolomit Riffe,' and have been exceedingly interested by it,
What a wonderful change in the future of geological chron-
ology you indicate, by assuming the descent theory to be

* The editor of { Mind.' peared in the 'Revue Philoso-

t 1877, p. 252. The original ap- phique," 1876.

1878.] GEOLOGY. 235

established, and then taking the graduated changes of the
same group of organisms as the true standard ! I never
hoped to live to see such a step even proposed by any one."

Another geological research which roused my father's
admiration was Mr. D. Mackintosh's work on erratic blocks.
Apart from its intrinsic merit the work keenly excited his
sympathy from the conditions under which it was executed,
Mr. Mackintosh being compelled to give nearly his whole
time to tuition. The following passage is from a letter to
Mr. Mackintosh of October 9, 1879, and refers to his paper in
the Journal of the Geological Society, 1878 : —

"I hope that you will allow me to have the pleasure of
thanking you for the very great pleasure which I have derived
from just reading your paper on erratic blocks. The map
is wonderful, and what labour each of those lines shows ! I
have thought for some years that the agency of floating ice,
which nearly half a century ago was overrated, has of late
been underrated. You are the sole man who has ever noticed
the distinction suggested by me * between flat or planed
scored rocks, and mammillated scored rocks."]

C. Darwin to C. Ridley.

Down, November 28, 1878.

Dear Sir, — I just skimmed through Dr. Pusey's sermon,
as published in the Guardian, but it did [not] seem to me
worthy of any attention. As I have never answered criticisms
excepting those made by scientific men, I am not willing that
this letter should be published ; but I have no objection to
your saying that you sent me the three questions, and that
I answered that Dr. Pusey was mistaken in imagining that I
wrote the ' Origin ' with any relation whatever to Theology. I
should have thought that this would have been evident to

* In his paper on the ' Ancient Glaciers of Carnarvonshire,' Phil.
Mag. xxi. 1842. See p. 187.

236 MISCELLANEA (continued). [1878.

any one who had taken the trouble to read the book, more
especially as in the opening lines of the introduction I specify
how the subject arose in my mind. This answer disposes of
your two other questions ; but I may add that, many years
ago, when I was collecting facts for the ' Origin,' my belief in
what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr.
Pusey himself, and as to the eternity of matter I have never
troubled myself about such insoluble questions. Dr. Pusey's
attack will be as powerless to retard by a day the belief in
Evolution, as were the virulent attacks made by divines fifty
years ago against Geology, and the still older ones of the
Catholic Church against Galileo, for the public is wise enough
always to follow Scientific men when they agree on any
subject ; and now there is almost complete unanimity
amongst Biologists about Evolution, though there is still
considerable difference as to the means, such as how far
natural selection has acted, and how far external conditions,
or whether there exists some mysterious innate tendency to
perfectibility. I remain, dear Sir,

Yours faithfully,

Ch. Darwin.

[Theologians were not the only adversaries of freedom in
science. On Sept. 22, 1877, Prof. Virchow delivered an address
at the Munich meeting of German Naturalists and Physicians,
which had the effect of connecting Socialism with the Descent
theory. This point of view was taken up by anti-evolu-
tionists to such an extent that, according to Haeckel, the
Kreuz Zeitung threw " all the blame " of the " treasonable
attempts of the democrats Hodel and Nobiling . . . directly
on the theory of Descent." Prof. Haeckel replied with vigour
and ability in his ' Freedom in Science and Teaching ' (Eng.
Transl. 1879), an essay which must have the sympathy of all
lovers of freedom.

The following passage from a letter (December 26, 1879) to

18790

SOCIALISM.

237

Dr. Scherzer, the author of the ' Voyage of the NovaraJ gives
a hint of my father's views on this once burning question : —

" What a foolish idea seems to prevail in Germany on the
connection between Socialism and Evolution through Natural
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.
The book alluded to is Prof. Mose-
ley's ' Notes by a Naturalist on the
Challenger?

f " To Charles Darwin, Esquire,
LL.D., F.R.S., &c, from the study
of whose ' Journal of Researches ' I
mainly derived my desire to travel

round the world ; to the develop-
ment of whose theory I owe the
principal pleasures and interests of
my life, and who has personally
given me much kindly encourage-
ment in the prosecution of my
studies, this book is, by permission,
gratefully dedicated."

238 MISCELLANEA (continued). [1879.

puzzled to answer. I fancy that the general reader would
prefer your account of Japan. For myself I hesitate between
your discussions and description of the Southern ice, which
seems to me admirable, and the last chapter which contained
many facts and views new to me, though I had read your
papers on the stony Hydroid Corals, yet your resumi made
me realise better than I had done before, what a most curious
case it is.

You have also collected a surprising number of valuable
facts bearing on the disposal of plants, far more than in any
other book known to me. In fact your volume is a mass of
interesting facts and discussions, with hardly a superfluous
word ; and I heartily congratulate you on its publication.

Your dedication makes me prouder than ever.

Believe me, yours sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

[In November, 1879, he answered for Mr. Galton a series of
questions for his 'Inquiries into Human Faculty/ 1883. He
wrote to Mr. Galton : —

" I have answered the questions as well as I could, but they
are miserably answered, for I have never tried looking into
my own mind. Unless others answer very much better than
I can do, you will get no good from your queries. Do you
not think you ought to have the age of the answerer ? I
think so, because I can call up faces of many schoolboys, not
seen for sixty years, with much distinctness, but nowadays I
may talk with a man for an hour, and see him several times
consecutively, and, after a month, I am utterly unable to
recollect what he is at all like. The picture is quite washed
out."

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

1 879.] visualising. 239

Questions on the Faculty of Visualising.

QUESTIONS.

REPLIES.

I

Illumination ?

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

2

Definitioji ?

Some objects quite denned, a slice of cold
beef, some grapes and a pear, the state
of my plate when 1 had finished, and a
few other objects, are as distinct as if 1
had photos before me.

3

Complete7iess ?

Very moderately so.

4

Colouring f

The objects above-named, perfectly
coloured.

5

Extent of Field of
View.

Rather small.

DIFFERENT KINDS OF

IMAGERY.

6

Printed pages f

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

7

Furniture ?

1 have never attended to it.

8

Persons ?

1 remember the faces of persons formerly
well-known vividly, and can make them
do anything 1 like.

9

Scenery ?

Remembrance vivid and distinct, and gives
me pleasure.

10

Geography ?

No.

11

Military movements t

No.

12

Mechaiiism ?

Never tried.

13

Geometry ?

1 do not think 1 have any power of the
kind.

14

Numerals ?

When 1 think of any number, printed
figures arise before my mind. 1 can't
remember for an hour four consecutive
figures.

15

Card playing f

Have not played for many years, but 1 am
sure should not remember.

16

Chess ?

Never played.

240 miscellanea {continued). [1880.

[In 1880 he published a short paper in 'Nature' (vol.
xxi. p. 207) on the "Fertility of Hybrids from the com-
mon and Chinese goose." He received the hybrids from
the Rev. Dr. Goodacre, and was glad of the opportunity of
testing the accuracy of the statement that these species are
fertile inter se. This fact, which was given in the ' Origin ' on
the authority of Mr. Eyton, he considered the most remark-
able as yet recorded with respect to the fertility of hybrids.
The fact (as confirmed by himself and Dr. Goodacre) is of
interest as giving another proof that sterility is no criterion
of specific difference, since the two species of goose now
shown to be fertile inter se are so distinct that they have
been placed by some authorities in distinct genera or sub-
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 11, 1880.

My dear Huxley, — I wished much to attend your
Lecture, but I have had a bad cough, and we have come
here to see whether a change would do me good, as it has
done. What a magnificent success your lecture seems to

* This same" Coming of Age "was is given in ' Nature,' February 24,
the subject of an address from the 1881.
Council of the Otago Institute. It

1 88a] MR. HUXLEY'S LECTURE. 241

have been, as I judge from the reports in the Standard and
Daily News, and more especially from the accounts given me
by three of my children. I suppose that you have not
written out your lecture, so I fear there is no chance of its
being printed in extenso. You appear to have piled, as on
so many other occasions, honours high and thick on my old
head. But I well know how great a part you have played in
establishing and spreading the belief in the descent-theory,
ever since that grand review in the Times and the battle
royal at Oxford up to the present day.

Ever, my dear Huxley,

Yours sincerely and gratefully,

Charles Darwin.

P.S. — It was absurdly stupid in me, but I had read the
announcement of your Lecture, and thought that you meant
the maturity of the subject, until my wife one day remarked,
" it is almost twenty-one years since the ' Origin ' appeared,"
and then for the first time the meaning of your words flashed
on me !

[In the above-mentioned lecture Mr. Huxley made a strong
point of the accumulation of palaeontological evidence which
the years between 1859 and 1880 have given us in favour of
Evolution. On this subject my father wrote (August 31,
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 0. 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 1 1, 1880) appeared a letter from
my father, which is, I believe, the only instance in which
he wrote publicly with anything like severity. The late
Sir Wyville Thomson wrote, in the Introduction to the
' Voyage of the Challenger ' : " The character of the abyssal
fauna refuses to give the least support to the theory which
refers the evolution of species to extreme variation guided
only by natural selection." My father, after characterising
these remarks as a "standard of criticism, not uncommonly
reached by theologians and metaphysicians," goes on to take

* Mr. Huxley has well pointed
out (' Science and Culture,' p. 317)
that : "In 1875, the discovery of
the toothed birds of the cretaceous
formation in N. America, by Prof.
Marsh, completed the series of
transitional forms between birds
and reptiles, and removed Mr.

Darwin's proposition that, 'many
animal forms of life have been
utterly lost, through which the
early progenitors of birds were
formerly connected with the early
progenitors of the other vertebrate
classes,' from the region of hypo-
thesis to that of demonstrable fact."

1 88 1.] SIR WYVILLE THOMSON. 243

exception to the term "extreme variation," and challenges
Sir Wy ville to name any one who has " said that the evolu-
tion of species depends only on natural selection." The letter
closes with an imaginary scene between Sir Wyville and a
breeder, in which Sir Wyville criticises artificial selection in
a somewhat similar manner. The breeder is silent, but on
the departure of his critic he is supposed to make use of
"emphatic but irreverent language about naturalists." The
letter, as originally written, ended with a quotation from
Sedgwick on the invulnerability of those who write on what
they do not understand, but this was omitted on the advice
of a friend, and curiously enough a friend whose combative-
ness in the good cause my father had occasionally curbed.]

C. Darwi?i to G. J. Romanes.

Down, April 16, 1881.

My DEAR ROMANES, — My MS. on 'Worms' has been sent
to the printers, so I am going to amuse myself by scribbling
to you on a few points ; but you must not waste your time
in answering at any length this scribble.

Firstly, your letter on intelligence was very useful to me
and I tore up and re-wrote what I sent to you. I have not
attempted to define intelligence ; but have quoted your
remarks on experience, and have shown how far they apply
to worms. It seems to me that they must be said to work
with some intelligence, anyhow they are not guided by a
blind instinct.

Secondly, I was greatly interested by the abstract in
1 Nature ' of your work on Echinoderms,* the complexity with
simplicity, and with such curious co-ordination of the nervous
system is marvellous ; and you showed me before what
splendid gymnastic feats they can perform.

* " On the locomotor system of and J. Cossar Evvart. ■ Philoso-
Echinoderms," by G. J. Romanes phical Transactions,' 1881, p. 829.

R 2

244 MISCELLANEA — {continued). [1881.

Thirdly, Dr. Roux has sent me a book just published by
him: ' Der Kampf der Theile,' &c., 1881 (240 pages in
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
1 Annates 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 $t/i,

1881 :—

"I read with much interest your address before the American
Association. However true your remarks on the genealogies
of the several groups may be, I hope and believe that you
have over-estimated the difficulties to be encountered in the
future : — A few days after reading your address, I interpreted

246 MISCELLANEA — (continued). [188 1.

to myself your remarks on one point (I hope in some degree
correctly) in the following fashion : —

Any character of an ancient, generalised, or intermediate
form may, and often does, re-appear in its descendants, after
countless generations, and this explains the extraordinarily
complicated affinities of existing groups. This idea seems
to me to throw a flood of light on the lines, sometimes used
to represent affinities, which radiate in all directions, often to
very distant sub-groups, — a difficulty which has haunted me
for half a century. A strong case could be made out in favour
of believing in such reversion after immense intervals of time.
I wish the idea had been put into my head in old days, for I
shall never again write on difficult subjects, as I have seen too
many cases of old men becoming feeble in their minds, without
being in the least conscious of it. If I have interpreted your
ideas at all correctly, I hope that you will re-urge, on any fitting
occasion, your view. I have mentioned it to a few persons
capable of judging, and it seemed quite new to them. I beg
you to forgive the proverbial garrulity of old age.

C. D."

[The following letter refers to Sir J. D. Hooker's Geo-
graphical address at the York Meeting (188 1) of the British
Association : ]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker,

Down, August 6, 1881.

My Dear HOOKER, — For Heaven's sake never speak of
boring me, as it would be the greatest pleasure to aid you in
the slightest degree and your letter has interested me ex-
ceedingly. I will go through your points seriatim, but I have
never attended much to the history of any subject, and my
memory has become atrociously bad. It will therefore be a
mere chance whether any of my remarks are of any use.

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). [188 1.

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.

l88l.] 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 1
But the most striking step has been the discovery of the
Glacial period : you are too young to remember the pro-
digious effect this produced about the year 1840 (?) on all our
minds. Elie de Beaumont never believed in it to the day
of his death ! the study of the glacial deposits led to the
study of the superficial drift, which was formerly never
studied and called Diluvium, as I well remember. The study
under the microscope of rock-sections is another not incon-
siderable step. So again the making out of cleavage and the
foliation of the metamorphic rocks. But I will not run on,
having now eased my mind. Pray do not waste even one
minute in acknowledging my horrid scrawls.

Ever yours,
Ch. Darwin.

[The following extracts referring to the late Francis Mait-
land Balfour,* show my father's estimate of his work and
intellectual qualities, but they give merely an indication of
his strong appreciation of Balfour's most loveable personal
character : —

From a letter to Fritz Miiller, January 5, 1882 : —
" Your appreciation of Balfour's book [4 Comparative Em-
bryology '] has pleased me excessively, for though I could not
properly judge of it, yet it seemed to me one of the most
remarkable books which have been published for some con-
siderable time. He is quite a young man, and if he keeps

* Professor of Animal Morpho- on the Aiguille Blanche, near
logy at Cambridge. He was born Courmayeur, in July, 1882.
185 1, and was killed, with his guide,

1 882.] AUTOMATISM. 25 1

his health, will do splendid work. ... He has a fair fortune

of his own, so that he can give up his whole time to Biology.

He is very modest, and very pleasant, and often visits here

and we like him very much."

From a letter to Dr. Dohrn, February 13, 1882 : —

" I have got one very bad piece of news to tell you, that

F. Balfour is very ill at Cambridge with typhoid fever. . . .

I hope that he is not in a very dangerous state ; but the

fever is severe. Good Heavens, what a loss he would be to

Science, and to his many loving friends ! "]

C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley.

Down, January 12, 1882.

My DEAR Huxley, — Very many thanks for 'Science and
Culture,' and I am sure that I shall read most of the essays
with much interest. With respect to Automatism,* I wish
that you could review yourself in the old, and of course for-
gotten, trenchant style, and then you would here answer
yourself with equal incisiveness ; and thus, by Jove, you
might go on ad infinitum, to the joy and instruction of the
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-

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

an Address given at the Belfast ' Science and Culture.'
meeting of the British Association,

252 MISCELLANEA — {continued). [1882.

has given me. I have rarely read anything which has inte-
rested me more, though I have not read as yet more than a
quarter of the book proper.

From quotations which I had seen, I had a high notion of
Aristotle's merits, but I had not the most remote notion what
a wonderful man he was. Linnasus and Cuvier have been
my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were
mere schoolboys to old Aristotle. How very curious, also,
his ignorance on some points, as on muscles as the means of
movement. I am glad that you have explained in so probable
a manner some of the grossest mistakes attributed to him. I
never realized, before reading your book, to what an enormous
summation of labour we owe even our common knowledge.
I wish old Aristotle could know what a grand Defender of
the Faith he had found in you. Believe me, my dear Dr.
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.]

* 1

Nature,' April 6, 1882.

1 882.] DR. VAN DYCK'S PAPER. 253

C. Darwin to W. Van Dyck.

Down, April 3, 1882.

DEAR Sir, — After much deliberation, I have thought it
best to send your very interesting paper to the Zoological
Society, in hopes that it will be published in their Journal.
This journal goes to every scientific institution in the world,
and the contents are abstracted in all year-books on Zoology.
Therefore I have preferred it to 'Nature,' though the latter has
a wider circulation, but is ephemeral.

I have prefaced your essay by a few general remarks, to
which I hope that you will not object.

Of course I do not know that the Zoological Society, which
is much addicted to mere systematic work, will publish your
essay. If it does, I will send you copies of your essay, but
these will not be ready for some months. If not published
by the Zoological Society, I will endeavour to get ' Nature' to
publish it. I am very anxious that it should be published
and preserved. Dear Sir,

Yours faithfully,

Ch. Darwin.

[The paper was read at a meeting of the Zoological Society
on April 18th — the day before my father's death.

The preliminary remarks with which Dr. Van Dyck's paper
is prefaced are thus the latest of my father's writings. ]

We must now return to an early period of his life, and give
a connected account of his botanical work, which has hitherto
been omitted.

( 254 )

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, 186 1, speaking of his book on the 'Ferti-
lisation of Orchids/ he says : " It will perhaps serve to
illustrate how Natural History may be worked under the
belief of the modification of species." This remark gives a
suggestion as to the value and interest of his botanical work,
and it might be expressed in far more emphatic language
without danger of exaggeration.

In the same letter to Mr. Murray, he says : " I think this
little volume will do good to the ' Origin,' as it will show that
I have worked hard at details." It is true that his botanical
work added a mass of corroborative detail to the case for
Evolution, but the chief support to his doctrines given by
these researches was of another kind. They supplied an
argument against those critics who have so freely dogmatised
as to the uselessness of particular structures, and as to the
consequent impossibility of their having been developed by
means of natural selection. His observations on Orchids
enabled him to say : " I can show the meaning of some of
the apparently meaningless ridges, horns ; who will now

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 14th, 1862):—

"When many parts of structure, as in the woodpecker,
show distinct adaptation to external bodies, it is preposterous
to attribute them to the effects of climate, &c, but when a
single point alone, as a hooked seed, it is conceivable it may
thus have arisen. I have found the study of Orchids emi-
nently useful in showing me how nearly all parts of the flower
are co-adapted for fertilisation by insects, and therefore the
results of natural selection, — even the most trifling details of
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 d priori arguments. Even as late as 1820, a book of
this kind, which would now rank with circle squaring, or flat-
earth philosophy, was seriously noticed in a botanical journal.

A distinct conception of sex as applied to plants had not
long emerged from the mists of profitless discussion and
feeble experiment, at the time when my father began botany
by attending Henslow's lectures at Cambridge.

When the belief in the sexuality of plants had become
established as an incontrovertible piece of knowledge, a
weight of misconception remained, weighing down any
rational view of the subject. Camerarius * believed (naturally
enough in his day) that hermaphrodite flowers are necessarily
self-fertilised. He had the wit to be astonished at this, a
degree of intelligence which, as Sachs points out, the majority
of his successors did not attain to.

The following extracts from a note-book show that this
point occurred to my father as early as 1837 : —

" Do not plants which have male and female organs
together [i.e. in the same flower] yet receive influence from
other plants ? Does not Lyell give some argument about
varieties being difficult to keep [true] on account of pollen
from other plants ? Because this may be applied to show all
plants do receive intermixture."

Sprengel, f indeed, understood that the hermaphrodite
structure of flowers by no means necessarily leads to self-
fertilisation. But although he discovered that in many cases
pollen is of necessity carried to the stigma of another flower,
he did not understand that in the advantage gained by the

* Sachs, ' Geschichte,' p. 419.

t Christian Conrad Sprengel, born 1750, died 1816.

VOL. III. S

2$8 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. \ The book
impressed him as being " full of truth," although " with some
little nonsense." It not only encouraged him in kindred
speculation, but guided him in his work, for in 1844 he
speaks of verifying Sprengel's observations. It may be
doubted whether Robert Brown ever planted a more fruitful
seed than in putting such a book into such hands.

A passage in the * Autobiography ' (vol. i. p. 90) shows
how it was that my father was attracted to the subject of
fertilisation: "During the summer of 1839, and I believe
during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the
cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from
having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the
origin of species, that crossing played an important part in
keeping specific forms constant."

The original connection between the study of flowers and
the problem of Evolution is curious, and could hardly have
been predicted. Moreover, it was not a permanent bond.

* ' Nature,' 1874, p. 80. Natur im Baue und in der Befruch-

f 'Das entdeckte Geheimniss der tung der Blumen.' Berlin, 1793.

1857.] OF FLOWERS. 259

As soon as the idea arose that the offspring of cross-
fertilisation is, in the struggle for life, likely to conquer the
seedlings of self-fertilised parentage, a far more vigorous
belief in the potency of natural selection in moulding the
structure of flowers is attained. A central idea is gained
towards which experiment and observation may be directed.

Dr. Gray has well remarked with regard to this central idea
(' Nature,' June 4, 1874) : — "The aphorism, ' Nature abhors a
vacuum,' is a characteristic specimen of the science of the
middle ages. The aphorism, ' Nature abhors close fertilisa-
tion,' and the demonstration of the principle, belong to our
age and to Mr. Darwin. To have originated this, and also
the principle of Natural Selection .... and to have applied
these principles to the system of nature, in such a manner as
to make, within a dozen years, a deeper impression upon
natural history than has been made since Linnaeus, is ample
title for one man's fame."

The flowers of the Papilionaceae attracted his attention
early, and were the subject of his first paper on fertilisation.*
The following extract from an undated letter to Dr. Asa
Gray seems to have been written before the publication of
this paper, probably in 1856 or 1857 : —

" . . . . What you say on Papilionaceous flowers is very
true ; and I have no facts to show that varieties are crossed ;
but yet (and the same remark is applicable in a beautiful way
to Fumaria and Dielytra, as I noticed many years ago), I
must believe that the flowers are constructed partly in direct
relation to the visits of insects ; and how insects can avoid
bringing pollen from other individuals I cannot understand.
It is really pretty to watch the action of a Humble-bee on
the scarlet kidney bean, and in this genus (and in Lathyrus

* Gardeners* Chronicle, 1857, founded leguminous paper was done

p. 725. It appears that this paper in the afternoon, and the conse-

was a piece of " over-time " work. quence was I had to go to Moor

He wrote to a friend, " that con- Park for a week."

S 2

260 FERTILISATION [1857.

grandiflorus) the honey is so placed that the bee invariably
alights on that one side of the flower towards which the spiral
pistil is protruded (bringing out with it pollen), and by the
depression of the wing-petal is forced against the bee's side
all dusted with pollen.* In the broom the pistil is rubbed on
the centre of the back of the bee. I suspect there is some-
thing to be made out about the Leguminosae, which will
bring the case within our theory ; though I have failed to do
so. Our theory will explain why in the vegetable and ani-
mal kingdom the act of fertilisation even in hermaphrodites
usually takes place sub-jove, though thus exposed to great
injury from damp and rain. In animals which cannot
be [fertilised] by insects or wind, there is no case of land-
animals being hermaphrodite without the concourse of two
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 d^ily just
momentarily moved, as if by a bee ; these set three fine
pods, the other not one. Of course this little experiment
must be tried again, and this year in England it is too late,
as the flowers seem now seldom to set. If bees are neces-
sary to this flower's self-fertilisation, bees must almost cross
them, as their dusted right-side of head and right legs
constantly touch the stigma.

"I have, also, lately been re-observing daily Lobelia fulgens
— this in my garden is never visited by insects, and never sets

* If you will look at a bed of alone are all scratched by the tarsi
scarlet kidney beans you will find of the bees. [Note in the original
that the wing-petals on the left side letter by C. Darwin.]

1858.] OF FLOWERS. 261

seeds, without pollen be put on the stigma (whereas the small
blue Lobelia is visited by bees and does set seed) ; I mention
this because there are such beautiful contrivances to prevent
the stigma ever getting its own pollen ; which seems only
explicable on the doctrine of the advantage of crosses."

The paper was supplemented by a second in 1858.* The
chief object of these publications seems to have been to
obtain information as to the possibility of growing varieties
of leguminous plants near each other, and yet keeping
them true. It is curious that the Papilionacese should not
only have been the first flowers which attracted his attention
by their obvious adaptation to the visits of insects, but should
also have constituted one of his sorest puzzles. The common
pea and the sweet pea gave him much difficulty, because,
although they are as obviously fitted for insect-visits as the
rest of the order, yet their varieties keep true. The fact is
that neither of these plants being indigenous, they are not
perfectly adapted for fertilisation by British insects. He
could not, at this stage of his observations, know that the
co-ordination between a flower and the particular insect
which fertilises it may be as delicate as that between a lock
and its key, so that this explanation was not likely to occur
to him.f

Besides observing the Leguminosae, he had already begun,
as shown in the foregoing extracts, to attend to the structure
of other flowers in relation to insects. At the beginning of
i860 he worked at Leschenaultia,J which at first puzzled him,

* Gardeners' Chronicle, 1858, in the habits of insects. He pub-

p. 828. In 1 86 1 another paper on lished a short note in the Entomo-

Fertilisation appeared in the Gar- logisfs Weekly Intelligencer, i860,

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. i87i,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 i860 that he began widely to apply his know-
ledge to the relation of insects to other flowers. This is
somewhat surprising, when we remember that he had read
Sprengel many years before. He wrote (May 14) : —

" I should look at this curious contrivance as specially
related to visits of insects ; as I begin to think is almost
universally the case."

Even in July 1862 he wrote to Dr. Asa Gray : — ■

"There is no end to the adaptations. Ought not these
cases to make one very cautious when one doubts about the
use of all parts? I fully believe that the structure of all
irregular flowers is governed in relation to insects. Insects
are the Lords of the floral (to quote the witty Atheiiceuni)
world."

He was probably attracted to the study of Orchids by
the fact that several kinds are common near Down. The
letters of i860 show that these plants occupied a good deal of
his attention; and in 1861 he gave part of the summer , and
all the autumn to the subject. He evidently considered
himself idle for wasting time on Orchids which ought to
have been given to ' Variation under Domestication.' Thus
he wrote : —

" There is to me incomparably more interest in observing
than in writing ; but I feel quite guilty in trespassing on
these subjects, and not sticking to varieties of the con-
founded cocks, hens and ducks. I hear that Lyell is savage
at me. I shall never resist Linum next summer."

It was in the summer of i860 that he made out one of the
most striking and familiar facts in the book, namely, the
manner in which the pollen masses in Orchis are adapted
for removal by insects. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker
July 12 : —

" I have been examining Orchis pyramidalis, and it almost

i860.] of flowers. 263

equals, perhaps even beats, your Listera case ; the sticky-
glands are congenitally united into a saddle-shaped organ,
which has great power of movement, and seizes hold of
a bristle (or proboscis) in an admirable manner, and then
another movement takes place in the pollen masses, by
which they are beautifully adapted to leave pollen on the
two lateral stigmatic surfaces. I never saw anything so
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, i860 : —

" Talking of adaptation, I have lately been looking at our
common orchids, and I dare say the facts are as old and well-
known as the hills, but I have been so struck with admiration
at the contrivances, that I have sent a notice to the Gardeners*
Chronicle. The Ophrys apifera, offers, as you will see, a curious
contradiction in structure."

