 |
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
The following refers to Wallace's article, "A Theory of Birds' Nests," in Andrew Murray's Journal of Travel, i. 73. He here treats in fuller detail the view already published in the Westminster Review for July, 1867, p. 38. The rule which Wallace believes, with very few exceptions, to hold good is, "that when both sexes are of strikingly gay and conspicuous colours, the nest is ... such as to conceal the sitting bird; while, whenever there is a striking contrast of colours, the male being gay and conspicuous, the female dull and obscure, the nest is open and the sitting bird exposed to view." At this time Wallace allowed considerably more influence to sexual selection (in combination with the need of protection) than in his later writings. See his letter to Darwin of July 23, 1877 (p. 298), which fixes the period at which the change in his views occurred. He finally rejected Darwin's theory that colours "have been developed by the preference of the females, the more ornamented males becoming the parents of each successive generation." (See "Darwinism," 1889, p. 285.)
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 15, 1868.
My dear Wallace,—I have been deeply interested by your admirable article on Birds' Nests. I am delighted to see that we really differ very little—not more than two men almost always will. You do not lay much or any stress on new characters spontaneously appearing in one sex (generally the male) and being transmitted exclusively, or more commonly only in excess, to that sex. I, on the other hand, formerly paid far too little attention to protection. I had only a glimpse of the truth. But even now I do not go quite as far as you. I cannot avoid thinking rather more than you do about the exceptions in nesting to the rule, especially the partial exceptions, i.e. when there is some little difference between the sexes in species which build concealed nests. I am now quite satisfied about the incubating males; there is so little difference in conspicuousness between the sexes. I wish with all my heart I could go the whole length with you. You seem to think that such birds probably select the most beautiful females: I must feel some doubt on this head, for I can find no evidence of it. Though I am writing so carping a note, I admire the article thoroughly.
And now I want to ask a question. When female butterflies are more brilliant than their males, you believe that they have in most cases, or in all cases, been rendered brilliant so as to mimic some other species and thus escape danger. But can you account for the males not having been rendered equally brilliant and equally protected? Although it may be most for the welfare of the species that the female should be protected, yet it would be some advantage, certainly no disadvantage, for the unfortunate male to enjoy an equal immunity from danger. For my part, I should say that the female alone had happened to vary in the right manner, and that the beneficial variations had been transmitted to the same sex alone. Believing in this, I can see no improbability (but from analogy of domestic animals a strong probability): the variations leading to beauty must often have occurred in the males alone, and been transmitted to that sex alone. Thus I should account in many cases for the greater beauty of the male over the female, without the need of the protective principle. I should be grateful for an answer on this point.
I hope that your Eastern book progresses well.—My dear Wallace, yours sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
Sir Clifford Allbutt's view, referred to in the following letter, probably had reference to the fact that the sperm-cell goes, or is carried, to the germ-cell, never vice versa. In this letter Darwin gives the reason for the "law" referred to. Wallace has been good enough to supply the following note (May 27, 1902): "It was at this time that my paper on 'Protective Resemblance' first appeared in the Westminster Review, in which I adduced the greater, or, rather, the more continuous, importance of the female (in the lower animals) for the race, and my 'Theory of Birds' Nests' (Journal of Travel and Natural History, No. 2), in which I applied this to the usually dull colours of female butterflies and birds. It is to these articles, as well as to my letters, that Darwin chiefly refers."
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 30, 1868.
My dear Wallace,—Your letter, like so many previous ones, has interested me much. Dr. Allbutt's view occurred to me some time ago, and I have written a short discussion on it. It is, I think, a remarkable law, to which I have found no exception. The foundation lies in the fact that in many cases the eggs or seeds require nourishment and protection by the mother-form for some time after impregnation. Hence the spermatozoa and antherozoids travel in the lower aquatic animals and plants to the female, and pollen is borne to the female organ. As organisms rise in the scale it seems natural that the male should carry the spermatozoa to the females in his own body. As the male is the searcher he has received and gained more eager passions than the female; and, very differently from you, I look at this as one great difficulty in believing that the males select the more attractive females; as far as I can discover they are always ready to seize on any female, and sometimes on many females. Nothing would please me more than to find evidence of males selecting the more attractive females [? in pigeons[69]]: I have for months been trying to persuade myself of this. There is the case of man in favour of this belief, and I know in hybrid [lizards'[69]] unions of males preferring particular females, but alas! not guided by colour. Perhaps I may get more evidence as I wade through my twenty years' mass of notes.
I am not shaken about the female protected butterflies: I will grant (only for argument) that the life of the male is of very little value; I will grant that the males do not vary; yet why has not the protective beauty of the female been transferred by inheritance to the male? The beauty would be a gain to the male, as far as we can see, as a protection; and I cannot believe that it would be repulsive to the female as she became beautiful. But we shall never convince each other. I sometimes marvel how truth progresses, so difficult is it for one man to convince another unless his mind is vacant. Nevertheless, I myself to a certain extent contradict my own remark; for I believe far more in the importance of protection than I did before reading your articles.
I do not think you lay nearly stress enough in your articles on what you admit in your letter, viz. "there seems to be some production of vividness ... of colour in the male independent of protection." This I am making a chief point; and have come to your conclusion so far that I believe that intense colouring in the female sex is often checked by being dangerous.
That is an excellent remark of yours about no known case of the male alone assuming protective colours; but in the cases in which protection has been gained by dull colours, I presume that sexual selection would interfere with the male losing his beauty. If the male alone had acquired beauty as a protection, it would be most readily overlooked, as males are so often more beautiful than their females. Moreover, I grant that the loss of the male is somewhat less precious and thus there would be less rigorous selection with the male, so he would be less likely to be made beautiful through Natural Selection for protection. (This does not apply to sexual selection, for the greater the excess of males and the less precious their lives, so much the better for sexual selection.) But it seems to me a good argument, and very good if it could be thoroughly established.—Yours most sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
I do not know whether you will care to read this scrawl.
P.S.—I heard yesterday that my photograph had been sent to your London address—Westbourne Grove.
* * * * *
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. May 5, 1868.
My dear Wallace,—I am afraid I have caused you a great deal of trouble in writing to me at such length. I am glad to say that I agree almost entirely with your summary, except that I should put sexual selection as an equal or perhaps as even a more important agent in giving colour than natural selection for protection. As I get on in my work I hope to get clearer and more decided ideas. Working up from the bottom of the scale I have as yet only got to fishes. What I rather object to in your articles is that I do not think anyone would infer from them that you place sexual selection even as high as No. 4 in your summary. It was very natural that you should give only a line to sexual selection in the summary to the Westminster Review, but the result at first to my mind was that you attributed hardly anything to its power. In your penultimate note you say: "In the great mass of cases in which there is great differentiation of colour between the sexes, I believe it is due almost wholly to the need of protection to the female." Now, looking to the whole animal kingdom I can at present by no means admit this view; but pray do not suppose that because I differ to a certain extent, I do not thoroughly admire your several papers and your admirable generalisation on birds' nests. With respect to this latter point, however, although following you, I suspect that I shall ultimately look at the whole case from a rather different point of view.