Besides attending to the fertilisation of the flowers he was
already, in i860, busy with the homologies of the parts, a

* June 9,1860. This seems to was reprinted in the Entomologisfs
have attracted some attention, es- Weekly Intelligencer, i860,
pecially among entomologists, as it

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 Criiger's letters from Trinidad,
he wrote : — " Happy man, he has actually seen crowds of
bees flying round Catasetum, with the pollinia sticking to
their backs !"

l86l.] OF FLOWERS. 265

The following extracts of letters to Sir J. D. Hooker illus-
trate further the interest which his work excited in him : —

" Veitch sent me a grand lot this morning. What wonderful
structures !

" I have now seen enough, and you must not send me more,
for though I enjoy looking at them much, and it has been
very useful to me, seeing so many different forms, it is
idleness. For my object each species requires studying for
days. I wish you had time to take up the group. I would
give a good deal to know what the rostellum is, of which I have
traced so many curious modifications. I suppose it cannot be
one of the stigmas,* there seems a great tendency for two
lateral stigmas to appear. My paper, though touching on
only subordinate points will run, I fear, to 100 MS. folio
pages ! The beauty of the adaptation of parts seems to me
unparalleled. I should think or guess waxy pollen was most
differentiated. In Cypripedium which seems least modified,
and a much exterminated group, the grains are single. In
all others, as far as I have seen, they are in packets of four ;
and these packets cohere into many wedge-formed masses in
Orchis ; into eight, four, and finally two. It seems curious
that a flower should exist, which could at most fertilise only
two other flowers, seeing how abundant pollen generally is ;
this fact I look at as explaining the perfection of the con-
trivance by which the pollen, so important from its fewness,
is carried from flower to flower" (1861).

" I was thinking of writing to you to-day, when your note
with the Orchids came. What frightful trouble you have
taken about Vanilla ; you really must not take an atom
more ; for the Orchids are more play than real work. I have
been much interested by Epidendrum, and have worked all
morning at them ; for heaven's sake, do not corrupt me by
any more" (August 30, 1861).

* It is a modification of the upper stigma.

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, 1 861, he writes : —

" I have been acting, I fear that you will think, like a goose ;
and perhaps in truth I have. When I finished a few days
ago my Orchis paper, which turns out 140 folio pages ! ! and
thought of the expense of woodcuts, I said to myself, I will
offer the Linnean Society to withdraw it, and publish it in a
pamphlet. It then flashed on me that perhaps Murray would
publish it, so I gave him a cautious description, and offered
to share risks and profits. This morning he writes that he
will publish and take all risks, and share profits and pay for
all illustrations. It is a risk, and heaven knows whether it
will not be a dead failure, but I have not deceived Murray,
and [have] told him that it would interest those alone who
cared much for natural history. I hope I do not exaggerate
the curiosity of the many special contrivances."

He wrote the two following letters to Mr. Murray about
the publication of the book :]

Down, Sept. 21 [1861].

My DEAR Sir, — Will you have the kindness to give me
your opinion, which I shall implicitly follow. I have just
finished a very long paper intended for Linnean Society
(the title is enclosed), and yesterday for the first time it
occurred to me that possibly it might be worth publishing
separately, which would save me trouble and delay. The
facts are new, and have been collected during twenty years
and strike me as curious. Like a Bridgewater treatise, the
chief object is to show the perfection of the many contrivances
in Orchids. The subject of propagation is interesting to
most people, and is treated in my paper so that any woman
could read it. Parts are dry and purely scientific ; but I

1 86 1.] OF FLOWERS. 267

think my paper would interest a good many of such persons
who care for Natural History, but no others.

... It would be a very little book, and I believe you think
very little books objectionable. I have myself great doubts
on the subject. I am very apt to think that my geese are
swans ; but the subject seems to me curious and interesting.

I beg you not to be guided in the least in order to oblige
me, but as far as you can judge, please give me your opinion.
If I were to publish separately, I would agree to any terms,
such as half risk and half profit, or what you liked ; but I
would not publish on my sole risk, for to be frank, I have
been told that no publisher whatever, under such circum-
stances, cares for the success of a book.

C. Darwin to J. Murray.

Down, Sept. 24 [1861].

MY DEAR Sir, — I am very much obliged for your note and
very liberal offer. I have had some qualms and fears. All
that I can feel sure of is that the MS. contains many new and
curious facts, and I am sure the Essay would have interested
me, and will interest those who feel lively interest in the
wonders of nature ; but how far the public will care for such
minute details, I cannot at all tell. It is a bold experiment ;
and at worst, cannot entail much loss ; as a certain amount
of sale will, I think, be pretty certain. A large sale is out of
the question. As far as I can judge, generally the points
which interest me I find interest others ; but I make the
experiment with fear and trembling, — not for my own sake,
but for yours. . . .

[On Sept. 28th he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : —

" What a good soul you are not to sneer at me, but to pat
me on the back. I have the greatest doubt whether I am not
going to do, in publishing my paper, a most ridiculous thing.

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. 13th he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker : —

" It seems that I cannot exhaust your good nature. I
have had the hardest day's work at Catasetum and buds of
Mormodes, and believe I understand at last the mechanism of
movements and the functions. Catasetum is a beautiful case
of slight modification of structure leading to new functions. I
never was more interested in any subject in my life than in
this of Orchids. I owe very much to you."

Again to the same friend, Nov. 1, 1 861 : —

" If you really can spare another Catasetum, when nearly
ready, I shall be most grateful ; had I not better send for it ?
The case is truly marvellous ; the (so-called) sensation, or
stimulus from a light touch is certainly transmitted through
the antennae for more than one inch instantaneously. ... A
cursed insect or something let my last flower off last night."

Professor de Candolle has remarked * of my father, " Ce
n'est pas lui qui aurait demande de constrUrre des palais
pour y loger des laboratoires." This was singularly true of
his orchid work, or rather it would be nearer the truth to say
that he had no laboratory, for it was only after the publication

* ' Darwin consider^, &c.,' ' Ar- Naturelles,' 3 erne pe'riode. Tome
chives des Sciences Physiques et vii. 481, 1882 (May).

1 86 1.] OF FLOWERS. 269

of the ' Fertilisation of Orchids/ that he built himself a green-
house. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (Dec. 24th, 1862) : —

" And now I am going to tell you a most important piece
of news ! ! I have almost resolved to build a small hot-house ;
my neighbour's really first-rate gardener has suggested it,
and offered to make me plans, and see that it is well done,
and he is really a clever fellow, who wins lots of prizes, and
is very observant. He believes that we should succeed with
a little patience ; it will be a grand amusement for me to
experiment with plants."

Again he wrote (Feb. 15th, 1863) : —

" I write now because the new hot-house is ready, and I
long to stock it, just like a schoolboy. Could you tell me
pretty soon what plants you can give me ; and then I shall
know what to order ? And do advise me how I had better
get such plants as you can spare. Would it do to send my
tax-cart early in the morning, on a day that was not frosty,
lining the cart with mats, and arriving here before night?
I have no idea whether this degree of exposure (and of course
the cart would be cold) could injure stove-plants ; they would
be about five hours (with bait) on the journey home."

A week later he wrote : —

" You cannot imagine what pleasure your plants give
me (far more than your dead Wedgwood ware can give you) ;
H. and I go and gloat over them, but we privately confessed
to each other, that if they were not our own, perhaps we
should not see such transcendent beauty in each leaf."

And in March, when he was extremely unwell he wrote : —

" A few words about the Stove-plants ; they do so amuse
me. I have crawled to see them two or three times. Will
you correct and answer, and return enclosed. I have hunted
in all my books and cannot find these names,* and I like
much to know the family."

* His difficulty with regard to with regard to a Lupine on which
the names of plants is illustrated, he was at work, in an extract from

270

FERTILISATION

[1862.

The book was published May 15th, 1862. Of its reception
he writes to Mr. Murray, June 13th and 18th : —

" The Botanists praise my Orchid-book to the skies. Some
one sent me (perhaps you) the ' Parthenon,' with a good review.
The Athenceum * treats me with very kind pity and contempt ;
but the reviewer knew nothing of his subject."

" There is a superb, but I fear exaggerated, review in the
' London Review.' f But I have not been a fool, as I thought
I was, to publish ; % for Asa Gray, about the most competent
judge in the world, thinks almost as highly of the book as
does the 'London Review.' The Athenceum will hinder the
sale greatly."

The Rev. M. J. Berkeley was the author of the notice
in the 'London Review,' as my father learned from Sir J.
D. Hooker, who added, " I thought it very well done indeed.
I have read a good deal of the Orchid-book, and echo all
he says."

To this my father replied (June 30th, 1862): —

" My dear Old Friend, — You speak of my warming the
cockles of your heart, but you will never know how often you
have warmed mine. It is not your approbation of my scien-
tific work (though I care for that more than for any one's) : it
is something deeper. To this day I remember keenly a letter
you wrote to me from Oxford, when I was at the Water-cure,
and how it cheered me when I was utterly weary of life.

a letter (July 21, 1866) to Sir J. D.
Hooker : "I sent to the nursery-
garden, whence I bought the seed,
and could only hear that it was
' the common blue Lupine,' the man
saying 'he was no scholard, and
did not know Latin, and that parties
who make experiments ought to
find out the names.' "

* May 24, 1862.

f June 14, 1862.

% Doubts on this point still, how-
ever, occurred to him about this
time. He wrote to Prof. Oliver
(June 8) : " I am glad that you have
read my Orchis-book and seem to
approve of it ; for I never published
anything which I so much doubted
whether it was worth publishing,
and indeed I still doubt. The sub-
ject interested me beyond what, I
suppose, it is worth."

1 862.] OF FLOWERS. 27 1

Well, my Orchis-book is a success (but I do not know
whether it sells)."

In another letter to the same friend, he wrote : —
" You have pleased me much by what you say in regard to
Bentham and Oliver approving of my book ; for I had got a
sort of nervousness, and doubted whether I had not made an
egregious fool of myself, and concocted pleasant little stinging
remarks for reviews, such as ' Mr. Darwin's head seems to have
been turned by a certain degree of success, and he thinks that
the most trifling observations are worth publication.' "

Mr. Bentham's approval was given in his Presidential
Address to the Linnean Society, May 24, 1862, and was
all the more valuable, because it came from one who was
by no means supposed to be favourable to Evolutionary
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 1 8th and 26th has given me an almost foolish
amount of satisfaction. The subject interested me, I knew,
beyond its real value ; but I had lately got to think that I had
made myself a complete fool by publishing in a semi-popular
form. Now I shall confidently defy the world. I have heard
that Bentham and Oliver approve of it ; but I have heard the
opinion of no one else whose opinion is worth a farthing. . . .
No doubt my volume contains much error : how curiously
difficult it is to be accurate, though I try my utmost. Your
notes have interested me beyond measure. I can now afford
to d — my critics with ineffable complacency of mind. Cordial
thanks for this benefit. It is surprising to me that you should
have strength of mind to care for science, amidst the awful
events daily occurring in your country. I daily look at the
Times with almost as much interest as an American could do.

272 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 Platantliera hyperborea> are much too good
to be merged in a review. But I have always noticed that
you are prodigal in originality in your reviews. . . .

[Sir Joseph Hooker reviewed the book in the Gardeners'
Chronicle, writing in a successful imitation of the style of
Lindley, the Editor. My father wrote to Sir Joseph (Nov. 12,
1862) :—

" So you did write the review in the Gardeners' Chronicle.
Once or twice I doubted whether it was Lindley ; but when
I came to a little slap at R. Brown, I doubted no longer.
You arch-rogue ! I do not wonder you have deceived others
also. Perhaps I am a conceited dog ; but if so, you have
much to answer for ; I never received so much praise, and
coming from you I value it much more than from any other."

With regard to botanical opinion generally, he wrote to
Dr. Gray, " I am fairly astonished at the success of my book
with botanists." Among naturalists who were not botanists,
Lyell was pre-eminent in his appreciation of the book. I have
no means of knowing when he read it, but in later life, as
I learn from Professor Judd, he was enthusiastic in praise of
the ' Fertilisation of Orchids,' which he considered " next to
the * Origin,' as the most valuable of all Darwin's works."
Among the general public the author did not at first hear
of many disciples, thus he wrote to his cousin Fox in
September 1862 : " Hardly any one not a botanist, except
yourself, as far as I know, has cared for it."

VOL. III. T

2/4 FERTILISATION [1862.

A favourable notice appeared in the Saturday Review,
October 1 8th, 1 862 ; the reviewer points out that the book would
escape the angry polemics aroused by the ( Origin.' * This is
illustrated by a review in the Literary Churchman, in which
only one fault is found, namely, that Mr. Darwin's expression
of admiration at the contrivances in orchids is too indirect a
way of saying, " O Lord, how manifold are Thy works ! "

A somewhat similar criticism occurs in the i Edinburgh
Review ' (October 1 862). The writer points out that Mr. Darwin
constantly uses phrases, such as " beautiful contrivance," " the
labellum is . . . in order to attract," " the nectar is purposely
lodged." The Reviewer concludes his discussion thus : " We
know, too, that these purposes and ideas are not our own,
but the ideas and purposes of Another."

The 'Edinburgh' reviewer's treatment of his subject was
criticised in the Saturday Review, November 15th, 1862. With
reference to this article my father wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker
(December 29th, 1862) : —

" Here is an odd chance ; my nephew Henry Parker, an
Oxford Classic, and Fellow of Oriel, came here this evening ;
and I asked him whether he knew who had written the little
article in the Saturday, smashing the [Edinburgh reviewer],
which we liked ; and after a little hesitation he owned he
had. I never knew that he wrote in the Saturday ; and was
it not an odd chance ?"

The ' Edinburgh ' article was written by the Duke of
Argyll, and has since been made use of in his * Reign of Law,'
1867. Mr. Wallace replied f to the Duke's criticisms, making
some especially good remarks on those which refer to orchids.
He shows how, by a " beautiful self-acting adjustment," the
nectary of the orchid Angraecum (from 10 to 14 inches in

* Dr. Gray pointed out that if matised by the natural theologians,
the Orchid-book (with a few trifling f ' Quarterly Journal of Science,'

omissions) had appeared before the October 1867. Republished in

'Origin/ the author would have ' Natural Selection/ 187 1.
been canonised rather than anathe-

1 862.] OF FLOWERS. 275

length), and the proboscis of a moth sufficiently long to reach
the nectar, might be developed by natural selection. He goes
on to point out that on any other theory we must suppose
that the flower was created with an enormously long nectary,
and that then by a special act, an insect was created fitted to
visit the flower, which would otherwise remain sterile. With re-
gard to this point my father wrote (October 12 or 13, 1867) : —

" I forgot to remark how capitally you turn the tables on
the Duke, when you make him create the Angrsecum and
Moth by special creation."

If we examine the literature relating to the fertilisation of
flowers, we do not find that this new branch of study showed
any great activity immediately after the publication of the
Orchid-book. There are a few papers by Asa Gray, in 1862
and 1863, by Hildebrand in 1864, and by Moggridge in 1865,
but the great mass of work by Axell, Delpino, Hildebrand,
and the Miillers, did not begin to appear until about 1867.
The period during which the new views were being assimi-
lated, and before they became thoroughly fruitful, was, how-
ever, surprisingly short. The later activity in this depart-
ment may be roughly gauged by the fact that the valuable
' Bibliography,' given by Prof. D'Arcy Thompson in his
translation of Muller's ' Befruchtung ' (1883), contains refer-
ences to 814 papers.

Besides the book on Orchids, my father wrote two or three
papers on the subject, which will be found mentioned in the
Appendix. The earliest of these, on the three sexual forms
of Catasetum, was published in 1862 ; it is an anticipation
of part of the Orchid-book, and was merely published in the
Linnean Society's Journal, in acknowledgment of the use
made of a specimen in the Society's possession. The possi-
bility of apparently distinct species being merely sexual forms
of a single species, suggested a characteristic experiment,
which is alluded to in the following letter to one of his earliest
disciples in the study of the fertilisation of flowers :]

T 2

276 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. 277

PS. — I send by this post my paper on climbing plants, parts
of which you might like to read.

[Sir Thomas Farrer and Dr. W. Ogle were also guided and
encouraged by my father in their observations. The following
refers to a paper by Sir Thomas Farrer, in the 'Annals and
Magazine of Natural History,' 1868, on the fertilisation of
the Scarlet Runner :]

C. Darwin to T. H. Farrer.

Down, Sept. 15, 1868.

My dear Mr. Farrer, — I grieve to say that the main
features of your case are known. I am the sinner and de-
scribed them some ten years ago. But I overlooked many
details, as the appendage to the single stamen, and several
other points. I send my notes, but I must beg for their
return, as I have no other copy. I quite agree, the facts are
most striking, especially as you put them. Are you sure that
the Hive-bee is the cutter ? it is against my experience.
If sure, make the point more prominent, or if not sure, erase
it. I do not think the subject is quite new enough for the
Linnean Society ; but I dare say the ' Annals and Magazine
of Natural History,' or Gardeners' Chronicle would gladly
publish your observations, and it is a great pity they should
be lost. If you like I would send your paper to either
quarter with a note. In this case you must give a title,
and your name, and perhaps it would be well to premise
your remarks with a line of reference to my paper stating
that you had observed independently and more fully.

I have read my own paper over after an interval of several
years, and am amused at the caution with which I put the
case that the final end was for crossing distinct individuals, of
which I was then as fully convinced as now, but I knew that
the doctrine would shock all botanists. Now the opinion is
becoming familiar.

2^8 FERTILISATION [1868.

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 Leguminosa^, or the hairs within the corolla,
&c. &c. Looking to your note, I think that this is perhaps
the plan which you suggest.

It is well to remember that Naturalists value observations

* Dr. W. Ogle, the observer of gratefully to his relationship with

the fertilisation of Salvia here my father in the introduction to

alluded to, published his results in his translation of Kerner's ' Flowers

the 'Pop. Science Review,' 1869. and their Unbidden Guests.'
He refers both gracefully and

1 868.] OF FLOWERS. 279

far more than reasoning ; therefore your conclusions should
be as often as possible fortified by noticing how insects actu-
ally do the work."

In 1869, Sir Thomas Farrer corresponded with my father
on the fertilisation of Passiflora and of Tacsonia. He has
given me his impressions of the correspondence : — ■

" I had suggested that the elaborate series of chevaux-dc-
frise, by which the nectary of the common Passiflora is
guarded, were specially calculated to protect the flower from
the stiff-beaked humming birds which would not fertilize it,
and to facilitate the access of the little proboscis of the
humble bee, which would do so ; whilst, on the other hand, the
long pendent tube and flexible valve-like corona which retains
the nectar of Tacsonia would shut out the bee, which would
not, and admit the humming bird which would, fertilize that
flower. The suggestion is very possibly worthless, and could
only be verified or refuted by examination of flowers in the
countries where they grow naturally. . . . What interested
me was to see that on this as on almost any other point of
detailed observation, Mr. Darwin could always say, 'Yes;
but at one time I made some observations myself on this
particular point ; and I think you will find, &c. &c.' That
he should after years of interval remember that he had
noticed the peculiar structure to which I was referring in the
Passiflora princeps struck me at the time as very remark-
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 [l866.

good instance of this, and Treviranus threw this order in my
teeth ; but in Corydalis, Hildebrand shows how utterly false
the idea of self-fertilisation is. This author's paper on Salvia
is really worth reading, and I have observed some species,
and know that he is accurate."

The next letter refers to Professor Hildebrand's paper on
Corydalis, published in the 'Proc. Internat. Hort. Congress/
London, 1866, and in Pringsheim's * Jahrbucher,' vol. v. The
memoir on Salvia alluded to is contained in the previous
volume of the same Journal :]

C. Darwin to F. Hildebrand*

Down, May 16 [1866].

My DEAR Sir, — The state of my health prevents my attend-
ing the Hort. Congress ; but I forwarded yesterday your paper
to the secretary, and if they are not overwhelmed with papers,
yours will be gladly received. I have made many observa-
tions on the Fumariaceae, and convinced myself that they were
adapted for insect agency ; but I never observed anything
nearly so curious as your most interesting facts. I hope you
will repeat your experiments on the Corydalis on a larger
scale, and especially on several distinct plants ; for your
plant might have been individually peculiar, like certain indi-
vidual plants of Lobelia, &c, described by Gartner, and of
Passiflora and Orchids described by Mr. Scott. . . .

Since writing to you before, I have read your admirable
memoir on Salvia, and it has interested me almost as much as
when I first investigated the structure of Orchids. Your
paper illustrates several points in my ' Origin of Species,'
especially the transition of organs. Knowing only two or
three species in the genus, I had often marvelled how one
cell of the anther could have been transformed into the mov-
able plate or spoon ; and how well you show the gradations ;

* Professor of Botany at Freiburg.

1 873-] OF FLOWERS. 28 1

but I am surprised that you did not more strongly insist on
this point.

I shall be still more surprised if you do not ultimately
come to the same belief with me, as shown by so many beau-
tiful contrivances, that all plants require, from some unknown
cause, to be occasionally fertilized by pollen from a distinct
individual. With sincere respect, believe me, my dear Sir,

Yours very faithfully,

Ch. Darwin.

[The following letter refers to the late Hermann M tiller's
* Befruchtung der Blumen,' by far the most valuable of the
mass of literature originating in the ' Fertilisation of Orchids.'
An English translation, by Prof. D'Arcy Thompson was pub-
lished in 1883. My father's " Prefatory Notice " to this work
is dated February 6, 1882, and is therefore almost the last of
his writings :]

C, Darwin to H. Miiller.

Down, May 5, 1873.

My DEAR Sir, — Owing to all sorts of interruptions and to
my reading German so slowly, I have read only to p. 88 of
your book ; but I must have the pleasure of telling you how
very valuable a work it appears to me. Independently of the
many original observations, which of course form the most
important part, the work will be of the highest use as a means
of reference to all that has been done on the subject. I am
fairly astonished at the number of species of insects, the visits
of which to different flowers you have recorded. You must
have worked in the most indefatigable manner. About half a
year ago the editor of ' Nature' suggested that it would be a
grand undertaking if a number of naturalists were to do what
you have already done on so large a scale with respect to the
visits of insects. I have been particularly glad to read your
historical sketch, for I had never before seen all the references

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.

1 874.] OF FLOWERS. 283

Lastly, permit me to thank you for your very generous
remarks on my works. By placing what I have been able to
do on this subject in systematic order, you have made me
think more highly of my own work than I ever did before !
Nevertheless, I fear that you have done me more than justice.
I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully and obliged,

Charles Darwin.

[The letter which follows was called forth by Dr. Gray's
article in ' Nature/ to which reference has already been made,
and which appeared June 4, 1874 :]

C. Darzuin to Asa Gray.

Down, June 3 [1874].

My DEAR Gray, — I was rejoiced to see your handwriting
again in your note of the 4th, of which more anon. I was
astonished to see announced about a week ago that you were
going to write in ' Nature ' an article on me, and this morning
I received an advance copy. It is the grandest thing ever
written about me, especially as coming from a man like
yourself. It has deeply pleased me, particularly some of
your side remarks. It is a wonderful thing to me to live to
see my name coupled in any fashion with that of Robert
Brown. But you are a bold man, for I am sure that you
will be sneered at by not a few botanists. I have never been
so honoured before, and I hope it will do me good and make
me try to be as careful as possible ; and good heavens, how
difficult accuracy is ! I feel a very proud man, but I hope
this won't last. . . .

[Fritz Miiller has observed that the flowers of Hedychium
are so arranged that the pollen is removed by the wings of
hovering butterflies. My father's prediction of this observa-
tion is given in the following letter : — ]

284 FERTILISATION [1876.

C. Darwin to H. Midler.

Down, August 7, 1876.

.... I was much interested by your brother's article on
Hedychium ; about two years ago I was so convinced that
the flowers were fertilized by the tips of the wings of large
moths, that I wrote to India to ask a man to observe the
flowers and catch the moths at work, and he sent me 20 to
30 Sphinx-moths, but so badly packed that they all arrived in
fragments ; and I could make out nothing. . . .

Yours sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

[The following extract from a letter (Feb. 25, 1864), to
Dr. Gray refers to another prediction fulfilled : —

" I have of course seen no one, and except good dear
Hooker, I hear from no one. He, like a good and true friend,
though so overworked, often writes to me.

" I have had one letter which has interested me greatly,
with a paper, which will appear in the Linnean Journal, by
Dr. Criiger of Trinidad, which shows that I am all right about
Catasetum, even to the spot where the pollinia adhere to the
bees, which visit the flower, as I said, to gnaw the labellum.
Cruger's account of Coryanthes and the use of the bucket-like
labellum full of water beats everything : I suspect that the
bees being well wetted flattens their hairs, and allows the
viscid disc to adhere."]

C. Darwin to the Margins de Saporta.

Down, December 24, 1877.

My DEAR Sir, — I thank you sincerely for your long and
most interesting letter, which I should have answered sooner
had it not been delayed in London. I had not heard before
that I was to be proposed as a Corresponding Member of
the Institute. Living so retired a life as I do, such honours

1 877.] OF FLOWERS. 285

affect me very little, and I can say with entire truth that your
kind expression of sympathy has given and will give me
much more pleasure than the election itself, should I be
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 gramineae and
other anemophilous monocotyledons ; and I do not suppose
that any evidence on this head exists.

Your suggestion of studying the manner of fertilisation of
the surviving members of the most ancient forms of the
dicotyledons is a very good one, and I hope that you will
keep it in mind yourself, for I have turned my attention to
other subjects. Delpino I think says that Magnolia is fertil-
ised by insects which gnaw the petals, and I should not be
surprised if the same fact holds good with Nymphaea.
Whenever I have looked at the flowers of these latter plants
I have felt inclined to admit the view that petals are modified
stamens, and not modified leaves ; though Poinsettia seems
to show that true leaves might be converted into coloured
petals. I grieve to say that I have never been properly
grounded in Botany and have studied only special points —
therefore I cannot pretend to express any opinion on your
remarks on the origin of the flowers of the Coniferae, Gneta-

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,
1878 :— ]

My dear Dyer, — Thalia dealbata was sent me from Kew :
it has flowered and after looking casually at the flowers, they
have driven me almost mad, and I have worked at them for
a week : it is as grand a case as that of Catasetum.

i8yS.] of flowers. 287

Pistil vigorously motile (so that whole flower shakes when
pistil suddenly coils up) ; when excited by a touch the two
filaments [are] produced laterally and transversely across the
flower (just over the nectar) from one of the petals or modi-
fied stamens. It is splendid to watch the phenomenon under
a weak power when a bristle is inserted into a young flower
which no insect has visited, As far as I know Stylidium is the
sole case of sensitive pistil and here it is the pistil -f stamens.
In Thalia * cross-fertilisation is ensured by the wonderful
movement, if bees visit several flowers.

I have now relieved my mind and will tell the purport of
this note — viz. if any other species of Thalia besides T. deal-
bata should flower with you, for the love of heaven and all
the saints, send me a few in tin box with damp moss.

Your insane friend,

Ch. Darwin.

[In 1878 Dr. Ogle's translation of Kerner's interesting
book, ' Flowers and their Unbidden Guests,' was published.
My father, who felt much interest in the translation (as
appears in the following letter), contributed some prefatory
words of approval :]

C. Darwin to W. Ogle.

Down, December 16 [1878].

.... I have now read Kerner's book, which is better
even than I anticipated. The translation seems to me as
clear as daylight, and written in forcible and good familiar
English. I am rather afraid that it is too good for the
English public, which seems to like very washy food, unless
it be administered by some one whose name is well known,
and then I suspect a good deal of the unintelligible is very
pleasing to them. I hope to heaven that I may be wrong.