You ask what I think about the gay-coloured females of Pieris:[70] I believe I quite follow you in believing that the colours are wholly due to mimicry; and I further believe that the male is not brilliant from not having received through inheritance colour from the female, and from not himself having varied; in short, that he has not been influenced by Selection.
I can make no answer with respect to the elephants. With respect to the female reindeer, I have hitherto looked at the horns simply as the consequence of inheritance not having been limited by sex.
Your idea about colour being concentrated in the smaller males seems good, and I presume that you will not object to my giving it as your suggestion.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, with many thanks, yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
Wallace's more recent views on the question of Natural Selection and Sterility may be found in a note written by him in 1899: "When writing my 'Darwinism' and coming again to the consideration of the problem of the effect of Natural Selection in accumulating variations in the amount of sterility between varieties or incipient species, twenty years later, I became more convinced than I was when discussing with Darwin, of the substantial accuracy of my argument. Recently a correspondent who is both a naturalist and a mathematician has pointed out to me a slight error in my calculation at p, 183 (which does not, however, materially affect the result) disproving the physiological selection of the late Dr. Romanes, but he can see no fallacy in my argument as to the power of Natural Selection to increase sterility between incipient species, nor, so far as I am aware, has anyone shown such fallacy to exist.
"On the other points on which I differed from Mr. Darwin in the foregoing discussion—the effect of high fertility on population of a species, etc.—I still hold the views I then expressed, but it would be out of place to attempt to justify them here."—A.R.W.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. August 16, [1868?].
Dear Darwin,—I ought to have written before to thank you for the copies of your paper on "Primula" and on "Cross Unions of Dimorphic Plants, etc." The latter is particularly interesting, and the conclusion most important; but I think it makes the difficulty of how these forms, with their varying degrees of sterility, originated, greater than ever. If Natural Selection could not accumulate varying degrees of sterility for the plant's benefit, then how did sterility ever come to be associated with one cross of a trimorphic plant rather than another? The difficulty seems to be increased by the consideration that the advantage of a cross with a distinct individual is gained just as well by illegitimate as by legitimate unions. By what means, then, did illegitimate unions ever become sterile? It would seem a far simpler way for each plant's pollen to have acquired a prepotency on another individual's stigma over that of the same individual, without the extraordinary complication of three differences of structure and eighteen different unions with varying degrees of sterility!
However, the fact remains an excellent answer to the statement that sterility of hybrids proves the absolute distinctness of the parents.
I have been reading with great pleasure Mr. Bentham's last admirable address,[71] in which he so well replies to the gross misstatements of the Athenaeum; and also says a word in favour of pangenesis. I think we may now congratulate you on having made a valuable convert, whose opinions on the subject, coming so late and being evidently so well considered, will have much weight.
I am going to Norwich on Tuesday to hear Dr. Hooker, who I hope will boldly promulgate "Darwinianism" in his address. Shall we have the pleasure of seeing you there?
I am engaged in negotiations about my book.
Hoping you are well and getting on with your next volumes, believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
Freshwater, Isle of Wight. August 19, 1868.
My dear Wallace,—Thanks for your note. I did sometimes think of going to Norwich, for I should have very much liked it, but it has been quite out of the question. We have been here for five weeks for a change, and it has done me some little good; but I have been forced to live the life of a drone, and for a month before leaving home I was unable to do anything and had to stop all work.
We return to Down to-morrow.
Hooker has been here for two or three days, so that I have had much talk about his Address. I am glad that you will be there.
It is real good news that your book is so advanced that you are negotiating about its publication.
With respect to dimorphic plants: it is a great puzzle, but I fancy I partially see my way—too long for a letter and too speculative for publication. The groundwork of the acquirement of such peculiar fertility (for what you say about any other distinct individual being, as it would appear, sufficient, is very true) rests on the stamens and pistil having varied first in relative length, as actually occurs irrespective of dimorphism, and the peculiar kind of fertility characteristic of dimorphic and the trimorphic plants having been secondarily acquired. Pangenesis makes very few converts: G.H. Lewes is one.
I had become, before my nine weeks' horrid interruption of all work, extremely interested in sexual selection and was making fair progress. In truth, it has vexed me much to find that the further I get on, the more I differ from you about the females being dull-coloured for protection. I can now hardly express myself as strongly even as in the "Origin." This has much decreased the pleasure of my work.
In the course of September, if I can get at all stronger, I hope to get Mr. J. Jenner Weir (who has been wonderfully kind in giving me information) to pay me a visit, and I will then write for the chance of your being able to come and, I hope, bring with you Mrs. Wallace. If I could get several of you together, it would be less dull for you, for of late I have found it impossible to talk with any human being for more than half an hour, except on extraordinarily good days.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, ever yours sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent. August 30, [1868?].
Dear Darwin,—I was very sorry to hear you had been so unwell again, and hope you will not exert yourself to write me such long letters. Darwinianism was in the ascendant at Norwich (I hope you do not dislike the word, for we really must use it), and I think it rather disgusted some of the parsons, joined with the amount of advice they received from Hooker and Huxley. The worst of it is that there are no opponents left who know anything of natural history, so that there are none of the good discussions we used to have. G.H. Lewes seems to me to be making a great mistake in the Fortnightly, advocating many distinct origins for different groups, and even, if I understand him, distinct origins for some allied groups, just as the anthropologists do who make the red man descend from the orang, the black man from the chimpanzee—or rather the Malay and orang one ancestor, the negro and chimpanzee another. Vogt told me that the Germans are all becoming converted by your last book.
I am certainly surprised that you should find so much evidence against protection having checked the acquirement of bright colour in females; but I console myself by presumptuously hoping that I can explain your facts, unless they are derived from the very groups on which I chiefly rest—birds and insects. There is nothing necessarily requiring protection in females; it is a matter of habits. There are groups in which both sexes require protection in an exactly equal degree, and others (I think) in which the male requires most protection, and I feel the greatest confidence that these will ultimately support my view, although I do not yet know the facts they may afford.
Hoping you are in better health, believe me, dear Darwin, yours faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. September 5, [1868?].
Dear Darwin,—It will give me great pleasure to accept your kind invitation for next Saturday and Sunday, and my wife would very much like to come too, and will if possible. Unfortunately, there is a new servant coming that very day, and there is a baby at the mischievous age of a year and a quarter to be left in somebody's care; but I daresay it will be managed somehow.
I will drop a line on Friday to say if we are coming the time you mention.—Believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
Friday.
My dear Darwin,—My wife has arranged to accompany me to-morrow, and we hope to be at Orpington Station at 5.44, as mentioned by you.—Very truly yours,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. September 16, 1868.
My dear Wallace,—The beetles have arrived, and cordial thanks: I never saw such wonderful creatures in my life. I was thinking of something quite different. I shall wait till my son Frank returns, before soaking and examining them. I long to steal the box, but return it by this post, like a too honest man.
I am so much pleased about the male musk Callichroma; for by odd chance I told Frank a week ago that next spring he must collect at Cambridge lots of Cerambyx moschatus, for as sure as life he would find the odour sexual!
You will be pleased to hear that I am undergoing severe distress about protection and sexual selection: this morning I oscillated with joy towards you; this evening I have swung back to the old position, out of which I fear I shall never get.
I did most thoroughly enjoy my talk with you three gentlemen, and especially with you, and to my great surprise it has not knocked me up. Pray give my kindest remembrances to Mrs. Wallace, and if my wife were at home she would cordially join in this.—Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
I have had this morning a capital letter from Walsh of Illinois; but details too long to give.
* * * * *
Among Wallace's papers was found the following draft of a letter of his to Darwin:
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. September 18, 1868.
Dear Darwin,—The more I think of your views as to the colours of females, the more difficulty I find in accepting them, and as you are now working at the subject I hope it will not interrupt you to hear "counsel on the other side."
I have a "general" and a "special" argument to submit.
1. Female birds and insects are generally exposed to more danger than the male, and in the case of insects their existence is necessary for a longer period.
2. They therefore require in some way or other a special balance of protection.
3. Now, if the male and female were distinct species, with different habits and organisations, you would, I think, at once admit that a difference of colour serving to make that one less conspicuous which evidently required more protection than the other had been acquired by Natural Selection.
4. But you admit that variations appearing in one sex are transmitted (often) to that sex only: there is therefore nothing to prevent Natural Selection acting on the two sexes as if they were two species.
5. Your objection that the same protection would to a certain extent be useful to the male, seems to me utterly unsound, and directly opposed to your own doctrine so convincingly urged in the "Origin," "that Natural Selection never can improve an animal beyond its needs." So that admitting abundant variation of colour in the male, it is impossible that he can be brought by Natural Selection to resemble the female (unless her variations are always transmitted to him), because the difference of their colours is to balance the difference in their organisations and habits, and Natural Selection cannot give to the male more than is needed to effect that balance.
6. The fact that in almost all protected groups the females perfectly resemble the males shows, I think, a tendency to transference of colour from one sex to the other when this tendency is not injurious.
Or perhaps the protection is acquired because this tendency exists. I admit therefore in the case of concealed nests they [habits] may have been acquired for protection.
Now for the special case.
7. In the very weak-flying Leptalis both sexes mimic Heliconidae.
8. In the much more powerful Papilio, Pieris, and Diadema it is generally the female only that mimics Danaida.
9. In these cases the females often acquire more bright and varied colours than the male. Sometimes, as in Pieris pyrrha, conspicuously so.
10. No single case is known of a male Papilio, Pieris, Diadema (or any other insect?) alone mimicking a Danais, etc.
11. But colour is more frequent in males, and variations always seem ready for purposes of sexual or other selection.
12. The fair inference seems to be that given in proposition 5 of the general argument, viz. that each species and each sex can only be modified by selection just as far as is absolutely necessary, not a step farther. A male, being by structure and habits less exposed to danger and less requiring protection than the female, cannot have more protection given to it by Natural Selection, but a female must have some extra protection to balance the greater danger, and she rapidly acquires it in one way or another.
13. An objection derived from cases like male fish, which seem to require protection, yet having brighter colours, seems to me of no more weight than is that of the existence of many white and unprotected species of Leptalis to Bates's theory of mimicry, that only one or two species of butterflies perfectly resemble leaves, or that the instincts or habits or colours that seem essential to the preservation of one animal are often totally absent in an allied species.
* * * * *
Down, Bromley, Kent. September 23, 1868.
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 rewritten some pages, you would know how anxious I am to arrive as near as I can to the truth. We differ, I think, chiefly from fixing our minds perhaps too closely on different points, on which we agree: 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 most difficult, but not, I think, impossible, to see how, for instance, a few red feathers appearing on the head of a male bird, and which are at first transmitted to both sexes, could come to be transmitted to males alone;[72] 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 variations 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 [female symbol][73] chaffinch, the less red on the head and less clean colours of [female symbol] goldfinch, the much less red on breast of [female symbol] bullfinch, the paler crest of goldencrest wren, etc., have been acquired by them for protection? I cannot think so; any more than I can that the considerable differences between [female symbol] and [male symbol] house-sparrow, or much greater brightness of [male symbol] Parus caeruleus (both of which build under cover) than of [female symbol] Parus are related to protection. I even misdoubt much whether the less blackness of blackbird is for protection.
Again, can you give me reason for believing that the merest differences between female pheasants, the female Gallus bankiva, the female of black grouse, the pea-hen, female partridge, have all special reference 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 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 butterflies, 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 [female symbol] finches and Gallinaceae would suffice.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, S.W. September 27, 1868.
Dear Darwin,—Your view seems to be that variations occurring in one sex are transmitted either to that sex exclusively or to both sexes equally, or more rarely partially transferred. But we have every gradation of sexual colours from total dissimilarity to perfect identity. If this is explained solely by the laws of inheritance, then the colours of one or other sex will be always (in relation to their environment) a matter of chance. I cannot think this. I think Selection more powerful than laws of inheritance, of which it makes use, as shown by cases of two, three or four forms of female butterflies, all of which have, I have little doubt, been specialised for protection.
To answer your first question is most difficult, if not impossible, because we have no sufficient evidence in individual cases of slight sexual difference, to determine whether the male alone has acquired his superior brightness by sexual selection, or the female been made duller by need of protection, or whether the two causes have acted. Many of the sexual differences of existing species may be inherited differences from parent forms who existed under different conditions and had greater or less need of protection.
I think I admitted before the general tendency (probably) of males to acquire brighter tints. Yet this cannot be universal, for many female birds and quadrupeds have equally bright tints.
I think the case of [female symbol] Pieris pyrrha proves that females alone can be greatly modified for protection.
To your second question I can reply more decidedly. I do think the females of the Gallmaceae you mention have been modified or been prevented from acquiring the brighter plumage of the male by need of protection. I know that the Gallus bankiva frequents drier and more open situations than the pea-hen of Java, which is found among grassy and leafy vegetation corresponding with the colours of the two. So the Argus pheasant, [male symbol] and [female symbol], are, I feel sure, protected by their tints corresponding to the dead leaves of the lofty forest in which they dwell, and the female of the gorgeous fire-back pheasant, Lophura viellottii, is of a very similar rich brown colour. I do not, however, at all think the question can be settled by individual cases, but only by large masses of facts.
The colours of the mass of female birds seem to me strictly analogous to the colours of both sexes of snipes, woodcocks, plovers, etc., which are undoubtedly protective.
Now, supposing, on your view, that the colours of a male bird become more and more brilliant by sexual selection, and a good deal of that colour is transmitted to the female till it becomes positively injurious to her during incubation and the race is in danger of extinction, do you not think that all the females who had acquired less of the male's bright colours or who themselves varied in a protective direction would be preserved, and that thus a good protective colouring would be acquired? If you admit that this could occur, and can show no good reason why it should not often occur, then we no longer differ, for this is the main point of my view.