* Hildebrand has described an the Maranteae — the tribe to which
explosive arrangement in some of Thalia belongs.

288 FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS. [1880.

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.' 1 876. i

[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. III. 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 11, 1873)
mentions the progress of the work : —

U 2

292 THE 'EFFECTS OF CROSS- [1876.

"I worked last summer hard at Drosera, but could not
finish till I got fresh plants, and consequently took up the
effects of crossing and self-fertilising plants, and am got so
interested that Drosera must go to the dogs till I finish with
this, and get it published ; but then I will resume my beloved
Drosera, and I heartily apologise for having sent the precious
little things even for a moment to the dogs."

The following letters give the author's impression of his
own book.]

C. Darwin to J. Murray.

Down, September 16, 1876.

My dear Sir, — I have just received proofs in sheet of
five sheets, so you will have to decide soon how many copies
will have to be struck off. I do not know what to advise.
The greater part of the book is extremely dry, and the whole
on a special subject. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the
book is of value, and I am convinced that for many years
copies will be occasionally sold. Judging from the sale of
my former books, and from supposing that some persons will
purchase it to complete the set of my works, I would suggest
1500. But you must be guided by your larger experience.
I will only repeat that I am convinced the book is of some
permanent value. . . .

C. Darwin to Victor Cams.

Down, September 27, 1876.

My DEAR Sir, — I sent by this morning's post the four
first perfect sheets of my new book, the title of which you
will see on the first page, and which will be published early
in November.

I am sorry to say that it is only shorter by a few pages
than my ' Insectivorous Plants.' The whole is now in type,
though I have corrected finally only half the volume. You
will, therefore, rapidly receive the remainder. The book is

1876.] AND SELF-FERTILISATION.' 293

very dull. Chapters II. to VI., inclusive, are simply a record
of experiments. Nevertheless, I believe (though a man can
never judge his own books) that the book is valuable. You
will have to decide whether it is worth translating. I hope
so. It has cost me very great labour, and the results seem
to me remarkable and well established.

If you translate it, you could easily get aid for Chapters
II. to VI., as there is here endless, but, I have thought,
necessary repetition. I shall be anxious to hear what you
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.

294 'CROSS- AND SELF-FERTILISATION.' [^77-

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.' 1 877.

[The volume bearing the above title was published in 1877,
and was dedicated by the author to Professor Asa Gray, " as
a small tribute of respect and affection." It consists of
certain earlier papers re-edited, with the addition of a
quantity of new matter. The subjects treated in the book
are : —

(i.) Heterostyled Plants.

(iL) Polygamous, Dioecious, and Gynodioecious Plants.

(iii.) Cleistogamic Flowers.

The nature of heterostyled plants may be illustrated in the
primrose, one of the best known examples of the class. If a
number of primroses be gathered, it will be found that some
plants yield nothing but " pin-eyed " flowers, in which the
style (or organ for the transmission of the pollen to the ovule)
is long, while the others yield only " thrum-eyed " flowers with
short styles. Thus primroses are divided into two sets or
castes differing structurally from each other. My father
showed that they also differ sexually, and that in fact the bond
between the two castes more nearly resembles that between
separate sexes than any other known relationship. Thus for
example a long-styled primrose, though it can be fertilised by
its own pollen, is not fully fertile unless it is impregnated by
the pollen of a short-styled flower. Heterostyled plants are
comparable to hermaphrodite animals, such as snails, which
require the concourse of two individuals, although each pos-

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 officinalis, Linn.), P. vulgaris, Brit. Fl. (var. acaulis, Linn.),
and P. elatior, Jacq.; and on the Hybrid Nature of the Common
Oxlip. With Supplementary Remarks on Naturally Produced
Hybrids in the Genus Verbascum." Ibid. 1869.

The following letter shows that he began the work on
heterostyled plants with an erroneous view as to the meaning
of the facts.]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, May 7 [i860].

.... I have this morning been looking at my experi-
mental cowslips, and I find some plants have all flowers with
long stamens and short pistils, which I will call " male plants,"
others with short stamens and long pistils, which I will call
"female plants." This I have somewhere seen noticed, I
think by Henslow ; but I find (after looking at my two sets
of [plants) that the stigmas of the male and female are of
slightly different shape, and certainly different degree of
roughness, and what has astonished me, the pollen of the
so-called female plant, though very abundant, is more trans-
parent, and each granule is exactly only § of the size of the
pollen of the so-called male plants. Has this been observed ?
I cannot help suspecting [that] the cowslip is in fact dioecious,
but it may turn out all a blunder, but anyhow I will mark with
sticks the so-called male and female plants and watch their

2gS 'DIFFERENT FORMS OF FLOWERS [i860.

seeding. It would be a fine case of gradation between an
hermaphrodite and unisexual condition. Likewise a sort of
case of balancement of long and short pistils and stamens.
Likewise perhaps throws light on oxlips. ... I

I have now examined primroses and find exactly the same
difference in the size of the pollen, correlated with the same
difference in the length of the style and roughness of the
stigmas.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray,

June 8 [i860].

.... I have been making some little trifling observations
which have interested and perplexed me much. I find with
primroses and cowslips, that about an equal number of plants
are thus characterised.

So-called (by me) male plant. Pistil much shorter than
stamens ; stigma rather smooth, — -pollen grains large, throat
of corolla short.

So-called female plant. Pistil much longer than stamens,
stigma rougher, pollen-grains smaller, — throat of corolla long.

I have marked a lot of plants, and expected to find the so-
called male plant barren ; but judging from the feel of the
capsules, this is not the case, and I am very much surprised at
the difference in the size of the pollen. ... If it should
prove that the so-called male plants produce less seed than
the so-called females, what a beautiful case of gradation from
hermaphrodite to unisexual condition it will be ! If they pro-
duce about equal number of seed, how perplexing it will be.

C. Darwin to J, D. Hooker.

Down, December 17, [i860?] H

.... I have just been ordering a photograph of myself for a
friend ; and have ordered one for you, and for heaven's sake
oblige me, and burn that now hanging up in your room. — It
makes me look atrociously wicked.

i860.] on plants of the same species.' 299

.... In the spring I must get you to look for long pistils and
short pistils in the rarer species of Primula and in some allied
Genera. It holds with P. Sinensis. You remember all the
fuss I made on this subject last spring ; well, the other day
at last I had time to weigh the seeds, and by Jove the plants
of primrose and cowslip with short pistils and large grained
pollen * are rather more fertile than those with long pistils,
and small-grained pollen. I find that they require the action
of insects to set them, and I never will believe that these
differences are without some meaning.

Some of my experiments lead me to suspect that the large-
grained pollen suits the long pistils and the small-grained
pollen suits the short pistils ; but I am determined to see if I
cannot make out the mystery next spring.

How does your book on plants brew in your mind ? Have
you begun it ? . . .

Remember me most kindly to Oliver. He must be
astonished at not having a string of questions, I fear he will
get out of practice !

[The Primula- work was finished in the autumn of 1 861, and
on Nov. 8th he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker : —

" I have sent my paper on dimorphism in Primula to the
Linn. Soc. I shall go up and read it whenever it comes on ;
I hope you may be able to attend, for I do not suppose many
will care a penny for the subject."

With regard to the reading of the paper (on Nov. 21st), he
wrote to the same friend : —

" I by no means thought that I produced a " tremendous
effect " in the Linn. Soc, but by Jove the Linn. Soc, pro-
duced a tremendous effect on me, for I could not get out of
bed till late next evening, so that I just crawled home. I
fear I must give up trying to read any paper or speak ; it is
a horrid bore, I can do nothing like other people.

* Thus the plants which he male condition were more produc-
imagined to be tending towards a tive than the supposed females.

300 '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 : —

" 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. hyssopi '.folia, and it has
just flashed on me that you might have Lythrum in North
America, and I have looked to your Manual. For the love

* He was led to this, his first
case of trimorphism, by Lecoq's
' Geographie Botanique,' and this
must have consoled him for the
trick this work played him in turn-
ing out to be so much larger than
he expected. He wrote to Sir J.
D. Hooker : " Here is a good joke :
I saw an extract from Lecoq, ' Gdo-

graph. Bot.,' and ordered it and
hoped that it was a good sized
pamphlet, and nine thick volumes
have arrived ! "

t On another occasion he wrote
(to Dr. Gray) with; regard to Lyth-
rum : " I must hold hard, other-
wise I shall spend my life over
dimorphism."

302

'DIFFERENT FORMS OF FLOWERS

[l862.

of heaven have a look at some of your species, and if you
can get me seed, do ; I want much to try species with few
stamens, if they are dimorphic ; Nescea verticillata I should
expect to be trimorphic. Seed ! Seed ! Seed ! I should rather
like seed of Mitchella. But oh, Lythrum !

Your utterly mad friend,

C. Darwin.

P.S. — There is reason in my madness, for I can see that to
those who already believe in change of species, these facts
will modify to a certain extent the whole view of Hybridity.*

[On the same subject he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker in
August 1862 : —

"Is Oliver at Kew? When I am established at Bourne-
mouth I am completely mad to examine any fresh flowers of
any Lythraceous plant, and I would write and ask him if any
are in bloom."

Again he wrote to the same friend in October : —

" If you ask Oliver, I think he will tell you I have got a
real odd case in Lythrum, it interests me extremely, and
seems to me the strangest case of propagation recorded
amongst plants or animals, viz. a necessary triple alliance
between three hermaphrodites. I feel sure I can now prove
the truth of the case from a multitude of crosses made this

summer.

* A letter to Dr." Gray (July,
1862) bears on this point : " A few-
days ago I made an observation
which has surprised me more than
it ought to do— it will have to be
repeated several times, but I have
scarcely a doubt of its accuracy. I
stated in my Primula paper that
the long-styled form of Linum
grandiflorum was utterly sterile
with its own pollen ; I have lately
been putting the pollen of the two
forms on the division of the stigma
of the same flower ; and it strikes

me as truly wonderful, that the
stigma distinguishes the pollen ;
and is penetrated by the tubes of
the one and not by those of the
other ; nor are the tubes exserted.
Or (which is the same thing) the
stigma of the one form acts on and
is acted on by pollen, which produces
not the least effect on the stigma of
the other form. Taking sexual
power as the criterion of difference,
the two forms of this one species
may be said to be generically
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 dioecio- dimorphism. The use of this term called forth the
following remarks from my father. The letter also alludes
to a review of the ' Fertilisation of Orchids' in the same
volume of ' Silliman's Journal.']

C. Danvin to Asa Gray.

Down, November 26 [1862].

My dear Gray, — The very day after my last letter,
yours of November 10th, and the review in ' Silliman/ which
I feared might have been lost, reached me. We were all very
much interested by the political part of your letter ; and in
some odd way one never feels that information and opinions
printed in a newspaper come from a living source ; they seem
dead, whereas all that you write is full of life. The reviews
interested me profoundly ; you rashly ask for my opinion,
and you must consequently endure a long letter. First for
Dimorphism ; I do not at present like the term " Dicecio-
dimorphism ;" for I think it gives quite a false notion, that
the phenomena are connected with a separation of the sexes.
Certainly in Primula there is unequal fertility in the two
forms, and I suspect this is the case with Linum ; and,
therefore, I felt bound in the Primula paper to state that it
might be a step towards a dioecious condition ; though I
believe there are no dioecious forms in Primulaceae or Linaceae.
But the three forms in Lythrum convince me that the
phenomenon is in no way necessarily connected with any
tendency to separation of sexes. The case seems to me in
result or function to be almost identical with what old
C. K. Sprengel called " dichogamy," and which is so frequent
in truly hermaphrodite groups ; namely, the pollen and stigma

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
1 Natural History Review ' on the Primula case, on the lower
plants having sexes more often of the separated than in the
higher plants, — so exactly the reverse of what takes place
in animals. Hooker in his review of the ' Orchids ' repeats
this remark. There seems to be much truth in what you
say,* and it did not occur to me, about no improbability of
specialisation in certain lines in lowly organised beings. I
could hardly doubt that the hermaphrodite state is the
aboriginal one. But how is it in the conjugation of Con-
fervas— is not one of the two individuals here in fact male,
and the other female? I have been much puzzled by this
contrast in sexual arrangements between plants and animals.
Can there be anything in the following consideration : By
roughest calculation about one-third of the British genera of
aquatic plants belong to the Linnean classes of Mono and
Dicecia ; whilst of terrestrial plants (the aquatic genera being
subtracted) only one-thirteenth of the genera belong to these
two classes. Is there any truth in this fact generally ? Can
aquatic plants, being confined to a small area or small com-
munity of individuals, require more free crossing, and there-
fore have separate sexes ? But to return to one point, does
not Alph. de Candolle say that aquatic plants taken as a
whole are lowly organised, compared with terrestrial ; and
may not Oliver's remark on the separation of the sexes in
lowly organised plants stand in some relation to their being
frequently aquatic ? Or is this all rubbish ?

.... What a magnificent compliment you end your review
with ! You and Hooker seem determined to turn my head

* " Forms which are low in the scale of rank founded on specialisa-
scale as respects morphological tion of structure and function." —
completeness may be high in the Dr. Gray, in ' Silliman's Journal.'

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

306 '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. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, November 26 [1864].

.... You do not know how pleased I am that you have
read my Lythrum paper ; I thought you would not have time,
and I have for long years looked at you as my Public, and care
more for your opinion than that of all the rest of the world.
I have done nothing which has interested me so much as
Lythrum, since making out the complemental males of Cirri-
pedes. I fear that I have dragged in too much miscellaneous
matter into the paper.

... I get letters occasionally, which show me that Natural
Selection is making great progress in Germany, and some
amongst the young in France. I have just received a pamphlet
from Germany, with the complimentary title of " Darwinische
Arten-Enstehung-Humbug " !

Farewell, my best of old friends,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

September 10, [1S67 ?]

.... The only point which I have made out this summer,
which could possibly interest you, is that the common Oxlip
found everywhere, more or less commonly in England, is cer-
tainly a hybrid between the primrose and cowslip ; whilst the
P. elatior (Jacq.), found only in the Eastern Counties, is a
perfectly distinct and good species ; hardly distinguishable

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

303 '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-
saminecz, that these require insects ; at least there is almost
as plain adaptation to insects as in Orchids. I have Oxalis
acetosella ready in pots for experiment next spring ; and I
fear this will upset my little theory. . . . Campaiiula carpa-
thica, as I found this summer, is absolutely sterile if insects
are excluded. Specularia speculum is fairly fertile when
enclosed ; and this seemed to me to be partially effected by
the frequent closing of the flower ; the inward angular folds
of the corolla corresponding with the clefts of the open
stigma, and in this action pushing pollen from the outside of
the stigma on to its surface. Now can you tell me, does S.
perfoliata close its flower like >S. speculum, with angular inward
folds ? if so, I am smashed without some fearful " wriggling."
Are the imperfect flowers of your Specularia the early or the
later ones ? very early or very late ? It is rather pretty to
see the importance of the closing of flowers of ^. speculum.

['Forms of Flowers' was published in July 1877; in
June he wrote to Professor Carus with regard to the
translation : —

" My new book is not a long one, viz. 350 pages, chiefly of
the larger type, with fifteen simple woodcuts. All the proofs
are corrected except the Index, so that it will soon be
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."

n

IO '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.

( 3H )

CHAPTER X.

CLIMBING AND INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS.

[MY father mentions in his ' Autobiography ' (vol. i. p. 92)
that he was led to take up the subject of climbing plants
by reading Dr. Gray's paper, "Note on the Coiling of the
Tendrils of Plants." * This essay seems to have been read
in 1862, but I am only able to guess at the date of the letter
in which he asks for a reference to it, so that the precise
date of his beginning this work cannot be determined.

In June 1863 he was certainly at work, and wrote to Sir J.
D. Hooker for information as to previous publications on the
subject, being then in ignorance of Palm's and H. v. Mohl's
works on climbing plants, both of which were published in
1827.]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down [June] 25 [1863].

My dear Hooker, — I have been observing pretty care-
fully a little fact which has surprised me ; and I want to know
from you and Oliver whether it seems new or odd to you, so
just tell me whenever you write ; it is a very trifling fact, so do
not answer on purpose.

I have got a plant of Echinocystis lobata to observe the
irritability of the tendrils described by Asa Gray, and which
of course, is plain enough. Having the plant in my study,
I have been surprised to find that the uppermost part of each

* ' Proc. Amer. Acad, of Arts and Sciences,' 1858.

312 CLIMBING AND [1863.

branch (i.e. the stem between the two uppermost leaves ex-
cluding the growing tip) is constantly 'and slowly twisting round
making a circle in from one and a half to two hours ; it will
sometimes go round two or three times, and then at the same
rate untwists and twists in opposite directions. It generally
rests half an hour before it retrogrades. The stem does not
become permanently twisted. The stem beneath the twisting
portion does not move in the least, though not tied. The move-
ment goes on all day and all early night. It has no relation to
light, for the plant stands in my window and twists from the
light just as quickly as towards it. This may be a common
phenomenon for what I know, but it confounded me quite,
when I began to observe the irritability of the tendrils. I do
not say it is the final cause, but the result is pretty, for the plant
every one and a half or two hours sweeps a circle (according
to the length of the bending shoot and the length of the
tendril) of from one foot to twenty inches in diameter, and
immediately that the tendril touches any object its sensitive-
ness causes it immediately to seize it ; a clever gardener, my
neighbour, who saw the plant on my table last night, said :
" I believe, Sir, the tendrils can see, for wherever I put a
plant it finds out any stick near enough." I believe the
above is the explanation, viz. that it sweeps slowly round and
round. The tendrils have some sense, for they do not grasp
each other when young.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, July 14 [1863].

My DEAR HOOKER, — I am getting very much amused by
my tendrils, it is just the sort of niggling work which suits
me, and takes up no time and rather rests me whilst writing.
So will you just think whether you know any plant, which

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 spontaneous move-
ment (independent of touch) of the tendrils and upper inter-
nodes, I am rather taken aback by your saying, " is it not well
known ? " I can find nothing in any book which I have. . . .
The spontaneous movement of the tendrils is independent of
the movement of the upper internodes, but both work har-
moniously together in sweeping a circle for the tendrils to
grasp a stick. So with all climbing plants (without tendrils)
as yet examined, the upper internodes go on night and day
sweeping a circle in one fixed direction. It is surprising to
watch the Apocyneae with shoots 18 inches long (beyond the
supporting stick), steadily searching for something to climb

314 CLIMBING AND [1864.

up. When the shoot meets a stick, the motion at that point
is arrested, but in the upper part is continued ; so that the
climbing of all plants yet examined is the simple result of the
spontaneous circulatory movement of the upper internodes.
Pray tell me whether anything has been published on this
subject ? I hate publishing what is old ; but I shall hardly
regret my work if it is old, as it has much amused me. . . .

C. Darwin to Asa Gray.

May 28, 1864.

.... An Irish nobleman on his death-bed declared that he
could conscientiously say that he had never throughout life
denied himself any pleasure ; and I can conscientiously say
that I have never scrupled to trouble you ; so here goes. —
Have you travelled South, and can you tell me whether the
trees, which Bignonia capreolata climbs, are covered with
moss or filamentous lichen or Tillandsia?* I ask because its
tendrils abhor a simple stick, do not much relish rough bark,
but delight in wool or moss. They adhere in a curious
manner by making little disks, like the Ampelopsis. . . . By
the way, I will enclose some specimens, and if you think it
worth while, you can put them under the simple microscope.
It is remarkable how specially adapted some tendrils are ;
those of Eccremocarpus scaber do not like a stick, will have
nothing to say to wool ; but give them a bundle of culms of
grass, or a bundle of bristles and they seize them well.

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Down, June 10 [1864].

... I have now read two German books, and all I believe
that has been written on climbers, and it has stirred me up to

* He subsequently learned from where this species of Bignonia
Dr. Gray that Polypodium incanum grows. See ' Climbing Plants,' p.
abounds on the trees in the districts 103.

1864.] INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS. 31 5

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 bra/ic/i-climbers, in which
branches are converted into tendrils, and then continue to
grow and throw out leaves and new branches, and then lose
their tendril character." (October 1865.)

The paper on Climbing Plants was republished in 1875, as
a separate book. The author had been unable to give his
customary amount of care to the style of the original essay,
owing to the fact that it was written during a period of
continued ill-health, and it was now found to require a great
deal of alteration. He wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (March 3,
I^7S) '• "It is lucky for authors in general that they do not
require such dreadful work in merely licking what they write
into shape." And to Mr. Murray in September he wrote :
" The corrections are heavy in ' Climbing Plants,' and yet
I deliberately went over the MS. and old sheets three times."
The book was published in September 1875, an edition of
1500 copies was struck off; the edition sold fairly well, and
500 additional copies were printed in June of the following
year.]

INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS.

[In the summer of i860 he was staying at the house of his
sister-in-law, Miss Wedgwood, in Ashdown Forest, whence
he wrote (July 29, i860), to Sir Joseph Hooker : —

" Latterly I have done nothing here ; but at first I amused
myself with a few observations on the insect-catching power
of Drosera ; and I must consult you some time whether my
' twaddle ' is worth communicating to the Linnean Society."

In August he wrote to the same friend : —

" I will gratefully send my notes on Drosera when copied
by my copier : the subject amused me when I had nothing
to do."

He has described in the 'Autobiography' (vol. i. p. 95), the
general nature of these early experiments. He noticed insects
sticking to the leaves, and finding that flies, &c, placed on

<J

1 8 CLIMBING AND [i860.

the adhesive glands were held fast and embraced, he sus-
pected that the leaves were adapted to supply nitrogenous
food to the plant. He therefore tried the effect on the leaves
of various nitrogenous fluids — with results which, as far as
they went, verified his surmise. In September, i860, he wrote
to Dr. Gray : —

" I have been infinitely amused by working at Drosera :
the movements are really curious ; and the manner in which
the leaves detect certain nitrogenous compounds is mar-
vellous. You will laugh ; but it is, at present, my full belief
(after endless experiments) that they detect (and move in
consequence of) the 2sVo Pai*t °f a smgle grain of nitrate of
ammonia ; but the muriate and sulphate of ammonia bother
their chemical skill, and they cannot make anything of the
nitrogen in these salts ! I began this work on Drosera in
relation to gradation as throwing light on Dionaea."

Later in the autumn he was again obliged to leave home
for Eastbourne, where he continued his work on Drosera.
The work was so new to him that he found himself in diffi-
culties in the preparation of solutions, and became puzzled
over fluid and solid ounces, &c. &c. To a friend, the late
Mr. E. Cresy, who came to his help in the matter of weights
and measures, he wrote giving an account of the experiments.
The extract (November 2, i860) which follows illustrates
the almost superstitious precautions he often applied to his
researches : —

" Generally I have scrutinised every gland and hair on the
leaf before experimenting ; but it occurred to me that I might
in some way affect the leaf ; though this is almost impossible,
as I scrutinised with equal care those that I put into distilled
water (the same water being used for dissolving the carbonate
of ammonia). I then cut off four leaves (not touching them
with my fingers), and put them in plain water, and four other
leaves into the weak solution, and after leaving them for an
hour and a half, I examined every hair on all eight leaves ;

i860.] insectivorous plants. 319

no change on the four in water ; every gland and hair affected
in those in ammonia.

" I had measured the quantity of weak solution, and I
counted the glands which had absorbed the ammonia, and
were plainly affected ; the result convinced me that each
gland could not have absorbed more than e4^60 or q^^qq of
a grain. I have tried numbers of other experiments all
pointing to the same result. Some experiments lead me to
believe that very sensitive leaves are acted on by much
smaller doses. Reflect how little ammonia a plant can get
growing on poor soil — yet it is nourished. The really sur-
prising part seems to me that the effect should be visible,
and not under very high power ; for after trying a high power,
I thought it would be safer not to consider any effect which
was not plainly visible under a two-thirds object glass and
middle eye-piece. The effect which the carbonate of ammonia
produces is the segregation of the homogeneous fluid in the
cells into a cloud of granules and colourless fluid ; and
subsequently the granules coalesce into larger masses, and for
hours have the oddest movements — coalescing, dividing,
coalescing ad infinitum. I do not know whether you will
care for these ill-written details ; but, as you asked, I am sure
I am bound to comply, after all the very kind and great
trouble which you have taken."

On his return home he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker
(November 21, i860) : —

" I have been working like a madman at Drosera. Here
is a fact for you which is certain as you stand where you
are, though you won't believe it, that a bit of hair 7- g-Joo" °f
one grain in weight placed on gland, will cause one of the
gland-bearing hairs of Drosera to curve inwards, and will alter
the condition of the contents of every cell in the foot-stalk of
the gland."

And a few days later to Lyell : —

" I will and must finish my Drosera MS., which will take

320 CLIMBING AND [1862.

me a week, for, at the present moment, I care more about
Drosera than the origin of all the species in the world. But
I will not publish on Drosera till next year, for I am frightened
and astounded at my results. I declare it is a certain fact,
that one organ is so sensitive to touch, that a weight seventy-
eight-times less than that, viz., y^qq of a grain, which will
move the best chemical balance, suffices to cause a conspicu-
ous movement. Is it not curious that a plant should be
far more sensitive to the touch than any nerve in the human
body ? Yet I am perfectly sure that this is true. When I
am on my hobby-horse, I never can resist telling my friends
how well my hobby goes, so you must forgive the rider."

The work was continued, as a holiday task, at Bourne-
mouth, where he stayed during the autumn of 1862. The dis-
cussion in the following letter on " nervous matter " in Drosera
is of interest in relation to recent researches on the continuity
of protoplasm from cell to cell :]

C. Darwin to J. D. Hooker.

Cliff Cottage, Bournemouth.
September 26 [1862].

MY DEAR HOOKER, — Do not read this till you have leisure.
If that blessed moment ever comes, I should be very glad to
have your opinion on the subject of this letter. I am led to
the opinion that Drosera must have diffused matter in organic
connection, closely analogous to the nervous matter of animals.
When the glands of one of the papillae or tentacles, in its
natural position is supplied with nitrogenised fluid and
certain other stimulants, or when loaded with an extremely
slight weight, or when struck several times with a needle, the
pedicel bends near its base in under one minute. These
varied stimulants are conveyed down the pedicel by some
means ; it cannot be vibration, for drops of fluid put on quite
quietly cause the movement ; it cannot be absorption of the

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

1 873.] 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 1300, and had every
tentacle closely inflected ; one was taken out and placed in
cold water, and it re-expanded ; the other was heated to* 1450,
and had not the least power of re-expansion. Is not this
latter case heat rigor ? If you can inform me, I should very
much like to hear at what temperature cold-blooded and
invertebrate animals are killed.

Y 2

324 CLIMBING AND [^73-

4. I must tell you my final result, of which I am sure,
[as to] the sensitiveness of Drosera. I made a solution of
one part of phosphate of ammonia by weight to 218,750
of water ; of this solution I gave so much that a leaf
got -gooo °f a grain of the phosphate. I then counted the
glands, and each could have got only X55200U °f a gram '■>
this being absorbed by the glands, sufficed to cause the
tentacles bearing these glands to bend through an angle of
1800. 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

1 874-] 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. Darivin to Asa Gray.

Down, June 3 [1874].

.... I am now hard at work getting my book on Drosera
& Co. ready for the printers, but it will take some time, for I
am always finding out new points to observe. I think you
will be interested by my observations on the digestive process
in Drosera ; the secretion contains an acid of the acetic series,
and some ferment closely analogous to, but not identical
with, pepsine ; for I have been making a long series of
comparative trials. No human being will believe what I
shall publish about the smallness of the doses of phosphate
of ammonia which act.