Have you ever thought of the red wax-tips of the Bombycilla beautifully imitating the red fructification of lichens used in the nest, and therefore the females have it too? Yet this is a very sexual-looking character.
We begin printing this week.—Yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.—Pray don't distress yourself on this subject. It will all come right in the end, and after all it is only an episode in your great work.—A.R.W.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. October 4, 1868.
Dear Darwin,—I should have answered your letter before, but have been very busy reading over my MSS. the last time before going to press, drawing maps, etc. etc.
Your first question cannot be answered, because we have not, in individual cases of slight sexual difference, sufficient evidence to determine how much of that difference is due to sexual selection acting on the male, how much to natural selection (protective) acting on the female, or how much of the difference may be due to inherited differences from ancestors who lived under different conditions. On your second question I can give an opinion. I do think the females of the Gallinaceae you mention have been either modified; or prevented from acquiring much of the brighter plumage of the males, by the need of protection. I know that Gallus bankiva frequents drier and more open situations than Pavo muticus, which in Java is found among grassy and leafy vegetation corresponding with the colours of the two females. So the Argus pheasants, male and female, are, I feel sure, protected by their tints corresponding to dead leaves of the dry lofty forests in which they dwell; and the female of the gorgeous fire-back pheasant, Lophura viellottii, is of a very similar rich brown colour.
These and many other colours of female birds seem to me exactly analogous to the colours of both sexes in such groups as the snipes, woodcocks, plovers, ptarmigan, desert birds, Arctic animals, greenbirds.
[The second page of this letter has been torn off. This letter and that of September 27 appear both to answer the same letter from Darwin. The last page of this or of another letter was placed with it in the portfolio of letters; it is now given.]
I am sorry to find that our difference of opinion on this point is a source of anxiety to you.
Pray do not let it be so. The truth will come out at last, and our difference may be the means of setting others to work who may set us both right.
After all, this question is only an episode (though an important one) in the great question of the origin of species, and whether you or I are right will not at all affect the main doctrine—that is one comfort.
I hope you will publish your treatise on Sexual Selection as a separate book as soon as possible, and then while you are going on with your other work, there will no doubt be found someone to battle with me over your facts, on this hard problem.
With best wishes and kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and all your family, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. October 6, 1868.
My dear Wallace,—Your letter is very valuable to me, and in every way very kind. I will not inflict a long answer, but only answer your queries. There are breeds (viz. Hamburgh) in which both sexes differ much from each other and from both sexes of G. bankiva; and both sexes are kept constant by selection.
The comb of Spanish [male symbol] has been ordered to be upright and that of Spanish [female symbol] to lop over, and this has been effected. There are sub-breeds of game fowl, with [female symbol]s very distinct and [male symbol]s almost identical; but this apparently is the result of spontaneous variation without special selection.
I am very glad to hear of the case of [female symbol] birds of paradise.
I have never in the least doubted the possibility of modifying female birds alone for protection; and I have long believed it for butterflies: I have wanted only evidence for the females alone of birds having had their colours modified for protection. But then I believe that the variations by which a female bird or butterfly could get or has got protective colouring have probably from the first been variations limited in their transmission to the female sex; and so with the variations of the male, where the male is more beautiful than the female, I believe the variations were sexually limited in their transmission to the males. I am delighted to hear that you have been hard at work on your MS.—Yours most sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 20, 1869.
Dear Darwin,—It will give me very great pleasure if you will allow me to dedicate my little book of Malayan Travels to you, although it will be far too small and unpretending a work to be worthy of that honour. Still, I have done what I can to make it a vehicle for communicating a taste for the higher branches of Natural History, and I know that you will judge it only too favourably. We are in the middle of the second volume, and if the printers will get on, shall be out next month.
Have you seen in the last number of the Quarterly Journal of Science the excellent remarks on Fraser's article on Natural Selection failing as to Man? In one page it gets to the heart of the question, and I have written to the editor to ask who the author is.
My friend Spruce's paper on Palms is to be read to-morrow evening at the Linnean. He tells me it contains a discovery which he calls "alteration of function." He found a clump of Geonema all of which were females, and the next year the same clump were all males! He has found other facts analogous to this, and I have no doubt the subject is one that will interest you.
Hoping you are pretty well and are getting on steadily with your next volumes, and with kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and all your circle, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.—Have you seen the admirable article in the Guardian (!) on Lyell's "Principles"? It is most excellent and liberal. It is written by the Rev. Geo. Buckle, of Tiverton Vicarage, Bath, whom I met at Norwich and found a thoroughly scientific and liberal parson. Perhaps you have heard that I have undertaken to write an article for the Quarterly (!) on the same subject, to make up for that on "Modern Geology" last year not mentioning Sir C. Lyell.
Really, what with the Tories passing Radical Reform Bills and the Church periodicals advocating Darwinianism, the millennium must be at hand.—A.R.W.
* * * * *
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 22, 1869.
My dear Wallace,—Your intended dedication pleases me much and I look at it as a great honour, and this is nothing more than the truth. I am glad to hear, for Lyell's sake and on general grounds, that you are going to write in the Quarterly. Some little time ago I was actually wishing that you wrote in the Quarterly, as I knew that you occasionally contributed to periodicals, and I thought that your articles would thus be more widely read.
Thank you for telling me about the Guardian, which I will borrow from Lyell. I did note the article in the Quarterly Journal of Science and put it aside to read again with the articles in Fraser and the Spectator.
I have been interrupted in my regular work in preparing a new edition[74] 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 differences more important than single variations, but now I have come to the conclusion that they are of paramount importance, and in this I believe I agree with you. Fleeming Jenkin's arguments have convinced me.[75]
I heartily congratulate you on your new book being so nearly finished.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 30, 1869.
Dear Darwin,—Will you tell me where are Fleeming Jenkin's arguments on the importance of single variation? Because I at present hold most strongly the contrary opinion, that it is the individual differences or general variability of species that enables them to become modified and adapted to new conditions.
Variations or "sports" may be important in modifying an animal in one direction, as in colour for instance, but how it can possibly work in changes requiring co-ordination of many parts, as in Orchids for example, I cannot conceive. And as all the more important structural modifications of animals and plants imply much co-ordination, it appears to me that the chances are millions to one against individual variations ever coinciding so as to render the required modification possible. However, let me read first what has convinced you.
You may tell Mrs. Darwin that I have now a daughter.
Give my kind regards to her and all your family.—Very truly yours,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. February 2, 1869.
My dear 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[76] 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 mentioned this in my former note merely because I believed that you had come to similar conclusions, 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.
We heartily congratulate you on the birth of your little daughter.—Yours very sincerely,
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 5, 1869.
My dear Wallace,—I was delighted at receiving your book[77] this morning. The whole appearance and the illustrations with which it [is] so profusely ornamented are quite beautiful. Blessings on you and your publisher for having the pages cut and gilded.
As for the dedication, putting quite aside how far I deserve what you say, it seems to me decidedly the best expressed dedication which I have ever met.
The reading will probably last me a month, for I dare not have it read aloud, as I know that it will set me thinking.
I see that many points will interest me greatly. When I have finished, if I have anything particular to say, I will write again. Accept my cordial thanks. The dedication is a thing for my children's children to be proud of.—Yours most sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. March 10, 1869.
Dear Darwin,—Thanks for your kind note. I could not persuade Mr. Macmillan to cut more than twenty-five copies for my own friends, and he even seemed to think this a sign of most strange and barbarous taste.
Mr. Weir's paper on the kinds of larvae, etc., eaten or rejected by insectivorous birds was read at the last meeting of the Entomological Society and was most interesting and satisfactory. His observations and experiments, so far as they have yet gone, confirm in every instance my hypothetical explanation of the colours of caterpillars. He finds that all nocturnal-feeding obscure-coloured caterpillars, all green and brown and mimicking caterpillars, are greedily eaten by almost every insectivorous bird. On the other hand, every gaily coloured, spotted or banded species, which never conceal themselves, and all spiny and hairy kinds, are invariably rejected, either without or after trial. He has also come to the curious and rather unexpected conclusion, that hairy and spiny caterpillars are not protected by their hairs, but by their nauseous taste, the hairs being merely an external mark of their uneatableness, like the gay colours of others. He deduces this from two kinds of facts: (1) that very young caterpillars before the hairs are developed are equally rejected, and (2) that in many cases the smooth pupae and even the perfect insects of the same species are equally rejected.
His facts, it is true, are at present not very numerous, but they all point one way. They seem to me to lend an immense support to my view of the great importance of protection in determining colour, for it has not only prevented the eatable species from ever acquiring bright colours, spots, or markings injurious to them, but it has also conferred on all the nauseous species distinguishing marks to render their uneatableness more protective to them than it would otherwise be. When you have read my book I shall be glad of any hints for corrections if it comes to another edition. I was horrified myself by coming accidentally on several verbal inelegancies after all my trouble in correcting, and I have no doubt there are many more important errors.—Believe me, dear Darwin, yours very truly,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 22, 1869.
My dear Wallace,—I have finished your book.[78] It seems to me excellent, and at the same time most pleasant to 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 generalisations 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 continent across the Indian Ocean. Decaisne's paper on the flora of Timor, in which he points out its close relation to that of the Mascarene Islands, supports your view. On the other hand, I might advance the giraffes, etc., in the Sewalik deposits. How I wish someone would collect the plants of Banca! The puzzle of Java, Sumatra and Borneo is like the three geese and foxes: I have a wish to extend Malacca through Banca to part of Java and thus make three parallel peninsulas, but I cannot get the geese and foxes across the river.
Many parts of your book have interested me much: I always wished to hear an independent judgment about the Rajah Brooke, and now I have been delighted with your splendid eulogium on him.
With respect to the fewness and inconspicuousness of the flowers in the tropics, may it not be accounted for by the hosts of insects, so that there is no need for the flowers to be conspicuous? As, according to Humboldt, fewer plants are social in the tropical than in the temperate regions, the flowers in the former would not make so great a show.
In your note you speak of observing some inelegancies of style. I notice none. All is as clear as daylight. I have detected two or three errata.
In Vol. I. you write londiacus: is this not an error?
Vol. II., p. 236: for western side of Aru read eastern.
Page 315: Do you not mean the horns of the moose? For the elk has not palmated horns.
I have only one criticism of a general nature, and I am not sure that other geologists would agree with me: you repeatedly speak as if the pouring out of lava, etc., from volcanoes actually caused the subsidence of an adjoining area. I quite agree that areas undergoing opposite movements are somehow connected; but volcanic outbursts must, I think, be looked at as mere accidents in the swelling tip of a great dome or surface of plutonic rocks; and there seems no more reason to conclude that such swelling or elevation in mass is the cause of the subsidence than that the subsidence is the cause of the elevation; which latter view is indeed held by some geologists, I have regretted to find so little about the habits of the many animals which you have seen.
In Vol. II., p. 399, I wish I could see the connection between variations having been first or long ago selected, and their appearance at an earlier age in birds of paradise than the variations which have subsequently arisen and been selected. In fact, I do not understand your explanation of the curious order of development of the ornaments of these birds.
Will you please to tell me whether you are sure that the female Casuarius (Vol. II., p. 150) sits on her eggs as well as the male?—for, if I am not mistaken, Bartlett told me that the male alone, who is less brightly coloured about the neck, sits on the eggs. In Vol. II., p. 255, you speak of male savages ornamenting themselves more than the women, of which I have heard before; now, have you any notion whether they do this to please themselves, or to excite the admiration of their fellow-men, or to please the women, or, as is perhaps probable, from all three motives?
Finally, let me congratulate you heartily on having written so excellent a book, full of thought on all sorts of subjects. Once again, let me thank you for the very great honour which you have done me by your dedication.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
Vol. II., p. 455: When in New Zealand I thought the inhabitants a mixed race, with the type of Tahiti preponderating over some darker race with more frizzled hair; and now that the stone instruments [have] revealed the existence of ancient inhabitants, is it not probable that these islands were inhabited by true Papuans? Judging from descriptions the pure Tahitans must differ much from your Papuans.
* * * * *
The reference in the following letter is to Wallace's review, in the April number of the Quarterly, of Lyell's "Principles of Geology" (tenth edition), and of the sixth edition of the "Elements of Geology." Wallace points out that here for the first time Sir C. Lyell gave up his opposition to Evolution; and this leads Wallace to give a short account of the views set forth in the "Origin of Species." In this article Wallace makes a definite statement as to his views on the evolution of man, which were opposed to those of Darwin. He upholds the view that the brain of man, as well as the organs of speech, the hand and the external form, could not have been evolved by Natural Selection (the "child" he is supposed to "murder "). At p. 391 he writes: "In the brain of the lowest savages and, as far as we know, of the prehistoric races, we have an organ ... little inferior in size and complexity to that of the highest types.... But the mental requirements of the lowest savages, such as the Australians or the Andaman Islanders, are very little above those of many animals.... How then was an organ developed far beyond the needs of its possessor? Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies."
This passage is marked in Darwin's copy with a triply underlined "No," and with a shower of notes of exclamation. It was probably the first occasion on which he realised the extent of this great and striking divergence in opinion between himself and his colleague. He had, however, some indication of it in Wallace's paper on Man in the Anthropological Review, 1864, referred to in his letter to Wallace of May 28, 1864, and again in that of April 14, 1869.
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 27, 1869.
My dear Wallace,—I must send a line to thank you, but this note will require no answer. This very morning after writing I found that "elk" was used for "moose" in Sweden, but I had been reading lately about elk and moose in North America.
As you put the case in your letter, which I think differs somewhat from your book, I am inclined to agree, and had thought that a feather could hardly be increased in length until it had first grown to full length, and therefore it would be increased late in life and transmitted to a corresponding age. But the Crossoptilon pheasant, and even the common pheasant, show that the tail feathers can be developed very early.