.... I began reading the Madagascar squib * quite gravely,
and when I found it stated that Felis and Bos inhabited
Madagascar, I thought it was a false story, and did not
perceive it was a hoax till I came to the woman. . . .

C. Darwin to F. C. Donders.\

Down, July 7, 1874.

My dear Professor Donders, — My son George writes
to me that he has seen you, and that you have been very kind
to him, for which I return to you my cordial thanks. He
tells me on your authority, of a fact which interests me in
the highest degree, and which I much wish to be allowed to
quote. It relates to the action of one millionth of a grain of
atropine on the eye. Now will you be so kind, whenever you
can find a little leisure, to tell me whether you yourself have

* A description of a carnivo- t Professor Donders, the well-

rous plant supposed to subsist on known physiologist of Utrecht,
human beings.

326 CLIMBING AND [l374-

observed this fact, or believe it on good authority. I also
wish to know what proportion by weight the atropine bore
to the water of solution, and how much of the solution was
applied to the eye. The reason why I am so anxious on this
head is that it gives some support to certain facts repeatedly
observed by me with respect to the action of phosphate of
ammonia on Drosera. The 4000000 °f a grain absorbed by
a gland clearly makes the tentacle which bears this gland
become inflected ; and I am fully convinced that ^oooVooo" °f
a grain of the crystallised salt (i.e. containing about one-third
of its weight of water of crystallisation) does the same. Now
I am quite unhappy at the thought of having to publish such
a statement. It will be of great value to me to be able to
give any analogous facts in support. The case of Drosera is
all the more interesting as the absorption of the salt or any
other stimulant applied to the gland causes it to transmit a
motor influence to the base of the tentacle which bears the
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 1874 he was at work on the genus
Utricularia, and he wrote (July 16th) to "Sir J. D. Hooker
giving some account of the progress of his work : —

" I am rather glad you have not been able to send Utricu-
laria, for the common species has driven F. and me almost
mad. The structure is most complex. The bladders catch
a multitude of Entomostraca, and larvae of insects. The
mechanism for capture is excellent. But there is much that
we cannot understand. From what I have seen to-day,
strongly suspect that it is necrophagous, i.e. that it cannot
digest, but absorbs decaying matter."

1 874.] INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS. 327

He was indebted to Lady Dorothy Nevill for specimens of
the curious Utricidaria mo?itana, which is not aquatic like the
European species, but grows among the moss and debris on
the branches of trees. To this species the following letter
refers :]

C. Darwin to Lady Dorothy Nevill.

Down, September 18 [1874].

Dear Lady Dorothy Nevill, — I am so much obliged
to you. I was so convinced that the bladders were with the
leaves that I never thought of removing the moss, and this
was very stupid of me. The great solid bladder-like swellings
almost on the surface are wonderful objects, but are not the
true bladders. These I found on the roots near the surface,
and down to a depth of two inches in the sand. They are
as transparent as glass, from 2V to you °f an ^ncn in s^ze' an<^
hollow. They have all the important points of structure of
the bladders of the floating English species, and I felt con-
fident I should find captured prey. And so I have to my
delight in two bladders, with clear proof that they had absorbed
food from the decaying mass. For Utricularia is a carrion-
feeder, and not strictly carnivorous like Drosera.

The great solid bladder-like bodies, I believe, are reservoirs
of water like a camel's stomach. As soon as I have made
a few more observations, I mean to be so cruel as to give
your plant no water, and observe whether the great bladders
shrink and contain air instead of water ; I shall then also
wash all earth from all roots, and see whether there are true
bladders for capturing subterranean insects down to the very
bottom of the pot. Now shall you think me very greedy, if
I say that supposing the species is not very precious, and
you have several, will you give me one more plant, and if
so, please to send it to " Orpington Station, S. E. R., to be
forwarded by foot messenger."

I have hardly ever enjoyed a day more in my life than I

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 J. D. Hooker.

Down, September 30, 1874.
My DEAR H., — Your magnificent present of Aldrovanda
has arrived quite safe. I have enjoyed greatly a good look
at the shut leaves, one of which I cut open. It is an aquatic
Dionaea, which has acquired some structures identical with
those of Utricularia !

If the leaves open, and I can transfer them open under
the microscope, I will try some experiments, for mortal man
cannot resist the temptation. If I cannot transfer, I will do
nothing, for otherwise it would require hundreds of leaves.
You are a good man to give me such pleasure.

Yours affectionately,

C. Darwin.

[The manuscript of ' Insectivorous Plants ' was finished in
March 1875. He seems to have been more than usually
oppressed by the writing of this book, thus he wrote to Sir
J. D. Hooker in February : —

" You ask about my book, and all that I can say is that
I am ready to commit suicide ; I thought it was decently
written, but find so much wants rewriting, that it will not be
ready to go to printers for two months, and will then make
a confoundedly big book. Murray will say that it is no use
publishing in the middle of summer, so I do not know what
will be the upshot ; but I begin to think that every one who
publishes a book is a fool."

The book was published on July 2nd, 1875, and 2700 copies
were sold out of the edition of 3000.]

( 3^9 )

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
1 Climbing Plants.' The central idea of the book is that the
movements of plants in relation to light, gravitation, &c,
are modifications of a spontaneous tendency to revolve or
circumnutate, which is widely inherent in the growing parts
of plants. This conception has not been generally adopted,
and has not taken a place among the canons of orthodox
physiology. The book has been treated by Professor Sachs
with a few words of professorial contempt ; and by Professor
Wiesner it has been honoured by careful and generously
expressed criticism.

Mr. Thiselton Dyer * has well said : " Whether this masterly
conception of the unity of what has hitherto seemed a chaos of
unrelated phenomena will be sustained, time alone will show.
But no one can doubt the importance of what Mr. Darwin
has done, in showing that for the future the phenomena of
plant movement can and indeed must be studied from a
single point of view."

The work was begun in the summer of 1877, after the
publication of ' Different Forms of Flowers,' and by the
autumn his enthusiasm for the subject was thoroughly estab-
lished, and he wrote to Mr. Dyer : "I am all on fire at the

* ' Charles Darwin ' (' Nature' Series), p. 41.

330 'POWER OF MOVEMENT [1878.

work." At this time he was studying the movements of
cotyledons, in which the sleep of plants is to be observed in
its simplest form ; in the following spring he was trying to
discover what useful purpose these sleep-movements could
serve, and wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (March 25th, 1878) : —

" I think we have proved that the sleep of plants is to lessen
the injury to the leaves from radiation. This has interested
me much, and has cost us great labour, as it has been a
problem since the time of Linnaeus. But we have killed or
badly injured a multitude of plants : N.B. — Oxalis camosa
was most valuable, but last night was killed."

His letters of this period do not give any connected account
of the progress of the work. The two following seem worth
giving as being characteristic of the author :]

C. Danvin to W. Thiselton Dyer,

Down, June 2, 1878.

My DEAR Dyer, — I remember saying that I should die a
disgraced man if I did not observe a seedling Cactus and
Cycas, and you have saved me from this horrible fate, as they
move splendidly and normally. But I have two questions to
ask : the Cycas observed was a huge seed in a broad and
very shallow pot with cocoa-nut fibre as I suppose. It was
named only Cycas. Was it Cycas pectinata ? I suppose that
I cannot be wrong in believing that what first appears above
ground is a true leaf, for I can see no stem or axis. Lastly,
you may remember that I said that we could not raise
Opuntia nigricans ; now I must confess to a piece of stupidity ;
one did come up, but my gardener and self stared at it, and
concluded that it could not be a seedling Opuntia, but now that
I have seen one of O. basilaris, I am sure it was ; I observed
it only casually, and saw movements, which makes me wish

1878.] in plants/ 33 1

to observe carefully another. If you have any fruit, will Mr.
Lynch * be so kind as to send one more ?

I am working away like a slave at radicles [roots] and at
movements of true leaves, for I have pretty well done with
cotyledons. . . .

That was an excellent letter about the Gardens : f I had
hoped that the agitation was over. Politicians are a poor
truckling lot, for [they] must see the wretched effects of
keeping the gardens open all day long.

Your ever troublesome friend,

Ch. Darwin.

C. Darwin to W. Thiselton Dyer.

4 Bryanston St., Portman Square,

November 21 [1878].

My dear Dyer, — I must thank you for all the wonderful
trouble which you have taken about the seeds of Impatiens
and on scores of other occasions. It in truth makes me feel
ashamed of myself, and I cannot help thinking: " Oh Lord,
when he sees our book he will cry out, is this all for which I
have helped so much ! " In seriousness, I hope that we have
made out some points, but I fear that we have done very little
for the labour which we have expended on our work. We are
here for a week for a little rest, which I needed.

If I remember right, November 30th, is the anniversary at
the Royal, and I fear Sir Joseph must be almost at the last
gasp. I shall be glad when he is no longer President.

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

[In the spring of the following year, 1879, when he was
engaged in putting his results together, he wrote somewhat

* Mr. R. I. Lynch, now Curator f This refers to an attempt to

of the Botanic Garden at Cam- induce the Government to open

bridge, was at this time in the Royal the Royal Gardens at Kew in the

Gardens, Kew. morning.

332 'POWER OF MOVEMENT [l88o.

despondingly to Mr. Dyer : " I am overwhelmed with my
notes, and almost too old to undertake the job which I have
in hand — i.e.t movements of all kinds. Yet it is worse to be

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
1 Power of Movement ' :]

C. Danvin to A , De Candolle.

May 28, 1880.
My DEAR Sir, — I am particularly obliged to you for having
so kindly sent me your ' Phytographie ;' * for if I had merely
seen it advertised, I should not have supposed that it could
have concerned me. As it is, I have read with very great
interest about a quarter, but will not delay longer thanking
you. All that you say seems to me very clear and con-
vincing, and as in all your writings I find a large number of

* A book on the methods of botanical research, more especially of
systematic work.

i88o.] IN PLANTS.' 333

philosophical remarks new to me, and no doubt shall find
many more. They have recalled many a puzzle through
which I passed when monographing the Cirripedia ; and your
book in those days would have been quite invaluable to me.
It has pleased me to find that I have always followed your
plan of making notes on separate pieces of paper ; I keep
several scores of large portfolios, arranged on very thin shelves
about two inches apart, fastened to the walls of my study,
and each shelf has its proper name or title ; and I can thus
put at once every memorandum into its proper place. Your
book will, I am sure, be very useful to many young students,
and I shall beg my son Francis (who intends to devote himself
to the physiology of plants) to read it carefully.

As for myself I am taking a fortnight's rest, after sending
a pile of MS. to the printers, and it was a piece of good
fortune that your book arrived as I was getting into my
carriage, for I wanted something to read whilst away from
home. My MS. relates to the movements of plants, and I
think that I have succeeded in showing that all the more
important great classes of movements are due to the modifi-
cation of a kind of movement common to all parts of all
plants from their earliest youth.

Pray give my kind remembrances to your son, and with my
highest respect and best thanks,

Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

P.S. — It always pleases me to exalt plants in the organic
scale, and if you will take the trouble to read my last chapter
when my book (which will be sadly too big) is published and
sent to you, I hope and think that you also will admire some
of the beautiful adaptations by which seedling plants are
enabled to perform their proper functions.

[The book was published on November 6, 1880, and 1500

334 'POWER OF MOVEMENT [l88o.

copies were disposed of at Mr. Murray's sale. With regard to
it he wrote to Sir J. D. Hooker (November 23) : —

"Your note has pleased me much — for I did not expect
that you would have had time to read any of it. Read the
last chapter, and you will know the whole result, but without
the evidence. The case, however, of radicles bending after
exposure for an hour to geotropism, with their tips (or brains)
cut off is, I think, worth your reading (bottom of p. 525) ; it
astounded me. The next most remarkable fact, as it ap-
peared to me (p. 148), is the discrimination of the tip of the
radicle between a slightly harder and softer object affixed
on opposite sides of tip. But I will bother you no more
about my book. The sensitiveness of seedlings to light is
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.

i88o.] in plants.' 335

letter has done more than please me, for its kindness has
touched my heart. I often think of old days and of the
delight of my visits to Woodhouse, and of the deep debt of
gratitude which I owe to your father. It was very good of
you to write. I had quite forgotten my old ambition about
the Shrewsbury newspaper ; * but I remember the pride
which I felt when I saw in a book about beetles the impressive
words " captured by C. Darwin." Captured sounded so grand
compared with caught. This seemed to me glory enough for
any man ! I do not know in the least what made the Times
glorify me,f for it has sometimes pitched into me ferociously.
I should very much like to see you again, but you would
find a visit here very dull, for we feel very old and have no
amusement, and lead a solitary life. But we intend in a few
weeks to spend a few days in London, and then if you have
anything else to do in London, you would perhaps come and
lunch with us.J

Believe me, my dear Sarah,

Yours gratefully and affectionately,

Charles Darwin.

[The following letter was called forth by the publication
of a volume devoted to the criticism of the ' Power of
Movement in Plants ' by an accomplished botanist, Dr. Julius
Wiesner, Professor of Botany in the University of Vienna :]

* Mrs. Haliburton had reminded " Of all our living men of science

him of his saying as a boy that if none have laboured longer and to

Eddowes' newspaper ever alluded more splendid purpose than Mr.

to him as " our deserving fellow- Darwin."

townsman," his ambition would be % My father had the pleasure of

amply gratified. seeing Mrs. Haliburton at his

f The following is the opening brother's house in Queen Anne

sentence of the leading article : — Street.

336 'POWER OF MOVEMENT [l88l.

C. Darwin to Julius Wiesner.

Down, October 25th, 1881.

My DEAR Sir, — I have now finished your book,* and have
understood the whole except a very few passages. In the
first place, let me thank you cordially for the manner in which
you have everywhere treated me. You have shown how a
man may differ from another in the most decided manner,
and yet express his difference with the most perfect courtesy.
Not a few English and German naturalists might learn a
useful lesson from your example ; for the coarse language
often used by scientific men towards each other does no good,
and only degrades science.

I have been profoundly interested by your book, and some
of your experiments are so beautiful, that I actually felt
pleasure while being vivisected. It would take up too much
space to discuss all the important topics in your book. I fear
that you have quite upset the interpretation which I have
given of the effects of cutting off the tips of horizontally
extended roots, and of those laterally exposed to moisture ;
but I cannot persuade myself that the horizontal position of
lateral branches and roots is due simply to their lessened
power of growth. Nor when I think of my experiments with
the cotyledons of Phalaris, can I give up the belief of the
transmission of some stimulus due to light from the upper
to the lower part. At p. 60 you have misunderstood my
meaning, when you say that I believe that the effects from
light are transmitted to a part which is not itself heliotropic.
I never considered whether or not the short part beneath the
ground was heliotropic ; but I believe that with young seed-
lings the part which bends near, but above the ground is
heliotropic, and I believe so from this part bending only
moderately when the light is oblique, and bending rectan-
gularly when the light is horizontal. Nevertheless the bending

* i

Das Bewegungsvermogen der Pflanzen.' Vienna, 1881.

1 88 1.] IN PLANTS. 337

of this lower part, as I conclude from my experiments with
opaque caps, is influenced by the action of light on the upper
part. My opinion, however, on the above and many other
points, signifies very little, for I have no doubt that your book
will convince most botanists that I am wrong in all the points
on which we differ.

Independently of the question of transmission, my mind is
so full of facts leading me to believe that light, gravity, &c,
act not in a direct manner on growth, but as stimuli, that I
am quite unable to modify my judgment on this head. I
could not understand the passage at p. 78, until I consulted
my son George, who is a mathematician. He supposes that
your objection is founded on the diffused light from the lamp
illuminating both sides of the object, and not being reduced,
with increasing distance in the same ratio as the direct light ;
but he doubts whether this necessary correction will account
for the very little difference in the heliotropic curvature of the
plants in the successive pots.

With respect to the sensitiveness of the tips of roots to
contact, I cannot admit your view until it is proved that I am
in error about bits of card attached by liquid gum causing
movement ; whereas no movement was caused if the card
remained separated from the tip by a layer of the liquid gum.
The fact also of thicker and thinner bits of card attached on
opposite sides of the same root by shellac, causing movement
in one direction, has to be explained. You often speak of the
tip having been injured ; but externally there was no sign of
injury : and when the tip was plainly injured, the extreme
part became curved towards the injured side. I can no more
believe that the tip was injured by the bits of card, at least
when attached by gum-water, than that the glands of Drosera
are injured by a particle of thread or hair placed on it, or that
the human tongue is so when it feels any such object.

About the most important subject in my book, namely
circumnutation, I can only say that I feel utterly bewildered

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 (Lznncsa, 188 1) has pub- in 1850,

Z 2

340 MISCELLANEOUS. [1873.

or with fine hair, so that when such leaves or fruit are immersed
in water they appear as if encased in thin glass ? It is really
a pretty sight to put a pod of the common pea, or a raspberry
into water. I find several leaves are thus protected on the
under surface and not on the upper.

" How can water injure the leaves if indeed this is at all
the case ? "

On this latter point he wrote to Sir Thomas Farrer : —

" I am now become mad about drops of water injuring
leaves. Please ask Mr. Paine * whether he believes, from his
own experience, that drops of water injure leaves or fruit in his
conservatories. It is said that the drops act as burning-glasses ;
if this is true, they would not be at all injurious on cloudy
days. As he is so acute a man, I should very much like to
hear his opinion. I remember when I grew hot-house orchids
I was cautioned not to wet their leaves ; but I never then
thought on the subject.

" I enjoyed my visit greatly with you, and I am very sure
that all England could not afford a kinder and pleasanter
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. Midler.

Down, July 4 [1881].

My DEAR Sir, — Your kindness is unbounded, and I cannot
tell you how much your last letter (May 31) has interested
me. I have piles of notes about the effect of water resting on
leaves, and their movements (as I supposed) to shake off the
drops. But I have not looked over these notes for a long
time, and had come to think that perhaps my notion was mere
fancy, but I had intended to begin experimenting as soon as
I returned home ; and now with your invaluable letter about
the position of the leaves of various plants during rain (I have
one analogous case with Acacia from South Africa), I shall
be stimulated to work in earnest.

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 Sir, — When I met you at the Linnean Society,
you were so kind as to say that you would aid me with advice,
and this will be of the utmost value to me and my son. I will
first state my object, and hope that you will excuse a long
letter. It is admitted by all naturalists that no problem is so
perplexing as what causes almost every cultivated plant to

* Dr. Gilbert, F.R.S., joint author long series of valuable researches
with Sir John Bennett Lawes of a in Scientific Agriculture.

lSy6.] 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, 188 1.

My dear Professor Semper, — I have been much
pleased to receive your letter, but I did not expect you to

answer my former one I cannot remember what I

wrote to you, but I am sure that it must have expressed the
interest which I felt in reading your book.f I thought that
you attributed too much weight to the direct action of the

* Professor of Zoology at Wiirz- title, ' The Natural Conditions ot

burg. Existence as they affect Animal

t Published in the ' International Life.'
Scientific Series/ in 1881, under the

1 88 1.] BOTANICAL LETTERS. 345

environment ; but whether I said so I know not, for without
being asked I should have thought it presumptuous to have
criticised your book, nor should I now say so had I not during
the last few days been struck with Professor Hoffmann's
review of his own work in the ' Botanische Zeitung,' on the
variability of plants ; and it is really surprising how little effect
he produced by cultivating certain plants under unnatural
conditions, as the presence of salt, lime, zinc, &c, &c, during
several generations. Plants, moreover, were selected which
were the most likely to vary under such conditions, judging
from the existence of closely-allied forms adapted for these
conditions. No doubt I originally attributed too little weight
to the direct action of conditions, but Hoffmann's paper has
staggered me. Perhaps hundreds of generations of exposure
are necessary. It is a most perplexing subject. I wish
I was not so old, and had more strength, for I see lines
of research to follow. Hoffmann even doubts whether
plants vary more under cultivation than in their native home
and under their natural conditions. If so, the astonishing
variations of almost all cultivated plants must be due to
selection and breeding from the varying individuals. This
idea crossed my mind many years ago, but I was afraid to
publish it, as I thought that people would say, " how he does
exaggerate the importance of selection."

I still must believe that changed conditions give the impulse
to variability, but that they act in most cases in a very
indirect manner. But, as I said, it is a most perplexing pro-
blem. Pray forgive me for writing at such length ; I had no
intention of doing so when I sat down to write.

I am extremely sorry to hear, for your own sake and for
that of Science, that you are so hard worked, and that so much
of your time is consumed in official labour.

Pray believe me, dear Professor Semper,

Yours sincerely,
Charles Darwin.

346 MISCELLANEOUS. [l88l.

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 1, 1881.
My DEAR Mr. Vines, — As I know how busy you are, it
is a great shame to trouble you. But you are so rich in

* 'Disease in Plants,' by Sir ciety.' Vol. xix., 1882, pp. 239

James Paget. — See Gardeners' and 262.

Chronicle, 1880. % Reader in Botany in the Uni-

f ' Journal of the Linnean So- versity of Cambridge.

1 88 1.] BOTANICAL LETTERS. 347

chemical knowledge about plants, and I am so poor, that I
appeal to your chanty as a pauper. My question is — Do
you know of any solid substance in the cells of plants which
glycerine and water dissolves ? But you will understand my
perplexity better if I give you the facts : I mentioned to you
that if a plant of Euphorbia peplus is gently dug up and the
roots placed for a short time in a weak solution (i to 10,000
of water suffices in 24 hours) of carbonate of ammonia the
(generally) alternate longitudinal rows of cells in every
rootlet, from the root-cap up to the very top of the root (but
not as far as I have yet seen in the green stem) become
filled with translucent, brownish grains of matter. These
rounded grains often cohere and even become confluent.
Pure phosphate and nitrate of ammonia produce (though more
slowly) the same effect, as does pure carbonate of soda.

Now, if slices of root under a cover-glass are irrigated
with glycerine and water, every one of the innumerable
grains in the cells disappear after some hours. What am I
to think of this ? . . . .

Forgive me for bothering you to such an extent ; but I
must mention that if the roots are dipped in boiling water
there is no deposition of matter, and carbonate of ammonia
afterwards produces no effect. I should state that I now find
that the granular matter is formed in the cells immediately
beneath the thin epidermis, and a few other cells near the
vascular tissue. If the granules consisted of living protoplasm
(but I can see no traces of movement in them), then I should
infer that the glycerine killed them and aggregation ceased
with the diffusion of invisibly minute particles, for I have
seen an analogous phenomenon in Drosera.

If you can aid me, pray do so, and anyhow forgive me.

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

34§ miscellaneous. [1878.

Mr. Torbitt's Experiments on the Potato-Disease.

[Mr. James Torbitt, of Belfast, has been engaged for the
last twelve years in the difficult undertaking, in which he has
been to a large extent successful, of raising fungus-proof
varieties of the potato. My father felt great interest in Mr.
Torbitt's work, and corresponded with him from 1876 on-
wards. The following letter, giving a clear account of Mr.
Torbitt's method and of my father's opinion of the probability
of its success, was written with the idea that Government
aid for the work might possibly be obtainable :]

C. Darwin to T. H. Farrer.

Down, March 2, 1878.

My DEAR Farrer, — Mr. Torbitt's plan of overcoming the
potato-disease seems to me by far the best which has ever
been suggested. It consists, as you know from his printed
letter, of rearing a vast number of seedlings from cross-fertil-
ised parents, exposing them to infection, ruthlessly destroying
all that suffer, saving those which resist best, and repeating
the process in successive seminal generations. My belief in
the probability of good results from this process rests on the
fact of all characters whatever occasionally varying. It is
known, for instance, that certain species and varieties of the
vine resist phylloxera better than others. Andrew Knight
found one variety or species of the apple which was not in
the least attacked by coccus, and another variety has been
observed in South Australia. Certain varieties of the peach
resist mildew, and several other such cases could be given.
Therefore there is no great improbability in a new variety of
potato arising which would resist the fungus completely, or
at least much better than any existing variety. With respect
to the cross-fertilisation of two distinct seedling plants, it has
been ascertained that the offspring thus raised inherit much

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

350 MISCELLANEOUS. [1878.

Mr. Torbitt should be aided with some small grant so as to
continue the work himself.

Judging from his reports, his efforts have already been
crowned in so short a time with more success than could
have been anticipated ; and I think you will agree with me,
that any one who raises a fungus-proof potato will be a public
benefactor of no common kind.

My dear Farrer, yours sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

[After further consultation with Sir Thomas Farrer and
with Mr. Caird, my father became convinced that it was
hopeless to attempt to obtain Government aid. He wrote to
Mr. Torbitt to this effect, adding, " it would be less trouble to
get up a subscription from a few rich leading agriculturists
than from Government. This plan I think you cannot object
to, as you have asked nothing, and will have nothing whatever
to do with the subscription. In fact, the affair is, in my
opinion, a compliment to you." The idea thus broached was
carried out, and Mr. Torbitt was enabled to continue his work
by the aid of a sum to which Sir T. Farrer, Mr. Caird, my
father, and a few friends, subscribed.

My father's sympathy and encouragement were highly
valued by Mr. Torbitt, who tells me that without them he
should long ago have given up his attempt. A few extracts
will illustrate his fellow-feeling with Mr. Torbitt's energy and
perseverance : —

" I admire your indomitable spirit. If any one ever
deserved success, you do so, and I keep to my original
opinion that you have a very good chance of raising a fungus-
proof variety of the potato.

"A pioneer in a new undertaking is sure to meet with
many disappointments, so I hope that you will keep up your
courage, though we have done so very little for you."

1 88 1-2.] BOTANICAL LETTERS. 351

Mr. Torbitt tells me that he still (1887) succeeds in raising
varieties possessing well-marked powers of resisting disease ;
but this immunity is not permanent, and, after some years, the
varieties become liable to the attacks of the fungus.]

The Kew Index of Plant-Names, or ' Nomenclator

botanicus darwinianus '.

[Some account of my father's connection with the Index of
Plant-names now (1887) in course of preparation at Kew will
be found in Mr. B. Daydon Jackson's paper in the ' Journal of
Botany,' 1887, p. 151. Mr. Jackson quotes the following state-
ment by Sir J. D. Hooker : —

"Shortly before his death, Mr. Charles Darwin informed
Sir Joseph Hooker that it was his intention to devote
a considerable sum of money annually for some years in
aid or furtherance of some work or works of practical
utility to biological science, and to make provisions in his
will in the event of these not being completed during his
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. [i 88 1-2.

that the ' Nomenclator ' is now seriously below the require-
ments of botanical work. To remedy this want, the * Nomen-
clator' has been from time to time posted up in an inter-
leaved copy in the Herbarium at Kew, by the help of " funds
supplied by private liberality." *

My father, like other botanists, had as Sir Joseph Hooker
points out, experienced the value of Steudel's work. He
obtained plants from all sorts of sources, which were often
incorrectly named, and he felt the necessity of adhering to
the accepted nomenclature, so that he might convey to other
workers precise indications as to the plants which he had
studied. It was also frequently a matter of importance to
him to know the native country of his experimental plants.
Thus it was natural that he should recognize the desirability of
completing and publishing the interleaved volume at Kew.
The wish to help in this object was heightened by the admira-
tion he felt for the results for which the world has to thank
the Royal Gardens at Kew, and by his gratitude for the in-
valuable aid which for so many years he received from its
Director and his staff. He expressly stated that it was his
wish " to aid in some way the scientific work carried on at
the Royal Gardens " f — which induced him to offer to supply
funds for the completion of the Kew ' Nomenclator.'