Thanks for other facts, which I will reflect on when I go again over my MS.
I read all that you said about the Dutch Government with much interest, but I do not feel I know enough to form any opinion against yours.
I shall be intensely curious to read the Quarterly: I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.
I have lately, i.e. in the new edition of the "Origin,"[79] been moderating my zeal, and attributing much more to mere useless variability. I did think I would send you the sheet, but I daresay you would not care to see it, in which I discuss Naegeli's essay on Natural Selection not affecting characters of no functional importance, and which yet are of high classificatory importance.
Hooker is pretty well satisfied with what I have said on this head. It will be curious if we have hit on similar conclusions. You are about the last man in England who would deviate a hair's breadth from his conviction to please any editor in the world.—Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
P.S.—After all, I have thought of one question, but if I receive no answer I shall understand that (as is probable) you have nothing to say. I have seen it remarked that the men and women of certain tribes differ a little in shade or tint; but have you ever seen or heard of any difference in tint between the two sexes which did not appear to follow from a difference in habits of life?
* * * * *
Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 14, 1869.
My dear Wallace,—I have been wonderfully interested by your article,[80] 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; nevertheless, 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, etc.," but you are the only man I ever heard of who persistently does himself an injustice and never demands justice. Indeed, you ought in the review to have alluded to your paper in the Linnean Journal, and I feel sure all our friends will agree in this, but you cannot "Burke" yourself, however much you may try, as may be seen in half the articles which appear.
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 presume 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 someone 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 Q.J. of Science, inasmuch as it is thoroughly appreciative of your work. Alas! you will probably agree with what the writer says about the uses of the bamboo.
I hear that there is also a good article in the Saturday Review, but have heard nothing more about it.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours ever sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
P.S.—I have had a baddish fall, my horse partly rolling over me; but I am getting rapidly well.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. April 18, 1869.
Dear Darwin,—I am very glad you think I have done justice to Lyell, and have also well "exposed" (as a Frenchman would say) Natural Selection. There is nothing I like better than writing a little account of it, and trying to make it clear to the meanest capacity.
The "Croll" question is awfully difficult. I had gone into it more fully, but the Editor made me cut out eight pages.
I am very sorry indeed to hear of your accident, but trust you will soon recover and that it will leave no bad effects.
I can quite comprehend your feelings with regard to my "unscientific" opinions as to Man, because a few years back I should myself have looked at them as equally wild and uncalled for. I shall look with extreme interest for what you are writing on Man, and shall give full weight to any explanations you can give of his probable origin. My opinions on the subject have been modified solely by the consideration of a series of remarkable phenomena, physical and mental, which I have now had every opportunity of fully testing, and which demonstrate the existence of forces and influences not yet recognised by science. This will, I know, seem to you like some mental hallucination, but as I can assure you from personal communication with them, that Robert Chambers, Dr. Norris of Birmingham, the well-known physiologist, and C.F. Varley, the well-known electrician, who have all investigated the subject for years, agree with me both as to the facts and as to the main inferences to be drawn from them, I am in hopes that you will suspend your judgment for a time till we exhibit some corroborative symptoms of insanity.
In the meantime I can console you by the assurance that I don't agree with the Q.J. of Science about bamboo, and that I see no cause to modify any of my opinions expressed in my article on the "Reign of Law."—Believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. June 23, 1869.
Dear Darwin,—Thank you very much for the copy of your fifth edition of the "Origin." I have not yet read all the additions, but those I have looked at seem very interesting, though somewhat brief, but I suppose you are afraid of its great and rapid growth.
A difficult sexual character seems to me the plumules or battledore scales on the wings of certain families and genera of butterflies, almost invariably changing in form with the species and genera in proportion to other changes, and always constant in each species yet confined to the males, and so small and mixed up with the other scales as to produce no effect on the colour or marking of the wings. How could sexual selection produce them?
Your correspondent Mr. Geach is now in England, and if you would like to see him I am sure he would be glad to meet you. He is staying with his brother (address Guildford), but often comes to town.
Hoping that you have quite recovered from your accident and that the great work is progressing, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.—You will perhaps be pleased to hear that German, French, and Danish translations of my "Malay Archipelago" are in progress.—A.R.W.
* * * * *
Caerleon, Barmouth, N. Wales. June 25, 1869.
My dear Wallace,—We have been here a fortnight, and shall remain here till the beginning of August. I can say nothing good about my health, and I am so weak that I can hardly crawl half a mile from the house; but I hope I may improve, and anyhow the magnificent view of Cader is enjoyable.
I do not know that I have anything to ask Mr. Geach, nor do I suppose I shall be in London till late in the autumn, but I should be particularly obliged, if you have any communication with Mr. Geach, if you would express for me my sincere thanks for his kindness in sending me the very valuable answers on Expression. I wrote some months ago to him in answer to his last letter.
I would ask him to Down, but the fatigue to me of receiving a stranger is something which to you would be utterly unintelligible.
I think I have heard of the scales on butterflies; but there are lots of sexual characters which quite baffle all powers of even conjecture.
You are quite correct, that I felt forced to make all additions to the "Origin" as short as possible.
I am indeed pleased to hear, and fully expected, that your Malay work would be known throughout Europe.
Oh dear! what would I not give for a little more strength to get on with my work.—Ever yours,
C. DARWIN.
I wish that you could have told me that your place in the new Museum was all settled.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. October 20, 1869.
Dear Darwin,—I do not know your son's (Mr. George Darwin's) address at Cambridge. Will you be so good as to forward him the enclosed note begging for a little information?
I was delighted to see the notice in the Academy that you are really going to bring out your book on Man. I anticipate for it an enormous sale, and shall read it with intense interest, although I expect to find in it more to differ from than in any of your other books. Some reasonable and reasoning opponents are now taking the field. I have been writing a little notice of Murphy's "Habit and Intelligence," which, with much that is strange and unintelligible, contains some very acute criticisms and the statement of a few real difficulties. Another article just sent me from the Month contains some good criticism. How incipient organs can be useful is a real difficulty, so is the independent origin of similar complex organs; but most of his other points, though well put, are not very formidable. I am trying to begin a little book on the Distribution of Animals, but I fear I shall not make much of it from my idleness in collecting facts.
I shall make it a popular sketch first, and, if it succeeds, gather materials for enlarging it at a future time. If any suggestion occurs to you as to the kind of maps that would be best, or on any other essential point, I should be glad of a hint. I hope your residence in Wales did you good. I had no idea you were so near Dolgelly till I met your son there one evening when I was going to leave the next morning. It is a glorious country, but the time I like is May and June—the foliage is so glorious.
Sincerely hoping you are pretty well, and with kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and the rest of your family, believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. October 21, 1869.