The following passage, for which I am indebted to Pro-
fessor Judd, is of interest, as illustrating the motives that
actuated my father in this matter. Professor Judd writes : —

" On the occasion of my last visit to him, he told me that
his income having recently greatly increased, while his wants
remained the same, he was most anxious to devote what he
could spare to the advancement of Geology or Biology. He
dwelt in the most touching manner on the fact that he owed
so much happiness and fame to the natural-history sciences

* Kew Gardens Report, 1881, f See 'Nature,' January 5, 1882.

p. 62.

1 88 1-2.] BOTANICAL LETTERS. 353

which had been the solace of what might have been a painful
existence ; — and he begged me, if I knew of any research
which could be aided by a grant of a few hundreds of pounds,
to let him know, as it would be a delight to him to feel that
he was helping in promoting the progress of science. He
informed me at the same time that he was making the same
suggestion to Sir Joseph Hooker and Professor Huxley with
respect to Botany and Zoology respectively. I was much
impressed by the earnestness, and, indeed, deep emotion, with
which he spoke of his indebtedness to Science, and his desire
to promote its interests."

Sir Joseph Hooker was asked by my father " to take into
consideration, with the aid of the botanical staff at Kew and
the late Mr. Bentham, the extent and scope of the proposed
work, and to suggest the best means of having it executed.
In doing this, Sir Joseph had further the advantage of the
great knowledge and experience of Professor Asa Gray, of
Cambridge, U.S.A., and of Mr. John Ball, F.R.S." *

The plan of the proposed work having been carefully
considered, Sir Joseph Hooker was able to confide its elabo-
ration in detail to Mr. B. Daydon Jackson, Secretary of the
Linnean Society, whose extensive knowledge of botanical
literature qualifies him for the task. My father's original idea
of producing a modern edition of Steudel's ' Nomenclator '
has been practically abandoned, the aim now kept in view is
rather to construct a list of genera and species (with references)
founded on Bentham and Hooker's ' Genera Plantarum.' The
colossal nature of the work in progress at Kew may be esti-
mated by the fact that the manuscript of the ' Index ' is at
the present time (1887) believed to weigh more than a ton.
Under Sir Joseph Hooker's supervision the work goes steadily
forward, being carried out with admirable zeal by Mr. Jackson,
who devotes himself unsparingly to the enterprise, in which,

* ' Journal of Botany,' loc. cit.
VOL. III. 2 A

354 BOTANICAL LETTERS. [i 88 1-2.

too, he has the advantage of the interest in the work felt by
Professor Oliver and Mr. Thiselton Dyer.

The Kew ' Index,' which will, in all probability, be ready
to go to press in four or five years, will be a fitting memorial
of my father : and his share in its completion illustrates a
part of his character — his ready sympathy with work outside
his own lines of investigation — and his respect for minute
and patient labour in all branches of science.]

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

356 conclusion. [i38i.

shortly before his death. In spite of the general improve-
ment in his health, which has been above alluded to, there
was a certain loss of physical vigour occasionally apparent
during the last few years of his life. This is illustrated by
a sentence in a letter to his old friend Sir James Sulivan,
written on January 10, 1879: "My scientific work tires me
more than it used to do, but I have nothing else to do, and
whether one is worn out a year or two sooner or later signi-
fies but little."

A similar feeling is shown in a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker
of June 15, 1881. My father was staying at Patterdale, and
wrote : " I am rather despondent about myself .... I have
not the heart or strength to begin any investigation lasting
years, which is the only thing which I enjoy, and I have no
little jobs which I can do."

In July, 1881, he wrote to Mr. Wallace, " We have just
returned home after spending five weeks on Ullswater ; the
scenery is quite charming, but I cannot walk, and everything
tires me, even seeing scenery .... What I shall do with my
few remaining years of life I can hardly tell. I have every-
thing to make me happy and contented, but life has become
very wearisome to me." He was, however, able to do a good
deal of work, and that of a trying sort,* during the autumn
of 1 88 1, but towards the end of the year he was clearly in
need of rest ; and during the winter was in a lower condition
than was usual with him.

On December 13, he went for a week to his daughter's
house in Bryanston Street. During his stay in London he
went to call on Mr. Romanes, and was seized when on the
door-step with an attack apparently of the same kind as those
which afterwards became so frequent. The rest of the in-
cident, which I give in Mr. Romanes' words, is interesting too
from a different point of view, as giving one more illustration
of my father's scrupulous consideration for others : —

* On the action of carbonate of ammonia on roots and leaves.

i882.] conclusion. 357

" I happened to be out, but my butler, observing that Mr.
Darwin was ill, asked him to come in. He said he would
prefer going home, and although the butler urged him to
wait at least until a cab could be fetched, he said he would
rather not give so much trouble. For the same reason he
refused to allow the butler to accompany him. Accordingly
he watched him walking with difficulty towards the direction
in which cabs were to be met with, and saw that, when he
had got about three hundred yards from the house, he stag-
gered and caught hold of the park-railings as if to prevent
himself from falling. The butler therefore hastened to his
assistance, but after a few seconds saw him turn round with
the evident purpose of retracing his steps to my house. How-
ever, after he had returned part of the way he seems to
have felt better, for he again changed his mind, and proceeded
to find a cab."

During the last week of February and in the beginning of
March, attacks of pain in the region of the heart, with irre-
gularity of the pulse, became frequent, coming on indeed
nearly every afternoon. A seizure of this sort occurred about
March 7, when he was walking alone at a short distance from
the house ; he got home with difficulty, and this was the
last time that he was able to reach his favourite ' Sand-
walk.' Shortly after this, his illness became obviously more
serious and alarming, and he was seen by Sir Andrew Clark,
whose treatment was continued by Dr. Norman Moore, of St.
Bartholomew's Hospital, and Mr. Allfrey, of St. Mary Cray.
He suffered from distressing sensations of exhaustion and
faintness, and seemed to recognise with deep depression the
fact that his working days were over. He gradually recovered
from this condition, and became more cheerful and hopeful, as
is shown in the following letter to Mr. Huxley, who was
anxious that my father should have closer medical supervision
than the existing arrangements allowed : —

358 CONCLUSION. [l882>

Down, March 27, 1882.

" My dear Huxley, — Your most kind letter has been a real

cordial to me. I have felt better to-day than for three weeks,

and have felt as yet no pain. Your plan seems an excellent

one, and I will probably act upon it, unless I get very much

better. Dr. Clark's kindness is unbounded to me, but he is

too busy to come here. Once again, accept my cordial

thanks, my dear old friend. I wish to God there were more

automata * in the world like you.

Ever yours,

Ch. Darwin."

The allusion to Sir Andrew Clark requires a word of ex-
planation. Sir Andrew Clark himself was ever ready to
devote himself to my father, who, however, could not endure
the thought of sending for him, knowing how severely his
great practice taxed his strength.

No especial change occurred during the beginning of April,
but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while
sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to
reach his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my
temporary absence recorded for me the progress of an ex-
periment in which I was engaged. During the night of April
1 8th, about a quarter to twelve, he had a severe attack and
passed into a faint, from which he was brought back to
consciousness with great difficulty. He seemed to recognise
the approach of death, and said, " I am not the least afraid
to die." All the next morning he suffered from terrible
nausea and faintness, and hardly rallied before the end
came.

He died at about four o'clock on Wednesday, April 19th,,
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.

36o

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,
Nevil Storey Maskelyne,
A. J. Mundella,
G. O. Trevelyan,
Lyon Playfair,
Charles W. Dilke,
David Wedderburn,
Arthur Russell,
Horace Davey,
Benjamin Armitage,

Richard B. Martin,
Francis W. Buxton,
E. L. Stanley,
Henry Broadhurst,
John Barran,
J. F. Cheetham,
H. S. Holland,
H. Campbell-Bannerman,
Charles Bruce,
Richard Fort.

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

g

62 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, 1 832-1 836. 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. ' Beagle' round the
world, under the command of Capt Fitz-Roy, R.N. 2nd edition,
corrected, with additions. 8vo. London, 1845. (Colonial and
Home Library.)

A Naturalist's Voyage. Journal of Researches, &c. 8vo. London,
i860. [Contains a postscript dated Feb. 1, i860.]

Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. 'Beagle.' Edited and superin-
tended by Charles Darwin. Part I. Fossil Mammalia, by Richard
Owen. With a Geological Introduction, by Charles Darwin.
4to. London, 1840.

Part II. Mammalia, by George R. Waterhouse. With a notice

of their habits and ranges, by Charles Darwin. 4to. London,
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.
1 Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, visited during the

Voyage of H.M.S. ' Beagle.' Being the Second Part of the

Geology of the Voyage of the 'Beagle.' 8vo. London, 1844.
Geological Observations on South America. Being the Third Part

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

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 Lepadidse ; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes. 8vo.

London, 185 1. (Ray Society.)

The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes) ; the Verrucidae, &c.

8vo. London, 1854. (Ray Society.)

A Monograph of the Fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae of Great
Britain. 4to. London, 1854. (Palaeontographical Society.)

On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 8vo.
London, 1859. (Dated Oct. 1st, 1859, published Nov. 24, 1859.)

Fifth thousand. 8vo. London, i860.

Third edition, with additions and corrections. (Seventh thou-
sand.) 8vo. London, 1861. (Dated March, 1861.)

Fourth edition, with additions and corrections. (Eighth

thousand.) 8vo. London, 1866. (Dated June, 1866.)

Fifth edition, with additions and corrections. (Tenth thou-
sand.) 8vo. London, 1869. (Dated May, 1869.)

Sixth edition, with additions and corrections to 1872.

(Twenty-fourth thousand.) 8vo. London, 1882. (Dated Jan.,

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, 187 1.

Second edition. 8vo. London, 1874. (In 1 vol.)

The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. 8vo.

London, 1872.
The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom.

8vo. London, 1876.

Second edition. 8vo. London, 1878.

The different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the same Species.

8vo. London, 1877.

Second edition. 8vo. London, 1880.

The Power of Movement in Plants. By Charles Darwin, assisted

by Francis Darwin. 8vo. London, 1880.
The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms,

with Observations on their Habits. 8vo. London, 1881.

II. — List of Books containing Contributions by C. Darwin.

A manual of scientific enquiry ; prepared for the use of Her

Majesty's Navy : and adapted for travellers in general. Ed. by

Sir John F. W. Herschel, Bart. 8vo. London, 1849. (Section VI.

Geology. By Charles Darwin.)
Memoir of the Rev. John Stevens Henslow. By the Rev. Leonard

Jenyns. 8vo. London, 1862. [In Chapter III., Recollections by

C. Darwin.]
A letter (1876) on the 'Drift' near Southampton, published in

Prof. J. Geikie's ' Prehistoric Europe.'
Flowers and their unbidden guests. By A. Kerner. With a

Prefatory Letter by Charles Darwin. The translation revised and

edited by W. Ogle. 8vo. London, 1878.
Erasmus Darwin. By Ernst Krause. Translated from the German

by W. S. Dallas. With a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin.

8vo. London, 1879.
Studies in the Theory of Descent. By Aug. Weismann. Translated

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. Danvin to make what use he pleased of them. After Miiller's
death the Notes were given by his son to Dr. E. Krause, who
published them under the title, " Ueber die Wege der Hummel-
Mannchen " in his book, ' Gesammelte kleinere Schriften von
Charles Darwin' (1887).

III. — List of Scientific Papers, including a selection of
Letters and Short Communications to Scientific Journals.

Letters to Professor Henslow, read by him at the meeting of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society, held Nov. 16, 1835. 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. 1, 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 160 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. 1-6.

Brief Descriptions of several Terrestrial Planarics, and of some
remarkable Marine Species, with an Account of their Habits.
Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. xiv. 1844, pp. 241-251.

An account of the Fine Dust which often falls on Vessels in the
Atlantic Ocean. Geol. Soc. Journ. ii. 1846, pp. 26-30.

On the Geology of the Falkland Islands. Geol. Soc. Journ. ii. 1846,
pp. 267-274.

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. 185 1, pp. 17-18.
On the power of Icebergs to make rectilinear, uniformly-directed
Grooves across a Submarine Undulatory Surface. Phil. Mag. x.
1855, pp. 96-98.
Vitality of Seeds. Gardeners' Chronicle, Nov. 17, 1855, p. 758.
On the action of Sea-water on the Germination of Seeds. [1856.]

Linn. Soc. Journ. i. 1857 {Botany), pp. 130-140.
On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous

Flowers. Gardener? Chrofiicle, p. 725, 1857.
On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Per-
petuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.
By Charles Darwin, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S., and F.G.S., and Alfred
Wallace, Esq. [Read July 1st, 1858.] Journ. Linn. Soc. 1859,
vol. iii. (Zoology), p. 45.

Special titles of C. Darwin's contributions to the foregoing : —

(i) Extract from an unpublished work on Species by C.

Darwin, Esq., consisting of a portion of a chapter entitled,

" On the Variation of Organic Beings in a State of Nature ;

on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of

Domestic Races and true Species." (ii) Abstract of a Letter

from C. Darwin, Esq., to Professor Asa Gray, of Boston, U.S.,

dated Sept. 5, 1857.

On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilization of Papilionaceous Flowers,

and on the Crossing of Kidney Beans. Gardeners' Chronicle,

1858, p. 828 and Ann. Nat. Hist. 3rd series ii. 1858, pp. 459-465.

Do the Tineina or other small Moths suck Flowers, and if so what

Flowers? Entom. Weekly Intell. vol. viii. i860, p. 103.
Note on the achenia of Pumilio Argyrolepis. Gardeners' Chronicle,

Jan. 5, 1861, p. 4.
Fertilisation of Vincas. Gardeners'1 Chronicle, pp. 552, 831, 832.

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

368 APPENDIX II.

Primula, and on their remarkable Sexual Relations. Linn. Soa

Journ. vi. 1862 {Botany), pp. 77-96.
On the Three remarkable Sexual Forms of Catasetum tridentatum,

an Orchid in the possession of the Linnean Society. Linn. Soc.

Journ. vi. 1862 {Botany), pp. 151-157.
Yellow Rain. Gardeners' Chronicle, July 18, 1863, p. 675.
On the thickness of the Pampean formation near Buenos Ayres.

Geol. Soc. Journ. xix. 1863, pp. 68-71.
On the so-called " Auditory-sac " of Cirripedes. Nat. Hist. Review,

1863, pp. 115-116.
A review of Mr. Bates' paper on ' Mimetic Butterflies.' Nat. Hist.

Review, 1863, p. 221 — . [Not signed.]
On the existence of two forms, and on their reciprocal sexual rela-
tion, in several species of the genus Linum. Linn. Soc. Journ. vii.

1864 {Botany), pp. 69-83.
On the Sexual Relations of the Three Forms of Lythrum salicaria.

[1864.] Linn. Soc. Journ. viii. 1865 {Botany), pp. 169-196.
On the Movement and Habits of Climbing Plants. [1865.] Linn.

Soc. Journ. ix. 1867 {Botany), pp. 1-118.
Note on the Common Broom {Cytisus scoparius). [1866.] Linn.

Soc. Journ. ix. 1867 {Botany), p. 358.
Notes on the Fertilization of Orchids. Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist.

4th series, iv. 1869, pp. 141-159.
On the Character and Hybrid-like Nature of the Offspring from the

Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants. [1868.]

Linn. Soc. Jour. x. 1869 {Botany), pp. 393-437.
On the Specific Difference between Primula veris, Brit. Fl. (var.

officinalis, of Linn.), P. vulgaris, Brit. Fl. (var. acaulis, Linn.), and

P. elatior, Jacq. ; and on the Hybrid Nature of the common

Oxlip. With Supplementary Remarks on naturally-produced

Hybrids in the genus Verbascum. [1868.] Linn. Soc. Journ. x.

1869 {Botany), pp. 437-454.
Note on the Habits of the Pampas Woodpecker {Colaptes campes-

tris). Zool. Soc. Proc. Nov. 1, 1870, pp. 705-706.
Fertilisation of Leschenaultia. Gardeners' Chronicle,^. 116 6, 187 1.
The Fertilisation of Winter-flowering Plants. 'Nature,' Nov. 18,

1869, vol. i. p. 85.
Pangenesis. ' Nature,' April 27, 187 1, vol. iii. p. 502.
A new view of Darwinism. ' Nature,' July 6, 187 1, vol. iv. p. 180.
Bree on Darwinism. ' Nature,' Aug. 8, 1872, vol. vi. p. 279.

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, vol. viii. p. 244.
On the "Males and Gomplemental Males of Certain Cirripedes, and

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

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

1874, vol. ix. p. 308.
Fertilisation of the Fumariaceae. 'Nature,' April 16, 1874, vol. ix.

p. 460.
Flowers of the Primrose destroyed by Birds. 'Nature,' April 23,

1874, vol. ix. p. 482 ; May 14, 1874, vol. x. p. 24.
Cherry Blossoms. 'Nature,' May n, 1876, vol. xiv. p. 28.
Sexual Selection in relation to Monkeys. 'Nature,' Nov. 2, 1876,

vol. xv. p. 18.
Fritz Miiller on Flowers and Insects. 'Nature,' Nov. 29, 1877,

vol. xvii. p. 78.
The Scarcity of Holly Berries and Bees. Gardeners' Chronicle,

Jan. 20, 1877, p. 83.
Note on Fertilisation of Plants. Gardeners7 C/ironide, 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. 1, 1880, vol. xxi. p. 207.
The Sexual Colours of certain Butterflies. ' Nature,' Jan. 8, 1880,

vol. xxi. p. 237.
The Omori Shell Mounds. 'Nature,' April 15, 1880, vol. xxi.

p. 561.
Sir Wyville Thomson and Natural Selection. 'Nature,' Nov. n,

1880, vol. xxiii. p. 32.
Black Sheep. ' Nature,' Dec. 30, 1880, vol. xxiii. p. 193.
Movements of Plants. 'Nature,' .March 3, 1881, vol. xxiii. p. 409.

VOL. III. 2 B

370 APPENDIX II.

The Movements of Leaves. * Nature/ April 28, 1881, vol. xxiii.

p. 603.
Inheritance. ' Nature/ July 21, 1881, vol. xxiv. p. 257.
Leaves injured at Night by Free Radiation. ' Nature/ Sept. 15,

1 88 1, vol. xxiv. p. 459.

The Parasitic Habits of Molothrus. 'Nature/ Nov. 17, 1881,

vol. xxv. p. 51.
On the Dispersal of Freshwater Bivalves. 'Nature/ April 6, 1882,

vol. xxv. p. 529.
The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on the Roots of certain

Plants. [Read March 16, 1882.] Linn. Soc. Journ. {Botany),

vol. xix. 1882, pp. 239-261.
The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll-bodies.

[Read March 6, 1882.] Linn. Soc. Journ. (Botany), vol. xix.

1882, pp. 262-284.

On the Modification of a Race of Syrian Street-Dogs by means of
Sexual Selection. By W. Van Dyck. With a preliminary notice
by Charles Darwin. [Read April 18, 1882.] Proc. Zoolog. Soc.
.1882, pp. 367-370.

( 37i )

APPENDIX III.

-•o*-

PORTRAITS.

Date.

Description.

Artist.

In the Possession of

1838

Water-colour

G, Richmond .

The Family.

1851

Lithograph .

Ipswich British
Assn. Series.

I3.S3

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 j ,

W. Ouless, R.A.

The Family.

Etched by-

P. Raj on.

1879

Oil Painting

W. B. Richmond

The University of
Cambridge.

1881

Oil Painting J .

Hon. John Collier

The Linnean
Society.

Etched by-

Leopold Flameng

Chief Portraits and Memorials not taken from Life

Statue

Bust
Plaque

Deep Medallion

Joseph Boehm,

R.A.
Chr. Lehr, Junr.
T. Woollier, R.A.,

and Josiah

Wedgwood and

Sons.
J. Boehm, R.A.

Museum, South
Kensington.

Christ's College, in
Charles Darwin's
Room.

To be placed in
Westminster
Abbey.

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

t A replica by the artist is in the
possession of Christ's College, Cam-

bridge.

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

2 B 2

372 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 '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.

Decrees. — Cambridge \ ' 3 L 3 J-l

6 ° \ M.A. 1837.

Hon. LL.D. 1877.
Bonn . . Hon. Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. 1868.
Breslau . Hon. Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. 1862.
Leyden . Hon. M.D. 1875.
Societies. — London . Zoological. Corresp. Member. 18314

Entomological. 1833, Orig. Member.

Geological. 1836. Wollaston Medal, 1859.

Royal Geographical. 1838.

Royal. 1839. Royal Society's Medal, 1853
Copley Medal, 1864.

Linnean. 1854.

Ethnological. 1861.

Medico-Chirurgical. Hon. Member. 1868.

Baly Medal of the Royal College of Physi-
cians, 1879.

Societies. — Provincial, Colonial and Indian.

Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1865.

Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh, 1826. Hon. Member, 1861.

Royal Irish Academy. Hon. Member, 1866.

* The list has been compiled from United States) is given in English, it

the diplomas and letters in my father's is a translation of the Latin (or in one

possession, and is no doubt incomplete, case Russian) of the original Diploma,

as he seems to have lost or mislaid | See vol. i. p. 163.

-some of the papers received from J He afterwards became a Fellow

foreign Societies. Where the name of of the Society,
a foreign Society (excluding those in the

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, 187 1.
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 Arjentma. Hon. Member, 1874.
Boston Society of Natural History. Hon. Member, 1873.
American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Boston). Foreign Hon*

Member, 1874.
California Academy of Sciences. Hon. Member, 1872.
California State Geological Society. Corresp. Member, 1877.
Franklin Literary Society, Indiana. Hon. Member, 1878.
Sociedad de Naturalistas Neo-Granadinos. Hon. Member, i860.
New York Academy of Sciences. Hon. Member, 1879.
Gabinete Portuguez de Leitura em Pernambuco. Corresp. Member,

1879.
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Correspondent, i860..
American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Member, 1869.

Austria-Hungary.

Imperial Academy of Sciences of Vienna. Foreign Corresponding

Member, 187 1 ; Hon. Foreign Member, 1875.
Anthropologische Gesellschaft in Wien. Hon. Member, 1872.
K. k. Zoologische botanische Gesellschaft in Wien. Member, 1867.
Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, Pest, 1872.

Belgium.

Societe Royale des Sciences Me'dicales et Naturelles de Bruxelles*

Hon. Member, 1878.
Societe Royale de Botanique de Belgique. ' Membre Associe/ 1881

APPENDIX IV. 375

Acade'mie Royale des Sciences, &c, de Belgique. 'Associe de la
Classe des Sciences/ 1870.

Denmark.
Royal Society of Copenhagen. Fellow, 1879.

France.

Socie'te d' Anthropologic de Paris. Foreign Member, 187 1.
Societe Entomologique de France. Hon. Member, 1874.
Societe Geologique de France. Life Member, 1837.
Institut de France. ' Correspondant ' Section of Botany, 1878.

Germany.

Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences (Berlin). Corresponding

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

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

Member, 1878.
Csesarea Leopoldino-Carolina Academia Naturae Curiosorum (Dres-
den).* 1857.
Senkenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft zu Frankfurt am Main.

Corresponding Member, 1873.
Naturforschende Gesellschaft zu Halle. Member, 1879.
Siebenburgische Verein fur Naturwissenschaften (Hermannstadt).

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

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

Foreign Member, 1878.

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 Cccsarea Leo- My father seems to have been named

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

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

376 APPENDIX IV.

Societe 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 Csesarea Naturae Curiosorum (Moscow). Hon. Member,

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

Member, 1867.

Spain.
Institucion Libre de Ensefianza (Madrid). Hon. Professor, 1877.

Sweden.

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

1865.
Royal Society of Sciences (Upsala). Fellow, i860.

Switzerland.

Socie'te des Sciences Naturelles du Neufchatel. Corresponding
Member, 1863.

( 377 )

INDEX.

ABBOTT.

Abbott, F. E., letters to, on religious

opinions, i. 305.
Aberdeen, British Association Meeting

at, 1859, ii. 166.
Absences from home, between 1842 and

1854, i. 330.
Abstract (' Origin of Species'), ii. 131,

132, 133, 137, i38> U9, 140, 143,

145, 147.
Abyssal fauna, Sir Wyville Thomson on

the character of the, as bearing on

the Darwinian theory, iii. 242.

Acacias, Australian, "bloom" on the,
iii. 341.

Acacia, South African, iii. 342.

* Academy,' review of the ' Descent of
Man' in the, iii. 137.

, review, by A. R. Wallace, of

Mivart's ' Lessons from Nature,' in
the, iii. 184.

Academy of Natural Sciences of Phila-
delphia election of C. Darwin as a
correspondent of the, ii. 307.

— of Sciences at Berlin, election

as a corresponding member of the,
iii. 224.

Acceleration and retardation of develop-
ment, views of Profs. Hyatt and
Cope upon, iii. 154, 233.

Acclimatisation, ii., 212.

Adaptation, power of, ii. 176.

Adherents and adversaries, ii. 310.

./Esthetic tastes, loss of, i. 101.

Africa, mountains of, ii. 75 ; perma-
nence of, ii. 75.

Agassiz, Louis, Professor, influence of,
ii. 43 ; opposition to Darwin's views,

ALPINE,
ii. 184, 310, 314; letter to, sending
him the ' Origin of Species,' ii. 215 ;
note on, and extract from letter to, ii.
215 note', opinion of the book, ii.
268 ; attack on the ' Origin ' in
i Silliman's Journal,' ii. 330, 331;
criticism of article by, ii. 333 ; Asa
Gray on the opinions of, ii. 359 ; letter
to, on Amazonian fishes, iii. 99.

Agassiz, Alexander, Professor, letters
to: — on coral reefs, iii. 183 ; on his
address to the American Association,
iii. 245 ; on the reappearance of
ancestral characters, iii. 246.

Agnosticism, i. 304, 313, 317.

Ainsworth, William, i. 37.

Albumen, dissolution of, by leaves of
Drosera and Dioncca, iii. 323.

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

Alca impcnnis. Professor W. Preyer on,
iii. 16 note.

Aldrovanda, observations on, iii. 328.

Algebra, distaste for the study of, i. 46.

Allen, J. A., on the existence of geo-
graphical races of birds and mammals,
iii. 233.

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

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

Almond Tumbler, J. Eaton on the, ii.

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, ii.

92, 97-

373

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

Bowen 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

1 Fertilisation of Orchids,' in the,

iii. 272.
American type in the Galapagos, ii.

209.
Civil War, the, ii. 374, 377,

381, 385, 386 ; iii. 272.
1 Amixie,' Prof. A. Weismann's view

of the origin of local races through,

iii. 155-
Ammonia, salts of, behaviour of the

leaves of Drosera, towards, iii. 31 8,

319, 324, 325, 326.
Amsterdam island, ii. 94.
Ancestral characters, reappearance of,

iii. 246.
Andes, excursion across the, i. 259,

260 ; Lyell on the slow rise of the,

i- 325-
Anclasma, iii. 38.

Anergates, iii. 191.

Angiospermous plants in Cretaceous

beds of the United States, iii. 248.
Angnvattn, A. R. Wallace on the

structure of, iii. 274.
Angulus Woolnerianus, iii. 140.
Animals, crossing of, i. 299, 301 ;

dispersion of, iii. 182.
, fresh water, antiquity of, ii.

ARISTOCRACY.