My dear Wallace,—I forwarded your letter at once to my son George, but I am nearly sure that he will not be able to tell you anything; I wish he could for my own sake; but I suspect there are few men in England who could. Pray send me a copy or tell me where your article on Murphy will be published. I have just received the Month, but have only read half as yet. I wish I knew who was the author; you ought to know, as he admires you so much; he has a wonderful deal of knowledge, but his difficulties have not troubled me much as yet, except the case of the dipterous larva. My book will not be published for a long time, but Murray wished to insert some notice of it. Sexual selection has been a tremendous job. Fate has ordained that almost every point on which we differ should be crowded into this vol. Have you seen the October number of the Revue des deux Mondes? It has an article on you, but I have not yet read it; and another article, not yet read, by a very good man on the Transformist School.
I am very glad to hear that you are beginning a book, but do not let it be "little," on Distribution, etc. I have no hints to give about maps; the subject would require long and anxious consideration. Before Forbes published his essay on Distribution and the Glacial Period I wrote out and had copied an essay on the same subject, which Hooker read. If this MS. would be of any use to you, on account of the references in it to papers, etc., I should be very glad to lend it, to be used in any way; for I foresee that my strength will never last out to come to this subject.
I have been pretty well since my return from Wales, though at the time it did me no good.
We shall be in London next month, when I shall hope to see you.—My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. December 4, [1869].
Dear Darwin,—Dr. Adolf Bernhard Meyer, who translated my book into German, has written to me for permission to translate my original paper in the Linnean Proceedings with yours, and wants to put my photograph and yours in it. If you have given him permission to translate the papers (which I suppose he can do without permission if he pleases), I write to ask which of your photographs you would wish to represent you in Germany—the last, or the previous one by Ernest Edwards, which I think much the best—as if you like I will undertake to order them and save you any more trouble about it. It is, of course, out of the question our meeting to be photographed together, as Mr. Meyer coolly proposes.
Hoping you are well, believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.—I have written a paper on Geological Time, which will appear in Nature, and I think I have hit upon a solution of your greatest difficulties in that matter.—A.R.W.
* * * * *
Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. December 5, 1869.
My dear Wallace,—I wrote to Dr. Meyer that the photographs in England would cost much and that they did not seem to me worth the cost to him, but that I of course had no sort of objection. I should be greatly obliged if you would kindly take the trouble to order any one which you think best: possibly it would be best to wait, unless you feel sure, till you hear again from Dr. M. I sent him a copy of our joint paper. He has kindly sent me the translation of your book, which is splendidly got up, and which I thought I could not better use than by sending it to Fritz Mueller in Brazil, who will appreciate it.
I liked your reviews on Mr. Murphy very much; they are capitally written, like everything which is turned out of your workshop. I was specially glad about the eye. If you agree with me, take some opportunity of bringing forward the case of perfected greyhound or racehorse, in proof of the possibility of the selection of many correlated variations. I have remarks on this head in my last book.
If you throw light on the want of geological time, may honour, eternal glory and blessings crowd thick on your head.—Yours most sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
I forgot to say that I wrote to Dr. M. to say that I should not soon be in London, and that, of all things in the world, I hate most the bother of sitting for photographs, so I declined with many apologies. I have recently refused several applications.
* * * * *
9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 22, 1870.
Dear Darwin,—My paper on Geological Time having been in type nearly two months, and not knowing when it will appear, I have asked for a proof to send you, Huxley and Lyell. The latter part only contains what I think is new, and I shall be anxious to hear if it at all helps to get over your difficulties.
I have been lately revising and adding to my various papers bearing on the "Origin of Species," etc., and am going to print them in a volume immediately, under the title of "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection: A Series of Essays."
In the last, I put forth my heterodox opinions as to Man, and even venture to attack the Huxleyan philosophy!
Hoping you are quite well and are getting on with your Man book, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
P.S.—When you have read the proof and done with it, may I beg you to return it to me?—A.R.W.
* * * * *
Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. January 26, [1870].
My dear Wallace,—I have been very much struck by your whole article (returned by this post), especially as to rate of denudation, for the still glaciated surfaces have of late most perplexed me. Also especially on the lesser mutations of climate during the last 60,000 years; for I quite think with you no cause so powerful in inducing specific changes, through the consequent migrations. Your argument would be somewhat strengthened about organic changes having been formerly more rapid, if Sir W. Thomson is correct that physical changes were formerly more violent and abrupt.
The whole subject is so new and vast that I suppose you hardly expect anyone to be at once convinced, but that he should keep your view before his mind and let it ferment. This, I think, everyone will be forced to do. I have not as yet been able to digest the fundamental notion of the shortened age of the sun and earth. Your whole paper seems to me admirably clear and well put. I may remark that Ruetimeyer has shown that several wild mammals in Switzerland since the neolithic period have had their dentition and, I think, general size slightly modified. I cannot believe that the Isthmus of Panama has been open since the commencement of the glacial period; for, notwithstanding the fishes, so few shells, crustaceans, and, according to Agassiz, not one echinoderm is common to the sides. I am very glad you are going to publish all your papers on Natural Selection: I am sure you are right, and that they will do our cause much good.
But I groan over Man—you write like a metamorphosed (in retrograde direction) naturalist, and you the author of the best paper that ever appeared in the Anthropological Review! Eheu! Eheu! Eheu!—Your miserable friend,
C. DARWIN.
* * * * *
Down, Beckenham, Kent. March 31, 1870.
My dear Wallace,—Many thanks for the woodcut, which, judging from the rate at which I crawl on, will hardly be wanted till this time next year. Whether I shall have it reduced, or beg Mr. Macmillan for a stereotype, as you said I might, I have not yet decided.
I heartily congratulate you on your removal being over, and I much more heartily condole with myself at your having left London, for I shall thus miss my talks with you which I always greatly enjoy.
I was excessively pleased at your review of Galton, and I agree to every word of it. I must add that I have just re-read your article in the Anthropological Review, and I defy you to upset your own doctrine.—Ever yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN
* * * * *
Down, Beckenham, Kent. April 20, [1870].
My dear Wallace,—I have just received your book ["Natural Selection"][81] and read the preface. There never has been passed on me, or indeed on anyone, 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 satisfactory to me—that we have never felt any jealousy towards each other, though in one sense rivals. I believe that I can say this of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that it is true of you.
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
* * * * *
Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. June 5, 1870.
My dear Wallace,—As imitation and protection are your subjects I have thought that you would like to possess the enclosed curious drawing. The note tells all I know about it.—Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN
P.S.—I read not long ago a German article on the colours of female birds, and that author leaned rather strongly to your side about nidification. I forget who the author was, but he seemed to know a good deal.—C.D.
* * * * *
Holly House, Barking, E. July 6, 1870.
Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for the drawing. I must say, however, the resemblance to a snake is not very striking, unless to a cobra not found in America. It is also evident that it is not Mr. Bates's caterpillar, as that threw the head backwards so as to show the feet above, forming imitations of keeled scales.
Claparede has sent me his critique on my book. You will probably have it too. His arguments in reply to my heresy seem to me of the weakest. I hear you have gone to press, and I look forward with fear and trembling to being crushed under a mountain of facts!