340 ; terrestrial hermaphrodite, not

fitted for self-impregnation, iii. 260.
Animism, iii. 157.
' Anaes-section,' iii. 202.
1 Annals and Magazine of Natural

History,' review of the ' Origin ' in

the, ii. 284 ; reprint of article by

Asa Gray in the, ii. 353.
Antarctic Continent, possible former,

iii. 24S ; Tertiary, iii. 231.
fossil plants, ignorance of, iii.

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. 19 1 ; slave-making,

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

Apparatus, i. 145-148 ; purchase of,

for the Zoological Station at Naples,

iii. 225.
Appletons' American reprints of the

4 Origin,' ii. 270, 310.
Apple-trees, not attacked by Coccus,

iii. 348.
Aquatic and terrestrial plants, sexual

characteristics of British, iii. 304.
Aralo-Caspian basin, antiquity of the,

"• 75;

Archebiosis, iii. 16S.

Archipelagoes, oceanic, ii. 77»

Arctic fossil plants, importance of, iii.
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, ^ ;
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,

Joseph Hooker, iii. 101 .

the, iii. 19 ; article in the, iii. 21 ;

reply to the article, iii. 22 ; reviews

in the, i. 375, 376.
review of the ' Origin ' in

upon Sir
letter to

the, ii. 224, 228 ; reviews in the,
of Lyell's ' Antiquity of Man,' and
Huxley's ' Man's place in Nature,'
iii. 14 ; review of the ' Variation of
Animals and Plants,' in the, iii. 77,
79 ; review of the fifth edition of the
* Origin ' in the, iii. 108 ; review
of the ' Fertilisation of Orchids,' in
the, iii. 270.

Athenceum Club, i. 294.

Atlantic ocean, account of the fine
dust which often falls on vessels in
the, i. 328.

continent, ii. 72, 73, 74 ; iii.

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.

HATS.
Autobiography, i. 26-107.
' Automata,' iii. 358.
Automatism, iii. 251.
Aveling, Dr., on C. Darwin's religious

views, i. 317 note.
Avicularium of a Polyzoon, i. 249.
Axolotl, Professor Weismann on the,

iii. 19S.
Azores, ii. 74, 77 ; Boulders on the,

ii. H2, 113.

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

47.

Backgammon-playing, i. 1 23.

Bar, Karl Ernst von, ii. 231 ; assent
of, to evolutionist views, ii. 186
note ; opinion of the theory, ii. 329,

33°.
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 annatus, iii. 97.

Baly medal, award of the, by the Royal
College of Physicians, iii. 224.

Balfour, Professor F. M., on the prac-
tice of vivisection under Anaesthetics,
iii. 203 ; notice of, iii. 250.

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

309-

Barmouth, visit to, i. 168, 178.

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

Bates, H. W., on the Glacial period irt
the tropics, ii. 361 ; paper on mi-
metic butterflies, ii. 378 ; Darwin's
opinion of, ii. 380 note ; ' Naturalist
on the Amazons,' opinion of, ii. 381 ;.
letters to : — on his book on the Ama-
zons, ii. 378, 379, 381 ; on his ' In-
sect-Fauna of the Amazons Valley,'
ii. 391.

Batrachians, absence of, on islands, ii.

77-
Bats in New Zealand, ii. 336 ; Indian,,
killing frogs, ii. 336 ; on Oceanic
islands, iii. 20.

-I

80

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.

Ill ; 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 /rigida, ii. 275, 290.
Behrens, W., letter to, on fertilisation,

iii. 282.
, ' Geschichte der Bestaubungs-

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

1874, iii- l&9-
Bell, Professor Thomas, i. 274, 275 ;

ii- 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.

1 On the Species and Genera of

Plants,' ii. 363 ; reference to the
* Variation of Animals and Plants,'
in his Address to the Linnean Society
(1868), iii. 85.
, letter from, to F. Darwin, ii.

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.

': 297'

Biddenham gravel-pits, Lyell's visit to

the, ii. 364.
Bignonia caprcolata^ questions as to

conditions of climbing of, iii. 314.
Billiards, ii. 151.
' Biographical sketch of an Infant,' iii.

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. 180.
Blocks, erratic, Mr. D. Mackintosh's

work on, iii. 235.
Blomefield, Rev. L., j«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.
Blyth, Edward, ii. 315 ; notice of, ii.

315 note.
Blytt, Axel, " On the Immigration of

the Norwegian Flora," iii. 215 ; on

the evidence from the peat-beds of

former changes in the climate of

Scandinavia, iii. 249.
" Bob," the retriever, i. 113.
Body-snatchers, arrest of, in Cambridge,

i- 53-
Books, treatment of, i. 150-152 ; advo-
cacy of cutting the edges of, iii. 36 ;

containing contributions by C.

Darwin, Lists of, iii. 364, 365.
Boole, Mrs., letter from, on Evolution

and Religion, iii. 63 ; letter to, iii.

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, 16 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. 166 ; at Norwich, 1868, Sir
Joseph Hooker's address to the, iii.
100 ; action of, in connection with
the question of vivisection, iii. 201 ;
Sir J. D. Hooker's address to the
Geographical Section of the, at
York, 1881, iii. 246, 249; Sir John
Lubbock's Presidential Address to
the, at York, 1 881, iii. 249 ; Meet-
ing at Oxford, discussion at the, ii.
320-323 ; Sir J. D. Hooker's alle-
gory of the Discussion at the, iii. 48 ;
Prof. Tyndall's Presidential address
to the, at Belfast, 1874, iii. 189.

British aquatic and terrestrial plants,
sexual characteristics of, iii. 304.

Broderip, \V. J., i. 274 note, 275.

3§2

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 > 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.
no, 386.

Buckley, Miss, letters to : — on the death
of Sir Charles Lyell, iii. 196, 197 ;
on her ' History of Natural Science,'
iii. 229.

Bud-variation, iii. 57, 86.

Buffon's notions analogous to Pange-
nesis, iii. 44, 45.

Bullfinch, sexual differences of the, iii.
124.

Bulwer's * Professor Long,' i. 81.

Bunbury, Sir C, his opinion of the
theory, ii. 285.

Business habits, i. 120.

Butler, Dr., schoolmaster at Shrews-
bury, i. 30.

, Samuel, charge against C.

Darwin, iii. 220.

-, Rev. T., i. 168.

Butterflies, removal of the pollen of
Hedychium by the wings of, iii. 283,
284.

of the Alps, tamer than those of

lowlands, iii. 170.

Cactus, seedling, movements of, iii.

„33°'
Cader Idris, iii. 106. ,

Caerdeon, residence at, iii. 106.

Cairns, Prof. J. E., lecture on * The

Slave-power,' iii. 11.

Catamites, i. 357.

Call-duck, ii. 50.

*' Callisection," iii. 202 note.

Cambridge, gun-practice at, i. 34 ;

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,

ii.335-

Cants magellanicus, iii. 118.

Cape of Good Hope, bloom-covered

plants at the, iii. 341.
Cape Verd Islands, i. 228, 241.
Carabidae, squirting of, ii. 36.
Carboniferous and Silurian formations,

amount of subsidence indicated by,

_ ii- 77-

Carlisle, Sir Anthony, i. 360.

Carlyle, Thomas, character of Erasmus
A. Darwin, i. 22.

, acquaintance with, i. 77.

Carnarvon, Lord, proposed Act to
Amend the Law relating to cruelty
to animals, iii. 201.

Carnarvonshire, paper on ancient
glaciers of, i. 302.

Carnations, effects of cross- and self-
fertilisation on, iii. 290.

Carnivorous plant, in Madagascar,
hoax about a, iii. 325.

Carpenter, Dr. W. B., letters to : — on
the ' Origin of Species,' ii. 222, 223,
239 ; on his review in the ' National
Review,' ii. 262 ; on his review in
the ' Medico-Chirurgical Review,'
ii. 299.

, limited acceptance of theory

by, ii. 369.

Carpenter's ' Introduction to the Study
of Foraminifera,' review of, in the
Athenaumt 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.

Cataseticm, pollinia of, adhering to
bees' backs, iii. 264, 284 ; sensitive-
ness of flowers of, iii. 268 ; paper on,
iii. 275.

Caterpillars, colouring of, iii. 93, 94
note, 95.

Caton, John D., letter to, on American
Deer, hi., 102.

Cats, mesmerising, i. 374.

and mice, ii. 312.

with blue eyes, deafness of, ii.

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

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

Change, slowness of, ii. 124.

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.

1 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,

137.
Climbing plants, i. 92; iii., 27, 311-

317.

3§4

INDEX.

CLIMBING.

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

Coal, supposed marine origin of, i.
356-360.

Coal-plants, letters to Sir Joseph
Hooker on, i. 356-360.

Cobbe, Miss, manifesto against vivi-
section sent by, iii. 203 ; letter
headed "Mr. Darwin and vivisec-
tion " in the Times, iii. 206.

Coccus, apple-trees not attacked by,
iii. 348.

Cohn, Prof., visit to Down, iii. 223 ;
letter to, iii. 234.

Coldstream, Dr., i. 38.

Colenso, Bishop, on the Pentateuch,
ii. 391.

Collections made during the voyage of
the ' Beagle,' destination of the, i. 273.

Collier, Hon. John, portrait of C. Dar-
win by, iii. 223.

Colonies, Darwin's interest in the
spread of science in the, iii. 5, 6.

Colour, in insects, acquired by sexual
selection, iii. 137.

Compilers, inaccuracy of, ii. 281 note.

Complexion, correlation of, with con-
stitution in man, iii. 90.

Conditions, Physical, constancy of
species under diversity of, ii. 319 ;
effects of, ii. 320.

, external, direct action of, iii.

109, 159.

-, external, influence of changed,

on plants, iii. 345.
Confervas, conjugation of, iii. 304.
Coniferse, origin of the flowers of, iii.

285.
Conscientiousness, extreme, anecdotes

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

i". 53-55-
Continent, possible former Antarctic,

iii. 248.

Tertiary Antarctic, iii. 231.

Continental extensions, ii. 72, 73,
74-78, 80, 81, 82, 109.

Continents, antiquity of, ii. 76 ; ef-
fects of submergence of, ii. 75 '■>
sinking of imaginary, iii. 230.

and oceans, permanence of, iii.

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
4 Beagle,' i. 217-271 ; during resi-
dence in London, 1836-1842, i. 272-
303 ; on the subject of religion, i.
304-317 ; during residence at Down,
1 842-1 854, i. 318-395; during the
progress of the work on the ' Origin
of Species,' ii. 1-178 ; after the pub-
lication of the work, ii. 205-392;
on the ' Variation of Animals and
Plants,' iii. i-88 ; on the work on
1 Man,' iii. 89-180 ; miscellaneous,
iii. 181-253 ; on botanical researches,
iii. 254-354.

INDEX.

385

CORYANTHES.

Coryantkcs, water-reservoir in labellum
of, iii. 284.

Corydalis, Hildebrand on cross-fertili-
sation in, iii. 2S0.

Cosmogony, Pentateuchal, ii. 187.

' Cosmos,' English translation of the,

i- 344 ; "• 3°-
Cottage Gardens, i. 343 note.

Cotyledons, movements of, iii. 330.

Cousins, inter-marriage of, iii. 129, 130.

Cowslip, supposed male and female

plants of the, iii. 297, 298 ; differ-
ences of the pollen in the two forms

of the, iii. 297, 298.
Crawford, John, review of the 'Origin,'

ii. 237.
Created form, primordial, ii. 251.
Creation, continued, of Monads, ii. 210.

, conceivable, ii. 187.

, objections to use of the term,

iii. 18.
Creative action, ii. 210.
power, continued intervention

of, ii. 174.
Cresy, E., letters to, detailing experi-
ments on Drosera with ammoniacal

salts, iii. 318, 319.
Cretaceous beds of the United States,

Angiospermous plants ir, iii. 248 ;

toothed birds in the, iii. 242 note.
Crick, W. D., on a mode of dispersal

of Bivalve Mullusca, iii. 252.
Crossbill, variability of the bill of the,

ii. 97.
Cross- and self-fertilisation in plants, i.

96, 97.
Cross-fertilisation of hermaphrodite

flowers, first ideas of the, iii. 257, 258.
Crossing, effects of, iii. 156.

of animals, i. 299, 301.

Cruder, Dr., observation on Catasttum

and Coryanthes, iii. 264, 284.
Crustacea, unequal numbers of sexes

in, iii. 97 ; lower, clasping pincers

in males of, iii. III.
Crustaceans and fishes, ii. 334.
Cryptogamia, dispersal of, i. 328 note.
Cucurbitaceae, irritability of tendrils of,

iii. m>
Cycas, seedling, movements of, iii. 330.

Cychnoches, iii. 268.

Cypripediuni., pollen of, iii. 265.

VOL. III.

DARWIN.

Daily Life at Down, i. 108.

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

Dallas, W. S., index to the 'Variation
of Animals and Plants,' iii. 74 note ;
translation of Fritz Midler's ' Fur
Darwin,' iii. 86, 87 ; glossary to sixth
edition of the 'Origin,' iii. 154;
translation of E. Krause's ' Life of
Erasmus Darwin,' iii. 364.

Dana, Professor J. D., Geology of the
United States Expedition, i. 374 ;
on the permanence of continents and
oceans, iii. 247.

Dareste, Camille, letter to, iii. 7.

Darwin, Charles, i. 7.

, Charles R., pedigree of, i. 5 J

Autobiography of, i. 26-107 5 birth,
i. 27 ; loss of mother, i. 27 ; day-
school at Shrewsbury, i. 27 ; natural
history tastes, i. 28 ; hoaxing, i.
28 ; humanity, i. 29 ; egg-collect-
ing, i. 30 ; angling, i. 30 ; dragoon's
funeral, i. 30 ; boarding school
at Shrewsbury, i. 30 ; fondness
for dogs, i. 30 ; classics, i. 32 ;
liking for geometry, i. 33 ; read-
ing, i. 33 ; fondness for shooting, i.
34 ; science, i. 34 ; at Edinburgh,
i. 36-42 ; early medical practice at
Shrewsbury, i. 37 ; tours in North
Wales, i. 42 ; shooting at Wood-
house and Maer, i. 42-44 ; at Cam-
bridge, i. 46-55 ; visit to North
Wales, with Sedgwick, i., 56-58 ;
on the voyage of the ' Beagle,' i. 58-
6y ; second residence at Cambridge,
i. 67 ; residence in London, i. 67-
78 ; marriage, i. 69 ; residence at
Down, i. 78-79 ; publications, i. 79-
98 ; manner of writing, i. 99-100 ;
mental qualities, i. 100-107.

, Reminiscences of, j. 108-160 ;

personal appearance, i. 109, 11 1;
mode of walking, i. 109, 1 1 1 ; walks, i.
109, 114-116; dissecting, i. no;
ill-health, iii. ' 159 ; laughing, i.
in ; gestures, i. 112 ; dress, i. 112;
early rising, i. 112; work, i. 112,
122 ; fondness. for dogs, i. 113 ; love
of flowers, i. 116; riding, i. 117;

2 C

3S6

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. 1 32- 1 38 ;
hospitality, i. 139 ; conversational
powers, i. 140-142 ; friends, i. 142 ;
local influence, i. 142 ; mode of
work, i. 144 ; literary style, i. 155.

Darwin, Edward, i. 4.

, Dr. Erasmus, i. 2, 4 ; charac-
ter of, i. 6 ; life of, by Ernst Krause,
i. 97, iii. 218; views on evolution,
ii. 189 note ; error of M. Fabre in
quoting from, iii. 221.

, Erasmus (2), i. 8.

, Erasmus Alvey, i. 20 ; 21 ; his

brother's character of him, i. 21 ;
Carlyle's character of him, i. 22 ;
Miss Wedgwood's character of him,
i. 23 ; letter from, ii. 223 ; death of,
iii. 228.

, family, i. I.

, Francis Sacheverel, i. 4.

, John, i. 4.

, Miss, letter to, 1838, i. 289.

, Miss C, letters to : — from Mal-

donado, i. 244 ; from East Falkland
Island, i. 251 ; from Valparaiso, i.
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. 1, 2.

, William, (3), i. 2.

— , William, (4), i- 3-
-, William Alvey, i. 4.

'Darwinische Arten-Entstehung-Hum-
bug,' iii. 306.

'Darwinismus,' i. 86.

Daubeny, Professor, ii. 327 ; ' On the
final causes of the sexuality of plants,'
ii. 320, 332.

Davidson, Thomas, letters to, ii. 366,
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 f send-
ing him the 'Origin of Species,' ii.
216 ; on his ' Phytographie,' iii. 332.

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

Deer, American, iii. 101.

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

Degrees, Honours and Societies, list of,
"i- 373-376.

Delpino, Prof, on the theory of Pan-
genesis, iii. 194; observations on
Magnolia iii. 285.

Deluge, Noachian, arguments from the,
iii. 376.

'Descent of Man,' work on the, iii.
98, 121 ; publication of the, i. 93,
iii. 131 ; preparation of second
edition of the, iii. 175 ; publication
of second edition of the, iii. 184.

, Reviews of the, in the ' Edin-
burgh Review,' iii. 133 ; in the
Academy, iii. 137 ; in the Pall Mall
Gazette, iii. 138; in the Spectator,
iii. 138 ; in the Nonconformist, iii.

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) 378i 382 ; argument from, as to

existence of God, i. 309.

, evidence of, ii. 312.

Devonian strata, insect with stridula-

ting apparatus in the, iii. 97.
Devonshire caverns, pre-glacial remains

in, ii. 365.
'Dichogamy' of C. K. Sprengel, iii.

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. 2S5.

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

Dielytra, iii. 259.

Diet, i. 118, 123.

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

324-
Dimorphism and trimorphism in plants,

papers on, i. 91.
' Dicecio-dimorphism,' iii. 303.
Dioiuea, dissolution of albumen and

gelatine by, iii. 323.
Direction, supposed sense of, in animals,

iii. 221.
Diseases, infectious, origin of, iii. 234.
Dispersion of animals, iii. 182.
Dissecting, i. no.
Distribution of organisms, evidence

from the, as to former continental

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.

, Mongrelisation of, in Beyrout,

iii. 252.

, supposed multiple origin of

domestic, ii. 230, 346.

Dohrn, Dr. Anton, letters to, on the
reception of the ' Descent of Man,'
iii. 133 ; on the Naples Zoological
Station, iii. 198 ; offering to present
apparatus to the Zoological station at
Naples, iii. 225 ; on F. M. Balfour's
illness, iii. 251.

' Dolomit-Riffe,' by E. von Mojsis-
ovics, iii. 234.

Domestication, variation under, ii. 29.

Don, Mr., i. 275.

Donders, Prof., letter to, on election to
the Royal Society of Holland, iii.
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.

Drosera, observations on, i. 95 ; iii.
317-327 ; action of glands of, iii. 337 ;
action of ammoniacal salts on the
leaves of, iii. 318, 319, 324, 325,
326 ; dissolution of albumen and
gelatine by, iii. 323 ; effect of very
light objects on the hairs of, iii.

3!9-
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

338

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 Pinguecula, iii.
324 ; on movement in plants, iii.
33°> 33 :> 334; on the 'bloom' of
leaves and fruit, iii. 341.

Dysteleology, iii. 119 note.

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

Earle, Erasmus, i. 2.

Early rising, i. 1 12.

Earthquake, slight shock of, at Valpa-
raiso, i. 259.

Earthquakes, paper on, i. 70.

Earthworms, paper on the formation of
mould by the agency of, i. 70 ; hrst
observations on work done by, i.
284 ; work on, iii. 216 ; publication
of, iii. 217 ; intelligence in, iii. 243.

East Falkland Island, condition of, i.
252 ; letter to J. S. Henslow from,
i. j 249 ; letter to Miss C. Darwin
from, i. 251.

Eccremocarpus scaler, climbing of, iii.

314-
Echidna, ii. 335.
Echinocystis lobata, irritability of the

tendrils of, iii. 31 1 ; twisting of the

upper internode of, iii. 312.

ENGLISH.

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

Echiimi vulgar e, iii. 301.

Edinburgh, Plinian Society, i. 39 ;
Royal Medical Society, i. 40; Wer-
nerian Society, i. 40 ; lectures on
Geology and Zoology in, i. 41.

, Sir J. D. Hooker's candi-
dature for the Professorship of Botany

at> i- 335> 342.

, studies at, i. 36, 42.

, Royal Society of, Address of

the Duke of Argyll to the, iii.

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,
3°4» 311, 3:3; review of the 'De-
scent of Man ' in the, iii. 133 ; re-
view of the ' Expression of the
Emotions' in the, iii. 173; review
of the ' Fertilisation of Orchids ' in
the, iii. 274.

Education, i. 380, 384-386.

' Effects of Cross- and Self-Fertilisation
in the Vegetable Kingdom,' publica-
tion of the, i. 96, 97 ; iii. 293 ;
review of the, in ' Nature,' iii.
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 Churchman, review of the
' Origin ' in the, ii. 241.

INDEX.

3§9

ENGRAVINGS.

Engravings, fondness for, i. 170.

1 Enoch Arden,' quotation from, iii. 4.

Entomological Society, concurrence of

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

230.
Equisdum, upright oolitic, i. 360.
Equus, species of the genus, ii. 101.
Erratic blocks, at Glen Roy, i., 293;

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

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, ii- 35*
' Essays and Reviews,' R. Chambers

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

iii. 341.
Euphorbia pcplus, action of ammonia

on the contents of the cells of the

roots of, iii. 347.
Europe, mountains of, ii. 75.
European opinions of Darwin's work,

Dr. Falconer on, ii. 375.
Eustachian tube, iii. 141.
Evaporation, " bloom " sometimes a

check to, iii. 341.
Everglades of Virginia, black pigs in

the, ii. 300.
Evolution, progress of the theory of, iii.

2, 16 ; revival of the philosophy of,

ii. 180.
Ewart, Prof. J. C, on the locomotor

system of Echinoderms, iii. 243.
Experiment, love of, i. 150*
Expression in man, ii. 265 ; iii. 1 12.

in the Malays, iii. 95, 96.

Expression of the Emotions, work on

the, iii. 133.
* Exoression of the Emotions in Men

and Animals,' publication of the, i.

94 ; iii. 171 ; review of the, in the

'Edinburgh Review,' iii. 173.
External conditions, influence of, in

causing variation, ii. 87, 90.

, direct action of, iii. 109, 159.

, influence of changed, on plants,

iii- 345-

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 Tacsouia,
iii. 279.

Fawcett, Henry, letter from \V. Hop-
kins to, ii. 315 note; on Huxley's
reply to the Bishop of Oxford, ii.
322 note.

Fere-homo, ii. 227.

Fernando Noronha, visit to, i. 229.

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

1 of Orchids,' publication of

second edition of the, iii. 286.

1 ■ of Orchids,' reviews of the ;

390

INDEX.

FERTILISATION.

in the ' Parthenon,' iii. 270 ; in
the Athenceum, iii. 270 ; in the
' London Review,' iii. 270 ; in ' Silli-
man's Journal,' iii. 272, 304 ; in the
Saturday Review, iii. 274 ; in the
Literary Churchman, iii. 274 ; in
the ' Edinburgh Review,' iii. 274.

Fertilisation, cross- and self-, in the
vegetable kingdom, iii. 289-294.

of flowers, bibliography of the,

iii. 275.

Fish swallowing seeds, ii. 56.

Fisher, Mrs. See Buckley, Miss.

Fishes, Amazonian, iii. 99 ; electrical
organs of, ii. 352 ; swim-bladder of,

hi. 135-

■ and crustaceans, ii. 334.

Fiske, J., letter to, on his ' Cosmic
Philosophy,' iii. 193.

Fitton, W. PL, i. 294.

Fitz-Roy, Capt., i. 58, 59; character
of, i. 60 ; character of, by Rev. G.
Peacock, i. 191, 194; Darwin's
impressions of, i. 201, 203, 204, 206,
210; discipline on board the 'Beagle,'
i. 222 ; intended resignation of, i.
257 ; letter to, from Shrewsbury, i.
269 ; letters to, on his appointment
as Governor of New Zealand, i. 331,

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 larva? 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,
211; from Botofogo Bay, i. 233;
from Lima, i. 262 ; in 1836-1842 ;
i. 277, 27S, 279, 280, 290, 299, 301 ;
on the house at Down, i. 321 ; on
traces of glacial action, i. 332 ; on the
death of his little daughter, i. 380 ;
on their respective families, pro-
fessions for boys, education and the
publication of vol. i. of the Cirri-
pedes, i. 380, 384 ; on education and
schools, i. 385, 386 ; condoling on
loss of a child, i. 388 ; on plumage
and skeletons of young birds, ii. 46,
48, 49, 50 ; on Pigeon-breeding, ii.
51 ; asking for lizards' eggs, ii. 53 ;
on the British Association meeting
at Glasgow, 1855, ii. 66 ; on striped
horses, ii. 1 1 1 ; on family matters, ii.
140, 150; on the progress of the
work, ii. 167 ; on the ' Origin of
Species,' ii. 221 ; on the award of
the Copley Medal, iii. 27.
France, state of opinion in, iii. 7 J
persistence of belief in immutability
of species in, iii. 87.

INDEX.

391

FRANCE.

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

' Fraser's Magazine,' reviews of the
'Origin,' in, ii. 314, 314, 327.

Freke, Dr., ' On the Origin of Species
by means of Organic Affinity,' ii. 359.

French botanists, errors of, in the
matter of cross- and self-fertilisation,
iii. 279.

criticism on the paper on

Primula, iii. 305.

translation of the 'Origin,' ii.

357? 3^7 ; Mdlle. Royer's introduc-
tion to the, iii. 72 ; preparation of a
second edition of the, iii. 31 ; third
edition of the, published, iii. no.

translation of the ' Origin '

from the fifth English edition,

arrangements for the, iii. no.
Fuegians, condition of the, i. 243, 255 ;

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

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.

Gallits bankiva, female, coloration of,
iii. 124.

Galton, Francis, i. 4 ; answers to
questions formulated by, iii. 177—
180 ; experiments by intertransfu-
sion of blood, to test the theory of
pangenesis, iii. 195 ; questions on
the faculty of visualising, iii. 238.

, letter to, on visualising, iii.

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. Westwood
in the, ii. 267 ; Mr. Patrick Matthew's
claim of priority in the, ii. 301, 302 ;
review of the ' Variation of Animals
and Plants ' in the, iii. 77 ; review
of the ' Fertilisation of Orchids,' in
the, iii. 273.

Gardens, Cottage, i. 343 note.

Garreau on the " bloom " of leaves and
fruit, iii. 339 note.

Gauchos pithing lassoed cows, iii. 245.

Gaudry, A., letter to, iii. 87.

Geikie, Prof. Archibald, ' Life of
Murchison,' iii. 215; notes on the
' Geological Observations on South
America,' i. 326, 327 ; notes on the
article ' Geology ' in the Admiralty
Manual, 1849, i. 329 ; notes on the
work on Coral Reefs, i. 323 ; notes
on the work on Volcanic Islands, i.
326 ; on Darwin's theory of the
parallel roads of Glen Roy, i. 290.

, Prof. James, letter to, on

glacial geology, iii. 213.

Gelatine, dissolution of, by leaves of
Drosera and Dioncea, iii. 323.

Genera, distribution of the species of
widely represented, ii. 25 ; large,
not varying, ii. 306 ; large, variability
of species in, ii. 102-107.

' Genera Plantarum,' by Hooker and
Bentham, ii. 306.

Generalisation, love of, i. 103.

Generalised forms, frequency of, in the
older strata, iii. 169.

Generation, spontaneous, iii. 180.

' Generelle Morphologie,' Hackel's,
projected translation of, iii. 104.

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

Geoffroy St. Hilaire, ii. 207.

Geographical distribution, ii. 79, 149,
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 ;
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.

1 Geologist,' review of the ' Origin ' in
the, ii. 362.

Geology, commencement of the study
of, i. 56, 185, 186, 189 ; lectures on,
in Edinburgh, i. 41 ; predilection for
i- 233, 235, 238, 249, 255 ; study of,
during the Beagle's voyage, i. 62 ;
progress of, in fifty years, iii. 249.

, article on, in the ' Admiralty

Manual,' 1849 ; Prof. Geikie's notes
on the, i. 329.

Geometry, liking for, i. 33.

German reading, i. 126.

German translation of the ' Journal of
Researches,' i. 323.

German translation of the ' Origin of
Species,' ii. 276, 357 ; new edition
of the, letter to Prof. J. Victor Carus
on, iii. 66 ; letter to Prof. Carus on
the, iii. 109.

Germany, Hackel's influence in the
spread of Darwinism in, iii. 67,
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 New 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.

7*.
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.
Glossothcriiim, i. 276.
Gnetaceae, 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. 188.

Gravity, light, &c, acting asi stmuli,

iii- 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 '■> 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.
120 ; on climate and migration, ii.
135 ; on the difficulties of the work,
ii. 155 ; sending him the ' Origin
of Species,' ii. 217'; suggesting an
American edition, ii. 244, 269 ; on
his review of the 'Origin,' ii. 286;
on Sedgwick's and Pictet's reviews,
ii. 296 ; on American reviews, ii.
305 ; on notices in the ' North British'
and * Edinburgh ' Reviews, and on the
theological view, ii. 310; on the dis-
cussion before the American Aca-
demy, ii. 326 ; on Lyell's change of
position, ii. 326 ; on the position of
Profs. Agassiz and Parsons, ii. 332 ;
on his article in the ' Atlantic Month-
ly,' ii. 338 ; on degrees of acceptance,
ii. 344 ; on his essay and on change
of. species by descent, ii. 371 ; on
design, ii. 353, 373, 377, 381 ; on
the American war, ii. 376, 381 ;
on his sending postage-stamps, ii.
383 ; on the spread of the doc-
trine of Evolution and on the
French translation of the ' Origin,'
ii. 386 ; on language and on Colenso's

GURNEY.

' Pentateuch,' ii. 390 ; on Lyell's
' Antiquity of Man,' and on the Civil
War in the United States, iii. 10;
on Phyllotaxy, iii. 52 ; on the ' Varia-
tion of Animals, &c.,' iii. 73; on
the American edition, iii. 84; on
the ' Descent of Man,' iii. 131 ; on
the biographical notice in ' Nature,'
iii. 189 ; on their election to the
French Institute, iii. 223 ; on the
' Expression of the Emotions,' iii.
134; on fertilisation of Papilionaceous
flowers and Lobelia by insects, iii.
259, 260 ; on the structure of ir-
regular flowers, iii. 262 ; on Orchids,
iii. 263, 264, 271, 273, 284; on his
article in ' Nature,' iii. 283 ; on cross-
and self-fertilisation, iii. 290, 292,
293 ; on different forms of flowers in
species of Primula, iii. 298, 300 ; on
Lythriwi, iii. 301 ; on Linum grandi'
floruni, iii. 302 note; on " dicecio-
dimorphism," iii. 303; on dimorphic
plants, iii. 306, 308 ; on the Oxlip,
iii. 306 ; on the fertilisation of Linum
grandiflorum, iii. 302, note; on
movement of tendrils, iii. 313 ; on
the climbing of Bignonia caprcolata,
iii. 314 ; on climbing plants, iii. 316 ;
on Drosera, iii. 318, 322, 325 ; on
the " bloom " of leaves and fruit, iii.

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.

Gunther, Dr. A., letters to : — on Ford's
woodcuts, iii. 122; on sexual differ-
ences, iii. 123.

Gurney, Edmund, letter to, on music,
iii. 186; contribution to the vivi-
section discussion, iii. 210.

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 Morphologie,' ' Ka-

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

' Natiirliche Schopfungs-Ges-

chichte,' iii. 104; Huxley's review of,

iii. 119.
Hague, James, on the reception of the

' Descent of Man,' iii. 133.
Hair and teeth, correlation of, iii.

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 Gardefiers* Chronicle, ii.

274, 275, 276, 290 ; note on, ii. 274

note; his 'serio-comic squib,' ii.

314 ; opposition to Darwin's views,

ii. 184 ; review of the ' Origin,'

in the Dublin Hospital Gazette, ii.

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. Ill, 159; improved, during

the last ten years of life, iii. 355.
Hearing, influence of breathing upon,

iii. 141.
Heart, pain felt in the region of the,

i. 64; iii. 355, 357.
Heat, effect of, upon leaves of Drosera,

iii. 323.
Hedychium, removal of the pollen of,

by the wings of butterflies, iii. 283,

284.
Hedysarnm, 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,
186; his opinion of Lyell's 'Prin-
ciples,' i. 72 ; of the Darwinian
theory, i. 285, 287, 327 ; last illness
and death of, ii. 363, 372 ; L. Blome-
field's memoir, ofii. 372.

, letter from, on the offer of the

appointment to the 'Beagle,' i. 192 ;

, letter to, from Rev. G. Peacock,

1. 191.

-, letters to : — relating to the ap-

pointment to the ' Beagle,' i. 195,
199, 203, 214, 216; from Rio de
Janeiro, i. 235; at sea between the
Falklands and the Rio Negro, i. 242 ;
from East Falkland Island, i. 249 ;
from Sydney, i. 264 ; from St.
Helena, i. 267 ; from Shrewsbury, i.
269 ; as to destination of specimens
collected during the voyage of the
' Beagle,' i. 273.
, letters to :—i 836-1 842, i. 283,

284, 285, 288 ; on the purchase of a
farm in Lincolnshire, i. 343 note;
sending him the ' Origin,' ii. 217.
Herbert, John Maurice, i. 49 ; anec-
dotes from, i. 164, 166, 171 ; letter
to, i. 172; letter to, from Botofogo
Bay, i. 238; from Maldonado, i.

INDEX.

395

HERBERT.

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

*• 343-

Hermaphrodite flowers, first idea of
cross-fertilisation of, iii. 257.

animals, terrestrial, not fitted for

self-impregnation, iii. 260.

Herschel, Sir J., acquaintance with, i.
74 ; visit to, i., 268 ; letter from Sir
C. Lyell to, on the theory of coral-
reefs, i. 324 ; his opinion of the
* Origin,' ii. 242; on the Origin of
Species, ii. 373.

Hesperiadse, iii. 151.

Heterogenesis, iii. 168.

Heterogeny, iii. 19 note, 20.

Heterostyled plants, iii. 295 ; some
forms of fertilisation of, analogous
to hybridisation, iii. 296.

Hieraciwn, protean forms of, iii. 188.

Higginson, Colonel, letter to, on his
visit to Down, ' Essays ' and ' Life
with a Black Regiment,' iii. 176.

* Highland Agricultural Journal,' re-
view of the ' Origin ' in the, ii.

331-

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

the fertilisation of Salvia, Corydalis,

ike, iii. 280 ; on dimorphism in

flowers, iii. 305, 306.
, on an explosive arrangement

in the flowers of some Marantese, iii.

287 note.
Hilgendorf, on fossil freshwater mol-

lusca, iii. 232.
' Himalayan Journal,' Hooker's letter

on the, i. 392.
Himantopns, variability of length of

legs, ii. 97.
Hippocrates, priority of, with the

doctrine of pangenesis, iii. 82.
Hoaxes, i. 105.
Hoffman, Prof., on the variability of

plants, iii. 345.
Holidays, i. 129, 130.

from 1842 to 1854, i. 330.

Holland, photograph-album received

from, iii. 225.
, Royal Society of, election as

a Foreign Member of the, iii.

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 Satyrits, 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,

iii- 373-376.

Hooker, Sir J. D., Address to the
British Association at Norwich, 1868,
iii. 100 ; appointment of as Assistant
Director at Kew, ii. 57 ; on Conti-
nental extensions, ii. 72 ; on the
training obtained by the work on
Cirripedes, i. 346 ; proposed visit to
Palestine, ii. 337 ; reminiscences of
acquaintance with C. Darwin, ii. 19,
23, 26 ; review of the ' Fertilisation
of Orchids ' by, iii. 273 ; speech at
Oxford, in answer to Bishop Wilber-
force, ii. 322, 323 ; lecture on In-
sular Floras, iii. 47 ; letters from, on
the ' Origin of Species,' ii. 228,
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

39^

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. y^ ; on continental extension, ii.
80, 81 ; on geographical distribu-
tion, ii. 83, 84, 85, 86 ; on natural
selection, ii. 86 ; on the definition of
4 species,' ii. 88 ; on variation, ii.
90 ; on the influence of climate on
plants, ii. 91 ; on Alpine plants, ii.
96 ; on variability of abnormal de-
velopments, ii. 97, 98; on variability
and the struggle for existence, ii. 98 ;
on the giving of medals, and on
variation of abnormal developments,
ii. IOO ; on seedling gorses, ii. 102 ;
on variation in large genera, ii. 102,
105, 107 ; On erratic boulders in the
Azores, ii. 112-119; on the papers
read before the Linnean Society, ii.
119, 126, 128, 130 ; on Bentham's
' British Flora ' and progress of
work, ii. 132; on the 'Abstract,' ii.
I33^ I37> I39> 142 ; on thistle-seeds,
ii. 134; on Falconer's opinion, ii.
138, on distribution, ii. 142, 144 ; on
Wallace's letter, ii. 145 ; on nuts in
crops of nestling petrels, and on the
value of embryological characters, ii.
147, 148 ; on geographical distribu-
tion, ii. 149 ; on the arrangement

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 Athenceum
ii. 224, 228 ; on naturalists, ii. 225 ;
on the success of the ' Origin,' ii.
243 ; on Naudin's theory, ii. 246,
252 ; on the review in the Times , ii.
252 ; on his ' Australian Flora,' ii.
257 ; on his review in the Gardeners'
Chronicle, ii. 267 ; on a proposed
historical sketch of opinion on muta-
bility of species, ii. 273 ; on Harvey's
objections, ii. 274, 275 ; on the pro-
gress of opinion, ii. 291, 313; on
Mr. Matthew's claim of priority and
the ' Edinburgh Review,' ii. 301 ; on
notices in the ' Edinburgh ' and ' North
American,' Reviews, ii. 304 ; on the
Cambridge opposition, ii. 307 ; on
the meaning of ' ' Natural selection,"
ii. 316 ; on the British Association
discussion, ii. 323 ; on the review in
the ' Quarterly,' ii. 324 ; on his pro-
posed visit to Palestine, ii. 337 ; on
Dr. Asa Gray's pamphlet, ii. 355 >
on criticisms of the theory, ii. 358 ;
on the ' Natural History Review,' ii.
360 ; on Bates' ' Insect fauna of the
Amazon Valley,' ii. 361 ; on Ben-
tham's views, ii. 362 ; on Henslow's
death, ii. 372 ; on Harvey's review,
ii- 375 j on tne American troubles
and the improvement of the aris-
tocracy by selection, ii. 384 ; on
collecting and holidays, iii. 5 ; on
Lyell's ' Antiquity of Man, 'hi. 7, 15 ;
on the origin of life, iii. 17; on
Falconer's article on Lyell's book,
iii. 18 ; on letters in the papers, iii.
23 ; on the Copley Medal, iii. 28 ;
on the loss of children, iii. 39 ; on
Dr. Wells' recognition of ' Natural
Selection,' iii. 41 ; on his lecture on
"Insular Floras," iii. 47 ; on the pro-
secution of Governor Eyre, iii. 53 ;

INDEX.

97

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
1 Vaiiation under Domestication,' iii.
74, 75, 76, 77 ; on pangenesis, iii.
81 ; on work, iii. 92 ; on the British
Association Meeting, 1868, iii. 100 ;
on a visit to Wales, iii. 106 ; on a
new French translation of the
' Origin,' iii. no; on a visit to Cam-
bridge, iii. 125 ; on troubles at Kew,
iii. 166 ; on Belt's ' Naturalist in
Nicaragua,' iii. iSS ; on the death of
Sir Charles Lyell, iii. 197 ; on vivi-
section, iii. 204 ; on Mr. Ouless'
portrait, iii. 195 ; on the Earth-
worm, iii. 217; on his address to
the Geographical Section of the
British Association, iii. 246 ; on the
fertilisation of Orchids, iii. 262, 263,
264, 265, 266, 268 ; on establishing
a hot-house, iii. 269 ; on his review
of the 'Fertilisation of Orchids,' iii.
273 ; on different forms of flowers in
species of Primula, iii. 297, 298; on
Lythrum, iii. 302, 306 ; on Viola,
iii. 307 ; on movement in plants, iii.
311, 312; on climbing plants, iii.
314, 315, 316 ; on Drosera, iii. 317,
319, 320 ; on Utricularia, iii. 326 ;
on Aldrovanda, iii. 328 ; on the
' Insectivorous Plants,' iii. 328 ; on
the movements of plants, iii. 330,
334 ; on the ' bloom ' of leaves and
fruit, iii. 339, 342 ; on galls, iii. 346 ;
on health and work, iii. 356.

Hooker, Sir J. D., note to, on the life of
Erasmus Darwin, iii. 219 ; on the Em-
peror of Brazil, iii. 227 ; on the death
of Erasmus Alvey Darwin, iii. 228.

, and Bentham, G., the ' Genera

Plantarum,' by, ii. 306.

Hooker, Sir \V., death of, iii. 39.

Hooker's 'Himalayan Journal,' publi-
cation of, i. 391, 392.

' Introduction to the Flora of

Australia,' references to, ii. 225, 245,

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.
Humboldt, 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. \V., review of the
' Origin,' ii. 362.

Huxley, Prof. T. H., i. 102 ; article in
the ' Contemporary Review,' against
Mivart, and the Quarterly reviewer
of the 'Descent of Man,' iii. 147;
lecture by, at the Royal Institution,
ii. 280, 282-284 > lecture on ' the
Coming of Age of the Origin of
Species,' iii. 240; lectures on 'Our
knowledge of the causes of Organic
Nature,' iii. 2 ; suggested popular
treatise on Zoology by, iii. 3, 4 ;
on the discovery of toothed birds
in the Cretaceous of North Ame-
rica, iii. 242 note; on the progress
of the doctrine of Evolution, iii.
132 ; on the reception of the ' Origin
of Species,' ii. 179-204 ; on the value
as training, of Darwin's work on the
Cirripedes, i. 347 ; ' On the Zoo-
logical Relations of Man with the
lower Animals,' ii. 358 ; opinion of
Hackel's work, iii. 67, 68 ; proposal
to review all the reviewers, ii.
311; reply to Kolliker's 'Darwin-
sche Schopfungstheorie,' iii. 29 ;
reply to Owen, on the ' Brain in
Man and the Gorilla,' ii. 320, 324 ;
review of the ' Origin ' in the ' West-
minster Review,' ii. 300 ; speech at
Oxford, in answer to the Bishop, ii.
322, 323, 324.

; letters from, on the ' Origin of

398

INDEX.

HUXLEY.

Species/ ii. 231 ; on von Bar's views,
ii. 329.

Huxley, Prof. T. H., letters to :— ii. 172 ;
on his adoption of the theory, ii. 232 ;
on the idea of creation, ii. 251 ; on
the review in the Times, ii. 253 ; on
authorities on cross-breeding, ii. 280 ;
on the discussion at Oxford, ii. 324 ;
on the views of von Bar, Agassiz,
and "Wagner, ii. 330 ; on the third
edition of the 'Origin,' ii. 351; on
the effect of reviews, ii. 354; on his
Edinburgh lectures, and on hybri-
dism, ii. 384 ; suggesting a popular
treatise on Zoology, iii. 3 ; on the
Copley Medal, hi. 28 ; on his reply
to Kolliker, iii. 29 ; on pangenesis,
iii. 43, 44, 45 ; on his address to the
Geological Society, 1869, iii. 113;
on rudimentary organs, iii. 119; on
his review of Mivart's ' Genesis of
Species,' iii. 148, 149; on the pre-
paration of a new edition of the
'Descent of Man,' iii. 175; on
spiritualism, iii. 187 ; on ' the com-
ing of age of the Origin of Species,'
iii. 240 ; on ' Science and Culture,'
iii. 251.

<, last letter to, iii. 358.

Huxley's 'Man's place in Nature,'
review of, in the Athenceum, iii.
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. 1 10 ; 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. 81, 85.

Hypothesis and Theory, ii. 286.

INSECTS.
Ice, boulders transported by floating,

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

ii. 112.
Ichneumonidse, 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. 1,

27. _
Imitation, protective, iii. 151.
Immortality of the Soul, i. 312.
Implements, stone, in Biddenham

gravel pits, ii. 364.
Improvement, principle of, ii. 176.
Incipient structures, iii. 152.
Indian Ocean, former continental ex-
tension in the southern, ii. 74.
Indian plants invading Australia, ii.

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 1 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 ; 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 aprotec-

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.

Jardine, Sir Wm., criticisms of the
'Origin,' ii. 246.

Jemmy Button, i. 251.

Jenkin, Fleeming, review of the
'Origin,' iii. 107, 108.

Jenyns, Rev. Leonard, acquaintance
with, i. 54 ; his opinion of the theory
ii. '285, 287, 32jnote; reminiscences
of insect-collecting in Cambridge-
shire, i. 364 note.

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

KINGSLEY.
ter of Henslow, i. 186, 188 ; on the
' Origin of Species,' ii. 219, 263 ; on
the ' Naturalists' Pocket Almanack,'
i- 353 > on tne importance of small
facts in natural history, ii. 31 ;
on checks to increase of species, ii.
33 ; on his ' Observations in Natural
History,' ii. 35 ; on power of work,
iii. 211.
Jones, Dr. Bence, treatment by, iii.

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,

111.

552.

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 ; 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

1 Descent of Man,' iii. 138.
, on ' Comparative Longevity,'

iii. 120.
La Plata, deposits containing extinct

Mammalia in the neighbourhood of

the, i. 279 ; woodpecker of the, ii.

351 ; pithing of lassoed cows, by the

Gauchos of, iii. 245.
Large areas, perfection of forms inhabit-
ing, ii. 142.
Lascelles family, i. 2, 3.
Last words, iii. 358.
Lathyrns grandiflorus, fertilisation of,

by bees, iii. 260.
Laugel, M., notice of the 'Origin of

Species,' ii. 186 ; Review of the

' Origin ' by, in the ' Revue des

Deux Mondes,' ii. 305.

LINUM.

Laughing, i. in.

Laws, designed, ii. 312.

Leaves, divergence of, investigation of
the, iii. 23.

, position of, on plants, iii. 51,

52 ; position of, during rain, iii. 342.

Lecky's ' Rise of Rationalism in Eu-
rope,' iii. 40.

Lecoq, a believer in mutability of
species, iii. 26.

Lecoq's ' Geographie Botanique,' iii.
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.

Lcschenaultia, 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.

Lingula, ii. 340.

Linnean Society, joint paper with A.
R. Wallace, read before the, ii. 115,
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 125, 126,
128, 129, 1 30; portrait at the, iii.
223 ; reading of the paper on
Primula before the, iii. 299.

IJnum, Dimorphic species of, iii. 297.

INDEX.

401

LINUM.

Lhiumflavum, dimorphism of, i. 91.

List of naturalists who had adopted the
theory in March, i860, ii. 293.

Litchfield, Mrs., letter to, on vivisec-
tion, iii. 202.

Litchfield, R. B., Bill regulating vivi-
section, drawn up by, iii. 204.

' Literary Churchman,' review of the
' Fertilisation of Orchids ' in the, iii.
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
1 Origin ' in the, ii. 32S ; opinion of
the, ii. 364 ; review of the ' Fertili-
sation of Orchids ' in the, iii. 270.

Lonsdale, W., i. 275.

Lords, influence of selection on, ii. 385 ;
iii. 91.

Lowe Archipelago, ii. jy.

Lowell, J. A., review of the ' Origin ' in
the Christian Examiner, ii. 31S,

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 Athaiicum, iii. 21 ;
his support of Darwin's views, ii. 1S5 ;
inclination to accept the notion of
design, ii. 378 ; on Darwin's theory
of coral islands, i. 324, 325 ; ac-
quaintance with, i. 68, 71 ; character
of, i. 72 ; iii. 197 ; influence of, on
Geology, i. 73 ; geological views,
i. 263 ; announcement of the forth-
coming 'Origin of Species,' to the

VOL. III.

LYELL.

British Association at Aberdeen in
1859, ii. 166 note, 169 ; adherence of,
ii. 310; Bishop Wilberforce's remarks
upon, ii. 325 note ; progress of belief
in, ii. 345 ; revolution effected by, in
Geology, iii. 115, 117 ; on the 'Fer-
tilisation of Orchids,' iii. 273; death
of, iii. 196, 197 ; extract of letter to,
on the treatise on volcanic islands,
i. 326 ; letter from, criticising the
' Origin,' ii. 205 ; letters to, 1838-40,
i. 291, 295, 301 ; letters to : — on the
second edition of the 'Journal of
Researches,' i. 338 ; on his 'Travels
in North America,' i. 339, 341 ; on
Waterton and the translation of
' Cosmos,' i. 343 ; on the Glen Roy
Terraces, i. 363 ; referring to Dana's
' Geology of the United States Expe-
dition,' i. 374; on his 'Second visit
to the United States,' i. 376 ; on a
visit to Lord Mahon, and on the com-
plemental males of Cirripedes, i. 377 ;
on his visit to Teneriffe, i. 390.
Lyell, Sir Charles, letters to: — on his sug-
gesting the preparation of a sketch of
the theory, ii. 67, 71 ; on conti-
nental extensions, ii. 72, 74 ; on the
Novara expedition, ii. 93 ; on float-
ing ice, ii. 113; on the receipt of
Wallace's paper, ii. 116, 117, 118;
on the papers read before the Linnean
Society, ii. 129 ; on the mode of pub-
lication of the 'Origin,' ii. 151, 152 ;
with proof-sheets, ii. 164, 168, 169 ;
on the announcement of the work at
the British Association, ii. 166 ; on
feral animals and plants, ii. 173; on
natural selection and improvement,
ii. 176; in reply to criticisms on the
' Origin,' ii. 208, 334, 339, 345 ; on
his adoption of the theory of descent,
ii. 229, 236 ; on a proposed French
translation of the 'Origin,' ii. 234;
on objectors to the theory of descent,
ii. 237, 241, 260; on Carpenter's
views, ii. 240 ; on Hooker's ' Austra-
lian Flora,' ii. 245 ; on Keyserling's
opinion, ii. 261 ; on the second edi-
tion of the ' Origin,' ii. 264, 266 ;
on Huxley's lecture, ii. 280 ; on the
review of the ' Origin ' in the

2 D

402

INDEX.

LYELL.

' Annals,' ii. 284 ; on objections, ii.
289 ; on the intellectual develop-
ment of the Greeks, ii. 295 ; on there-
view of the ' Origin,' in the Spectator,
ii. 297 ; on the reviews in the ' Me-
dical and Chirurgical ' and ' Edin-
burgh' Reviews, and on Matthew's
anticipation of the theory of Natural
Selection, ii. 301 ; on design in varia-
tion, ii. 303 ; on the 'Atlantis,' ii.
306 ; on the attack at the Cambridge
Philosophical Society, ii. 308 ; on
Hopkins' and other attacks, ii. 314 ;

317, 319, 33i» 349 J on the British
Association Meeting at Oxford, ii.
327 ; on the pedigree of the Mam-
malia, ii. 341 ; on Krohn's remarks
on Cirripedes, ii. 345 ; on Bronn's
objections, ii. 346 ; on preparations
for the third edition of the ' Origin,'
and on electric fishes, ii. 352 ; on
the views of Bowen and Agassiz, ii.
359; on the 'Antiquity of Man,'
and on the habits of Ants, ii. 365 ;
on Maw's review of the ' Origin, ' ii.
376 ; on variability, ii. 387 ; on
Falconer's views with regard to
elephants, ii. 389.

Lyell, Sir C, letters to : — on the ' An-
tiquity of Man,' hi. II, 13, 15 ; on
heterogeny, iii. 20 ; on the Duke of
Argyll's Address to the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, iii. 32 ; on
the ' Elements of Geology,' iii. 35 ;
on the Duke of Argyll's ' Reign of
Law,' iii. 65 ; on the 'Variation of
Animals, &c.'andon 'Pangenesis,'
iii. 71, 72 ; on Wallace's Article in
the 'Quarterly Review,' iii. 116 ; on
Judd's ' Ancient Volcanoes of the
Highlands,' iii. 190.

Lyell's ' Elements of Geology,' i. 291 ;
sixth edition of, iii. 35.

' Principles of Geology,' ii. 190 ;

tenth edition of, iii. 114; attitude
towards the doctrine of Evolution,
190-192.

Antiquity of Man,' iii. 8, 10,

II, 13, 15, 16, 26.

Lythrum, iii. 27, 31 ; paper on, iii.
89; trimorphism of, i. 92; ii. 301,
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.
Macrauchcuia, i. 276.
Mad-house, attempt to free a patient

from a, iii. 199 note.
Madagascar, ii. 74 ; a separate region,

iii. 230 ; hoax about a carnivorous

plant of, iii. 325.
Madeira, ii. 74 ; absence of certain

groups of insects in, ii. 77 ; birds of,

ii. 209.
Maer, visits to, i. 42-44.
Magnolia, fertilisation of, by insects

which gnaw the petals, iii. 285.
Magpies, thieving instincts of, derived,

ii. 388.
Mahon, Lord, visit to, i. 377.
Malay Archipelago, distribution of

animals in the, ii. 162 ; Wallace's

'Zoological Geography' of the, ii.

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 ?wte ; work on, iii. 89,
91, 92.

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

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

Maranteas, explosive arrangement in
the flowers of some, iii. 287 note.

Marriage, i. 69, 299.

Marsh, O. C, letter to, on his • Odon-
tornithes,' iii. 241.

Marshall Archipelago, ii. 77.

Marsupials, persistence of, in Australia,
ii. 75, 340.

Masters, Maxwell, letter to, ii. 385.

Materia Medica, a distasteful subject,

i. 355-
Mathematics, difficulties with, i. 170 ;

distaste for the study of, i. 46.

Matter, eternity of, an insoluble ques-
tion, iii. 236.

Matthew, Patrick, claim of priority in
the theory of Natural Selection, ii.
301, 302.

Maw, George, review of the third
edition of the ■ Origin ' in the
' Zoologist,' ii. 376.

Medals, awarding of, ii. IOO.

1 Medico-Chirurgical Review,' review
of the ' Origin ' in the, by W. B. Car-
penter, ii. 299, 380.

Aregatherium, i. 360.

Mclipona, ii. 316.

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.
1 Mill on the Floss,' iii. 40.
Milne- Home, D., on boulders on

Arthur's Seat, i. 328 note ; on Glen

Roy, i. 361.
Mimetic plants, iii. 70.
Mimicry, iii. 151 ; H. W. Bates on, ii.

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. 1 19; strug-
gle between the, in the same organ-
ism, iii. 244.

Mollusca, bivalve, dispersal of, by
clinging to legs of water-beetles, iii.
252 ; freshwater, distribution of, ii.
93 ; land, difficulty as to dispersal of,
ii. 85 ; iii. 231 ; land, on islands, ii.
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, hi. 2S6.

Monstrosities, ii. 333.

Monte Video, letter to F. Watkins
from, i. 240.