I hear you were in town the other day. When you are again, I should be glad to come at any convenient hour and give you a call.
Hoping your health is improving, and with kind remembrances to Mrs. Darwin and all your family, believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
In "My Life" (Vol. II., p. 7) Wallace wrote: "In the year 1870 Mr. A.W. Bennett read a paper before Section D of the British Association at Liverpool entitled 'The Theory of Natural Selection from a Mathematical Point of View,' and this paper was printed in full in Nature of November 10, 1870. To this I replied on November 17, and my reply so pleased Mr. Darwin that he at once wrote to me as follows:"
Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. November 22, 1870.
My dear Wallace,—I must ease myself by writing a few words to say how much I and all others in this house admire your article in Nature. You are certainly an unparalleled master in lucidly stating a case and in arguing. Nothing ever was better done than your argument about the term "origin of species," and the consequences about much being gained, even if we know nothing about precise cause of each variation. By chance I have given a few words in my first volume, now some time printed off, about mimetic butterflies, and have touched on two of your points, viz. on species already widely dissimilar not being made to resemble each other, and about the variations in Lepidoptera being often well pronounced. How strange it is that Mr. Bennett or anyone else should bring in the action of the mind as a leading cause of variation, seeing the beautiful and complex adaptations and modifications of structure in plants, which I do not suppose they would say had minds.
I have finished the first volume, and am half-way through the first proof of the second volume, of my confounded book, which half kills me by fatigue, and which I much fear will quite kill me in your good estimation.
If you have leisure I should much like a little news of you and your doings and your family.—Ever yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
* * * * *
Holly House, Barking, E. November 24, 1870.
Dear Darwin,—Your letter gave me very great pleasure. We still agree, I am sure, on nineteen points out of twenty, and on the twentieth I am not inconvincible. But then I must be convinced by facts and arguments, not by high-handed ridicule such as Claparede's.
I hope you see the difference between such criticisms as his, and that in the last number of the North American Review, where my last chapter is really criticised, point by point; and though I think some of it very weak, I admit that some is very strong, and almost converts me from the error of my ways.
As to your new book, I am sure it will not make me think less highly of you than I do, unless you do, what you have never done yet, ignore facts and arguments that go against you.
I am doing nothing just now but writing articles and putting down anti-Darwinians, being dreadfully ridden upon by a horrid old-man-of-the-sea, who has agreed to let me have the piece of land I have set my heart on, and which I have been trying to get of him since last February, but who will not answer letters, will not sign an agreement, and keeps me week after week in anxiety, though I have accepted his own terms unconditionally, one of which is that I pay rent from last Michaelmas! And now the finest weather for planting is going by. It is a bit of a wilderness that can be made into a splendid imitation of a Welsh valley in little, and will enable me to gather round me all the beauties of the temperate flora which I so much admire, or I would not put up with the little fellow's ways. The fixing on a residence for the rest of your life is an important event, and I am not likely to be in a very settled frame of mind for some time.
I am answering A. Murray's Geographical Distribution of Coleoptera for my Entomological Society Presidential Address, and am printing a second edition of my "Essays," with a few notes and additions. Very glad to see (by your writing yourself) that you are better, and with kind regards to all your family, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
Holly House, Barking, E. January 27, 1871.
Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your first volume,[82] 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.
On the subject of sexual selection and protection you do not yet convince me that I am wrong, but I expect your heaviest artillery will be brought up in your second volume, and I may have to capitulate. You seem, however, to have somewhat misunderstood my exact meaning, and I do not think the difference between us is quite so great as you seem to think it. There are a number of passages in which you argue against the view that the female has, in any large number of cases, been "specially modified" for protection, or that colour has generally been obtained by either sex for purposes of protection.
But my view is, and I thought I had made it clear, that the female has (in most cases) been simply prevented from acquiring the gay tints of the male (even when there was a tendency for her to inherit it) because it was hurtful; and, that when protection is not needed, gay colours are so generally acquired by both sexes as to show that inheritance by both sexes of colour variations is the most usual, when not prevented from acting by Natural Selection.
The colour itself may be acquired either by sexual selection or by other unknown causes. There are, however, difficulties in the very wide application you give to sexual selection which at present stagger me, though no one was or is more ready than myself to admit the perfect truth of the principle or the immense importance and great variety of its applications. Your chapters on Man are of intense interest, but as touching 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. My only difficulties are as to whether you have accounted for every step of the development by ascertained laws. Feeling sure that the book will keep up and increase your high reputation and be immensely successful, as it deserves to be, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. January 30, 1871.
My dear Wallace,—Your note has given me very great pleasure, chiefly because I was so anxious not to treat you with the least disrespect, and it is so difficult to speak fairly when differing from anyone. 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 the female not having been specially modified for protection to include the prevention of characters acquired by the [male symbol] being transmitted to the [female symbol]; 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 a 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 Lepidoptera, 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 feel the more fearful on this head, because I have just read (but not with sufficient care) Mivart's book,[83] 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: he gives in one place only half of one of my sentences, ignores in many places all that I have said on effects of use, speaks of my dogmatic assertion, "of false belief," whereas the end of paragraph seems to me to render the sentence by no means dogmatic or arrogant; etc. etc. I have since its publication received some quite charming letters from him.
What an ardent (and most justly) admirer he is of you. His work, I do not doubt, will have a most potent influence versus Natural Selection. The pendulum will now swing against us. The part which, I think, will have most influence is when he gives whole series of cases, like that of whalebone, in which we cannot explain the gradational 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 lung had originated in swim-bladder? In such a case as Thylacines, I think he was bound to say that the resemblance of the jaw to that of the dog is superficial; the number and correspondence and development of teeth being widely different. I think, again, when speaking 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 contemptuous 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 unintentionally 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.
* * * * *
Holly House, Barking, E. March 11, 1871.
Dear Darwin,—I need not say that I read your second volume with, if possible, a greater interest than the first, as so many topics of special interest to me are treated of. You will not be surprised to find that you have not convinced me on the "female protection" question, but you will be surprised to hear that I do not despair of convincing you. I have been writing, as you are aware, a review for the Academy, which I tried to refuse doing, but the Editor used as an argument the statement that you wished me to do so. It is not an easy job fairly to summarise such a book, but I hope I have succeeded tolerably. When I got to discussion, I felt more at home, but I most sincerely trust that I may not have let pass any word that may seem to you in the least too strong.
You have not written a word about me that I could wish altered, but as I know you wish me to be candid with you, I will mention that you have quoted one passage in a note (p. 376, Vol. II.) which seems to me a caricature of anything I have written.
Now let me ask you to rejoice with me, for I have got my chalk pit, and am hard at work engineering a road up its precipitous slopes. I hope you may be able to come and see me there some day, as it is an easy ride from London, and I shall be anxious to know if it is equal to the pit in the wilds of Kent Mrs. Darwin mentioned when I lunched with you. Should your gardener in the autumn have any thinnings out of almost any kind of hardy plants they would be welcome, as I have near four acres of ground in which I want to substitute ornamental plants for weeds. |
|