, scenery of, i. 241.

Moor Park, Hydropathic establishment
at, i. 85.

, stunting of Scotch firs near, ii.

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 J iii. 237.
Moths, feathered antennas of male, iii.

in ; probable conveyance of pollen

by the wings of, iii. 284 ; sterility of,

when hatched out of season, iii. 198 ;

white, Mr. Weir's observations on,

iii. 94.
Motley, meeting with, i. 76.
Mould, formation of, by the agency of

Earthworms, paper on the, i. 7°>

98 ; publication of book on the, iii.

216.
'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.
Midler, Fritz, embryological researches

of, i. 89.
, ' Fiir Darwin,' iii. 37 ; ' Facts

and arguments for Darwin,' iii. 86.

letters to, on his work ' Fiir

Darwin,' iii. 37 ; on mimicry, iii. 70 ;
on pangenesis, iii. 83 ; on the trans-
lation of ' Fiir Darwin,' iii. 86 ; on
sexual selection, iii. 97, III ; on the
' Descent of Man,' and on ' Sexual
Selection,' iii. 150; on Balfour's
' Comparative Embryology,' iii. 250 ;
on the effect of drops of water on
leaves, iii. 342.

nageli.
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 ; 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, S7, 123, 128,

138, 317, 330-
, applicability of the term, ii.

278; belief in, founded on general
considerations, iii. 25 ; H. C. Watson
on, ii. 226 ; priority in the theoiy of,
claimed by Mr. Patrick Matthew, ii.
301, 302 ; progress of, in Germany,
iii. 306 ; Sedgwick on, ii. 249 ;
Wallace's criticism of the term, iii.
46, 47.

and sterility, iii. 80.

Naturalists, list of, who had adopted
the theory in March, i860, ii. 293.

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

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

Naudin's theory, ii, 246, 247.

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

359-

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

Nepenthes, iii. 97.

"Nervous matter," something analo-
gous to, in Drosera and Dioncea, iii.

3*8, 3J9» 322.
system, direct action of the, iii.

172.
Nescea verticillata, iii. 302.
Neumayr, M., letter to, iii. 232.
Nevill, Lady Dorothy, letter to, on

Utricularia, iii. 327.
New Caledonia, ii. 76.
New Holland, ii. 74.
Newton, Prof. A., letter to, iii. 79.

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 ; 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. Bowen,

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

' Origin' in the, ii. 31 1, 315.
North Wales, glaciation in, i. 332 ;

tours through, i. 42 ; tour in, i. 71 ;

visit to, with Sedgwick, I. 56-58 ;

visit to, in 1869, iii. 106.
Nose, objection to shape of, i. 59, 61.
Notems, new species found, i. 237.
Notes, mode of keeping, iii. 333.
Novara Expedition, ii. 93.
Novels, liking for, i. 101, 122-124.
Nuptial dress of animals, iii. 123.
Nuthatch, iii. 11S.
Nymphcea, petals of, perhaps modified

stamens, iii. 285.

Observation, methods of, i. 14S-150 ;

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

4o6

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 of Salvia, 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, 356 ; in
Germany, ii. 357.

Opuntia nigricans, seedling, movement
in, iii. 330.

Orang Utang, G. Rolleston on the
brain of the, ii. 363.

Orchids, bee and spider, possible iden-
tity of the, iii. 276 ; fertilisation of,
bearing of the, on the theory of Natural
Selection, iii. 254 ; fertilisation of,
work on the, ii. 357 ; homologies of,
iii. 264 ; study of, iii. 262, 263, 264 ;
usefulness of modifications of, iii.
32 ; pleasure of investigating, iii. 288.

Orchis pyramidalis, adaptation in, iii.
262, 263.

Orders, thoughts of taking, i. 171.

Organism, Dr. Roux on the struggle
between the parts of the, iii. 244.

Organs, rudimentary, iii. 119; rudi-
mentary, comparison of with un-
sounded letters in words, ii. 208 ;
struggle between the, in the same
organism, iii. 244.

Origin of Species, first notes on the,
i. 68 ; investigations upon the, i. 82-
85 ; progress of the theory of the, ii.
I-114 ; differences in the two editions
of the ' Journal ' with regard to the,
ii. 1-5 ; extracts from note-books on

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. 8j; reviews of the, in the
Athenceum, ii. 224, 228 ; in the ' Na-
tional Review,' ii. 240, 262, 265 ; in
'Macmillan's Magazine,' ii. 238, 239,
299 ; in the Times, ii. 252, 253, 254,
255 ; in the Saturday Review, ii. 260 ;
in the Gardeners' Chronicle, ii. 267; in
the ' Annals and Magazine of Natural
History,' ii. 284, in the 'American
Journal,' ii. 286 ; in the Spectator, ii.
296, 297 ; in the ' Bibliotheque Uni-
verselle de Geneve,' ii. 297; in the
' Medico-Chirurgical Review,' ii. 299,
301; in the 'Westminster Review,'
ii. 300 ; in the ' Edinburgh Review, '
ii. 300, 302, 303, 304, 311, 313 ; in
the 'North American Review,' ii.
304, 305 ; in the New York Times,
ii. 305 ; in the ' Revue des Deux
Mondes,' ii. 305; in the 'North
British Review,' ii. 311, 315; in
' Fraser's Magazine,' ii. 314, 315,
327; in the Christian Examiner, ii.
318, 319 ; in the ' Quarterly Review,'
ii. 324, 327, 331 ; in the 'London
Review,' ii. 328 ; in the ' Highland
Agricultural Journal,' ii. 331 ; in the
' Geologist,' ii. 362 ; in the Dublin
Hospital Gazette, ii. 375 ; in the
' Zoologist,' ii. 376.

' Origin of Species,' publication of the
second edition of the, ii. 256.

, third edition, commencement

of work upon the, ii. 352, 354 ; pub-
lication of the, ii. 362;

-, publication of the fourth edition

of the, iii. 42, 43.

-, publication of the fifth edition

of the, iii. 108, 109.

-, sixth edition, preparation of

the, iii. 144 ; publication of the, iii.
152.
, the ' Coming of Age,' of the,

111. 240.
Ornaments of male animals, iii. ill, 112.
Ornithorhynchus, ii. 143, 335, 340 ;

mammary glands of, ii. 214.

INDEX.

40/

ORTHOPTERA.

Orthoptera, auditory organs of, iii. 97 ;
musical organs of male, iii. 94, 1 1 2.

Os coccyx, a rudimentary tail, ii. 214.

Ostrich, American, second species of,
i. 249.

Ouless, W. portrait of Mr. Darwin by,
iii. 195.

Owen, Sir R., ii. 240 ; claim of priority
by, iii. 108 ; classification of Mam-
malia, ii. 266 ; Lyell's admiration of,
iii. 10 ; on the differences between
the brains of man and the Gorilla,
ii. 320 ; on the position of man, ii.
358 note ; reply to Lyell, on the
difference between the human and
simian brains, iii. 8, 9 ; hinted belief
in unity of origin of birds, ii. 388.

Owls, distribution of species of, ii. 25.

Oxford, British Association Meeting,
discussion at, ii. 320-323.

Oxford discussion, Sir Joseph Hooker's
allegory of the, iii. 48.

Oxlip, a hybrid between primrose and
cowslip, iii. 306.

Pacific continent, ii. 72, 73, 74.

Pacific islands, dispersal ot land-shells
on, ii. 109.

Paging of separate copies of papers, iii.
141.

Pakearcticand Nearctic regions, separa-
tion of the, iii. 230.

Palaeontology, progress of, iii. 230.

Paley's views, ii. 202.

writings, study of, i. 47 ; ii. 219.

Palgrave's 'Travels in Arabia,' iii. 40.

Pall Mall Gazette, review of the ' Varia-
tion of Animals and Plants ' in the,
iii. 76 ; review of the ' Descent of
Man,' in the, iii. 138.

Pampas, ground woodpecker of the, iii.

153-

Fampoean formation near Buenos Ayres,

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

80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 93, no, 119,

120, 169.
, Dr. Lionel Beale's criticism of,

iii. 194 ; anticipation of the theory in

Mantegazza's ' Elementi di Igiene,'

iii. 195.

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.

Papilionacerc, papers on cross-fertilisa-
tion of, iii. 259, 261.

Parallel roads of Glen Roy, paper on
the, i. 290.

Parasitic worms, experiments on, iii.
203, 206.

Parents, loss of, iii. 39.

Parker, Henry, article in the Saturday
Review, in reply to criticisms on the
'Fertilisation of Orchids,' in the
'Edinburgh Review,' iii. 274.

Parslow, Joseph, i. 318 note.

Parsons, Professor Theophilus, critic-
isms of the ' Origin,' ii. 331, 333 ; on
Pterichthys and Cephalaspis, ii. 334
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.

Parus, iii. 118.

Parus cceruleus, sexual differences of,
iii. 124.

Passijlora, fertilisation of, iii. 279.

Pasteur, refutation of spontaneous gen-
eration by, iii. 24.

Pasteur's results upon the germs of
diseases, iii. 206.

Patagonia, i. 64 ; dull colouring of
animals in, iii. 151.

Peach, varieties of, not subject to
mildew, iii. 348.

Peacock, Rev. George, letter from, to
Professor Henslow, i. 191 ; letter
from, offering the appointment to the
' Beagle,' i. 193.

Pea-hen, coloration of the, iii. 124.

Peat-beds, evidence from, of former
changes of climate in Scandinavia,
iii. 249.

Pedigree of Charles R. Darwin, i. 5.

Pengelly, Win., ii. 376.

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.

Phocse, descended from a terrestrial
Carnivore, iii. 163.

Photograph-albums received from Ger-
many and Holland, iii. 225.

Phyllotaxy, iii. 51, 52.

Physical conditions, constancy of species
under diversity of, ii. 319 ; effects of,
ii. 320 ; increasing belief in the direct
action of, ii. 390.

Physicians, Royal College of, award of
the Baly medal by the, iii. 224.

Physiological Society, establishment of
the, iii. 204.

Physiology, importance of vivisection
in the study of, iii. 202, 205.

Pictet, Professor F. J., partial agree-
ment with Darwin, ii. 184; review
of the ' Origin ' in the ' Bibliotheque
Universelle,' ii. 297.

Pictures, taste for, acquired at Cam-
bridge, i. 49.

Picus, special adaptation of, iii. 158.

Pigeon-fanciers, ii. 281.

Pigeon-fancying, ii. 48, 51.

Pigeons, ii. 46 ; importance of work
on, ii. 84 ; modification of nasal
bones in, ii. 378 ; vertebrae of, ii.
350 ; wing-bars of, ii. 1 1 2.

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

Finguicula, power of movement of the
leaves of, iii. 324; digestion in, iii.

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

POLLEN.

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

P/auan'a, Terrestrial, ii. 36 ; mimetic
coloration of, iii. 71.

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

Plantago, two forms of, iii. 305.

Plants, American Alpine, ii. 61 ; angi-
ospermous, in cretaceous beds of the
United States, iii. 248 ; Antarctic
fossil, ignorance of, iii. 247 ; Arctic
fossil, importance of, iii. 247 ; Aus-
tralian, iii. 248 ; British Terrestrial
and Aquatic, sexual characteristics
of, iii. 304 ; causes of variability in,
iii. 342-346 ; climbing, i. 92 ; iii.
311-317; garden, difficulty of nam-
ing, iii. 269 ; heterostyled, poly-
gamous, dioecious and gynodioecious,
iii. 295 ; higher, impulse to the
development of, given by flower-
frequenting insects, iii. 248 ; insec-
tivorous, i. 96 ; in the Silurian, iii.
248 ; lignite, of Kerguelen Land, iii.
247 ; mimetic, iii. 70 ; naturalised
in Australia, ii. 259 ; power of move-
ment in, i. 98 ; iii. 329-338 ; protean
or polymorphic forms of, iii. 188 ;
self-impotent, iii. 75 ; supposed
movement of, from the north, iii.
247 ; sudden development of the
higher, iii. 248.

Platanthei'a Hookeri and hyperborca,
fertilisation of, iii. 272 note.

Platysma muscle, contraction of, under
feeling of horror, iii. 142, 143.

Pleasurable sensations, influence of, in
Natural Selection, i. 310.

Plinian Society, i. 39.

Pliocene climate, ii. 135.

Poetry, taste for, i. 33 ; failure of taste
for, i. 100.

Poinscttia, nature of petals of, iii.
285.

Poisons, experiments with, on Drosera,

iii. 3*9, 323-
Pollen, conveyance of, by the wings of

butterflies and moths, iii. 284.

, differences of the, in the two

forms of cowslip, iii. 297, 298 ; in

the two forms of Primrose, iii. 298.

POLLEN.

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
1 Origin,' ii. 295 ; on flint implements
associated with bones of extinct
animals, ii. 160.

Preyer, Prof. W., letter to, iii. 88 ; on
A lea impennis, iii. 16 note.

Primogeniture, ii. 385 ; iii. 91.

Primordial created form, ii. 251.

Primrose, heterostyled flowers of the,
iii. 295 ; differences of the pollen in
the two forms of the, iii. 298.

Primula, dimorphism of, paper on the,
i. 91 ; iii. 296, 297 ; French criticisms
on the paper on, iii. 305.

elatior, a distinct species, iii.

306.

■ sinensis, two forms of flowers

in, iii. 299.
Primula, said to have produced seed
without access of insects, i. 105.

Princess Royal, SirC. Lyell's conversa-
tion with the, on Darwinism, iii. 32.
Priority, law of, i. 366, 372.

INDEX.

409

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 J list
of, iii. 362-364.

Publicity, dislike of, i. 128.

Public Opinion, squib in, iii. 23.

Pusey, Dr., sermon by, against Evolu-
tion, iii. 235.

' Quarterly Review,' notice of the
' Journal of Researches ' in the, i.
323 ; notice of the work on ' Coral
Reefs ' in the, i. 325 ; notice of the
' Origin of Species,' in the, ii. 182,
183 ; remarks on the " Monistic
hypothesis" in the, iii. 184; review
of the ' Descent of Man ' in the, iii.
146 ; review of the ' Origin ' in the,
ii. 324, 327, 331 ; Darwin's apprecia-
tion of it, ii. 325 note.

Quatrefages, Prof. J. L. A. de, letter to,
on his ' Histoire Naturelle Generale,'
&c, iii. 117; letter to, on being pro-
posed as a member of the French
Academy, iii. 154.

, partial agreement of, ii. 235.

Rabbits, asserted close interbreeding
of, i. 106 ; study of, ii. 84.

Rade, Emil, letter to, acknowledging
the receipt of an album of photo-
graphs, iii. 226.

Radicles, observations on, iii. 331, 334.

Ramsay, Sir Andrew, ii. 291, 293.

Ramsay, Mr., i. 54.

Reade, T. Mellard, note to, on the
earthworms, iii. 217.

Reasoning powers, i. 103.

Reception of the 'Origin of Species,'
Prof, Huxley on the, ii. 179-204.

'Reign of Law,' the, by the Duke of
Argyll, iii. 61, 65.

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.

168.
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.

201.
Medical Society, Edinburgh, i.

Society, award of the Royal
Medal to C. Darwin, i. 388 ; to Dr.
Hooker, ii. 44 ; award of the Copley
Medal to C. Darwin, iii. 27, 28,
29.

Society of Edinburgh, address

40.

of the Duke of Argyll to the, iii. 31-
33 ; election of C. Darwin as an
Honorary Member of the, iii. 34.

Society of Holland, election as

a Foreign Member of the, iii. 163.

Royer, Mdlle. Clemence, French
translation of the ' Origin ' by, ii. 357,
387 ; introduction to the French
translation of the 'Origin,' iii. 72;
publication of third French edition
of the ' Origin,' and criticism of
"pangenesis" by, iii. no.

Rubus, protean forms of, iii. 188.

Rudimentary organs, ii. 213; iii. 119;
comparison of, with unsounded letters
in words, ii. 208 ; curious view of,
iii. 62.

Russian translations of works by Lyell,
Buckle, and Darwin, iii. 73.

Sabine, Sir E., i. 352 ; reference to
Darwin's work in his Presidential
Address to the Royal Society, iii. 29.

, Mrs., i. 378.

Sachs on the establishment of the idea
of sexuality in plants, iii. 256.

St. Helena, i. 65 ; ii. 76 ; antiquity of,
ii. 336 ; letter to J. S. Henslow from,
i. 267.

St. Jago, Cape Verd Islands, i. 228,

233> 235 5 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. Burdon, letter to,
on Drosera, iii. 323.

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

^ 357-

Sand-wasps, instincts of, iii. 244, 245.

Sandwich Islands, Labiatce of the, ii.
24.

San Salvador, letter to R. W. Darwin
from, i. 226.

Saporta, Marquis de, his opinion in
1863, iii. 17.

, letters to, iii. 188 ; on the pro-
gress of evolution in France, iii. 103 ;
on the origin of man, iii. 162 ; on
fertilisation, iii. 284.

-, on the impulse given to the

development of the higher plants, by
the development of flower-frequenting
insects, iii. 248.

Saturday Review, article in the, ii.
311 ; article in reply to criticisms on
the ' Fertilisation of Orchids 'in the
' Edinburgh Review,' in the, iii. 274 ;
reference to review of the ' Origin ' in
the, ii. 260 ; review of the ' Descent
of Man' in the, iii. 139; review of
the ' Fertilisation of Orchids ' in the,
iii. 274.

Saturnia, iii. 159.

Satynts and Homo, gap between, ii.
227.

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

Scalpcllum, complemental males of, iii.

33.
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.
Scelidotheriam, 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, 56 ;
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 ;
influence of, upon the aristocracy,
ii. 385 ; iii. 91.

, natural, ii. 87.

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

in lower animals, iii. 1 1 1 ; in insects,
iii. 137, 138; in Lepidoptera, iii. 150;
influence of, upon races of man, iii.
90, 95, 96.

Semper, Professor Karl, letters to, on
the influence of isolation in the pro-
duction of species, iii. 160 ; on coral
reefs, iii. 182 ; on variability in
plants, iii. 344.

Servia, new society in, iii. 117.

Seward, Miss, calumnies of Erasmus
Darwin by, iii. 219.

Sex in plants, establishment of the idea
of, iii. 256.

Sexes more often separated in lower
than in higher plants, iii. 304.

Sexual characters, inheritance of, iii.
123.

characters, secondary, iii. ill.

characteristics of British aqua-
tic and terrestrial plants, iii. 304.

• differences, iii. 135.

selection, iii. 92, 94, 157 ;

influence of, upon races of man, iii.

90, 95, 96 ; in Lepidoptera, iii. 150;

in lower animals, iii. 1 1 1 ; colour in

insects, acquired by, iii. 137 ; musical

instruments in insects, acquired by,

iii. 138.
Sexuality, origin of, iii. 289, 294.
Seychelles, ii. 76, 94.
Shakespeare readings, i. 170.
Shanklin, ii. 134.
Shivering, iii. 142.
Shooting, fondness for, i. 34, 56.
Shrewsbury, schools at, i. 27, 30 ;

return to, i. 269, 273 ; early medical

practice at, i. 37.
Shrubs, tendency of, to separation of

sexes, ii. 89.
Shuddering, iii. 142.
Siberia and North America, almost

continuous in Pliocene times, ii. 135.

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,

J1.77'
Simise, relation of man to the higher,

iii. 162.

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

Sitta, iii. 118.

Skeletons, ii. 47, 50.

Slavery, i. 246, 248, 341.

Slaves, sympathy with, iii. 199, 200.

Sleep-movements of plants, iii. 330.

Slowness of change, ii. 124.

Slugs, destruction of seedlings by, ii.

^ 9h 99-

Smith, Rev. Sydney, meeting with, i.

• 75-
Smoking, i. 121, 122.

Snipe, first, i. 34.

Snowdon, ascent of, i. 42.

Snuff-taking, i. 121, 122.

Socialism, asserted connexion of, with
the theory of Descent, iii. 236, 237.

Societies, Degrees and Honours, List
of, iii. 373-376.

Sociology, Herbert Spencer on, iii. 165.

Solenostoma, iii. 122.

Son, eldest, birth of, i. 300 ; observa-
tions on, i. 300.

Song, importance of, in the Animal
Kingdom, iii. 97.

South America, erratic boulders of,
paper on the, i. 70, 300.

South America, publication of the
geological observations on, i. 326.

South American Missionary Society,
iii. 127.

Southampton, British - Association
Meeting at (1846), i. 351.

, origin of the angular gravels

near, iii. 213.

Sparrow, House, sexual differences of
the, iii. 124.

Species, accumulation of facts relating
to, i. 82-85, 298, 299, 301 ; checks
to the increase of, ii. 33 ; mutability
of, ii. 34; distribution of the, ot
widely represented genera, ii. 25

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. 1 1- 16.

Specific centres, ii. 82, 83.

■ forms, slowness of change of,

iii. 1S8.

Sfiectato?-, review of the ' Descent of
Man ' in the, iii. 138 ; review of the
' Origin ' in the, ii. 296, 297.

Specularia speculum, self-fertile, iii. 309.

Spencer, Herbert, an evolutionist, ii.
ii. 188; appreciation of, iii. 120;
letter to, on his Essays, ii. 141 ;
letter to, on his articles on Evolu-
tion and on Sociology, iii. 165.

Spencer's ' Principles of Biology,' iii.

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. 314.
Stag, extinct, horn worked by man,

ii. 307.
Stamp-collecting, iii. 5.
Stamps, sent by Dr. Asa Gray, ii. 383.
Stanhope, Lord, i. 76 ; objections of,

to Geology and Zoology, i. 377.
Stebbing, Rev. T. R. R., lecture on

'Darwinism,' iii. no.
Stephens, J. F., i. 175.
Sterility, in heterostyled plants, iii.

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

Strix, special adaptation of, iii. 158.

' Struggle for Existence,' i. 8^ ; ii. 99,
123.

Struthio rhea, i. 249.

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

Stylidiwn, 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,

, iL ,75"

Subsidence, amount of, ii. yj.

Success, qualities producing, i. 107.
Sudbrooke, residence at, i860, ii. 256.
Suez, antiquity of the isthmus of, ii. 75.
Suffering, evidence from, as to the

existence of God, i. 307, 309, 311.
Sulivan, Sir B. J., i. 351 ; letters to, on

personal matters and on the South

American Mission, iii. 126, 128.
, on Darwin's relation to the

South American Missionary Society,

iii. 127.
, reminiscences of C. Darwin, i.

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 dcalbata, 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,

in« 335 '■> letter to, on vivisection, iii.

207 ; review of the ' Descent of Man,'

in the, iii. 139 ; review of the ' Origin '

in the, ii. 252, 253, 254, 255.
Timor, occurrence of a peculiar Telis,

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

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

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

potato disease, iii. 348-351 ; letter

to, hi. 350.
Torquay, visit to (1861), ii. 357.
Toucans, colour of beak of, iii. 97.
Toxodon, i. 276.
Translations of the ' Origin ' into

French, Dutch and German, ii. 357.
Transmutation of species, investigations

on the, i. 82-85 > f*rst note-book on

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

monoecious or polygamous, ii. 89.
Trichinc?, Virchow's experiments on,

iii. 203.
Trigonia, ii. 340.
Trimorphism and dimorphism in plants,

papers on, i. 91.
Tristan d'Acunha, ii. 74, 93.
Tropical forest, first sight of, i. 237.
Tschirsch on the "bloom" of leaves

and fruits, iii. 339 note.
Tumbler, Almond, J. Eaton on the, ii.

5f.

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.
Typhlops, ii. 210.

' Unfinished Book,' ii. 67.

Unitarianism, Erasmus Darwin's defini-
tion of, ii. 158.

United States, angiospermous plants in
cretaceous beds of the, iii. 248.

, Northern, flora of the, ii. 88.

Unorthodoxy, ii. 152.

Upper Gower Street, residence in, i.
69-78.

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

Utricularia, 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 j 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- 1; i". 42;
publication of, i. 93 ; iii. 59, 75 ;

American edition of the, iii. 84 ;

preparation of second edition of the,

iii. 194.
1 ,' reviews of the, in the Pall

Mall Gazette, iii. 76 ; in the Athe-

ncBum, iii. 77, 79 ; in the Gardeners'

Chronicle, iii. 77 ; in the Nation, iii.

84 ; in the Daily Review, iii. 85.
'Variation of Species,' Wollaston's, ii.

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, bv 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 J
proposed French translation of the,
iii. 102 note.

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

Wagner, R. on Agassiz and Darwin, ii.

330.

Walking, mode of, i. 109, III.

Walks, i. 109, 114-116 ; ii. 27.

Wallace, A. R., appreciation of cha-
racter of, ii. 308, 309.

, first essay on variability of

species, i. 85 ; on the ' Descent of
Man,' iii. 134 note', on the phenomena
of variation, iii. 89 ; on man, iii. 89,
90 ; opinion of Pangenesis, iii. 81 ;
on the law of the introduction of new
species, ii. 108 ; pension granted to,
iii. 228 ; review of Mivart's ' Lessons
from Nature,' iii. 184 ; review of the
' Descent of Man,' in the ' Academy,'
iii. 137 ; reply to the Duke of
Argyll's criticisms on the ' Fertilisa-
tion of Orchids,' iii. 274 ; views as
to the origin of man, iii. 116, 1 1 7.

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 Selection,
iii. 121 ; on sexual differences, iii.
123; on the 'Descent of Man,' iii.
134, 137; on Mr. Wright's pamphlet
in answer to Mivart, iii. 144 ; on
Mivart's remarks and an article in
the ' Quarterly Review,' iii. 146 ; on
Dr. Bree's book, iii. 167 ; on Dr.
Bastian's ' Beginnings of Fife,' iii.
168 ; on the preparation of the second
edition of the ' Descent of Man,' iii.
175 ; on his criticism of Mivart's
'Lessons from Nature,' iii. 185 ; on
his work on ' Geographical Distribu-
tion,' iii. 230.

, last letter to, iii. 356.

Waring, Robert, i. 2.

Warrington, Mr., Analysis of the
' Origin ' read by, to the Victoria
Institute, iii. 69 note.

Water-cure, i. 373 ; ii. 6j, 158 ; at
Ilkley, ii. 171, 175 ; 205 ; at Moor
Park, ii. 67, 91, 112; at Sudbrooke,
ii. 256.

Water-cure, effects of treatment, i.
35o.

, 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 'Originof 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.

313-

-, 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.
' Westminster Review,' review of the

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

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

Gardeners' Chronicle, ii. 267.
Whale, secondary, ii. 235.
Whewell, Dr., acquaintance with, i.

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

261 note.

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 ; speech at Oxford,
against the Darwinian theory, ii.
321 ; notice of the ' Origin of Spe-
cies ' in the ' Quarterly Review,' ii.
182 note.

Wilder, Dr., proposal of the term " calli-
section " for painless experiments on
animals, iii. 202 note.

Wit, i. 102.

Wollaston's ' Insecta Maderensia,' ii.
44 ; ' Variation of Species,' ii. 73.

Wollaston, T. V., on continental ex-
tensions, ii. 72 ; review of the
' Origin' in the 'Annals,' ii. 284.

Wollaston Medal, award of, ii. 145.

1 Wonders of the World,' i. ^.

Wood, Searles V., ii. 293.

Woodpecker, Pampas, iii. 153 ; ii.

351.

Woodhouse, shooting at, i. 42, 43.

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

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

Work, i. ii2, 122; method of, i. 100,
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

4i8

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.
c Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle?

arrangements for publishing the, i.

281, 283, 288 ; Government grant

obtained for the, i. 284 ; publication

of the, i. 71.

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

1