ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A.R. WALLACE

38 Queen's Gardens, Lancaster Gate, W. May 18, 1889.

Dear Mr. Wallace,—A few days ago there reached me a copy of your new book, "Darwinism," for which, along with this acknowledgment, I send my thanks. In my present state of health I dare not read, and fear I shall be unable to profit by the accumulation of evidence you have brought together. I see sundry points on which I might raise discussions, but beyond the fact that I am at present unable to enter into them, I doubt whether they would be of any use. I regret that you have used the title "Darwinism," for notwithstanding your qualification of its meaning you will, by using it, tend greatly to confirm the erroneous conception almost universally current.—Truly yours,

HERBERT SPENCER.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Parkstone, Dorset. November 28, 1889.

My dear Mr. Poulton,—I have much pleasure in sending you Cope's book[19] (with the review of "Darwinism"), which I hope you will keep as long as you like, till you have mastered all its obscurities of style and eccentricities of argument. I think you will find a good deal in it to criticise, and it will be well for you to know what the leader of the Neo-Lamarckians regards as the foundation-stones of his theory. I greatly enjoyed my visit to Oxford, and only regretted that I could not leave more time for personal talk with yourself, for I am so deplorably ignorant of modern physiology that I am delighted to get intelligible explanations of its bearings on the subjects that most interest me in science. I quite see all its importance in investigations of the mechanism of colours, but there is so much still unknown that it will be very hard to convince me that there is no other possible explanation of the peacock's feather than the "continued preference by the females" for the most beautiful males, in this one point, "during a long line of descent"—as Darwin says! I expect, however, great light from your new book....—Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

SIR FRANCIS GALTON TO A.R. WALLACE

42 Rutland Gate, S.W. May 24, 1890.

Dear Mr. Wallace,—I send the paper with pleasure, and am glad that you will read it, and I hope then see more clearly than the abstract could show the grounds of my argument.

These finger-marks are most remarkable things. Of course I have made out much more about them since writing that memoir. Indeed I have another paper on them next Thursday at the Royal Society, but that only refers to ways of cataloguing them, either for criminal administration, or what I am more interested in, viz. racial and hereditary inquiry.

What I have done in this way is not ready for publication, but I may mention (privately, please) that these persistent marks, which seem fully developed in the sixth month of foetal life, and appear under the reservations and in the evidence published in the memoir to be practically quite unchanged during life, are not correlated with any ordinary characteristic that I can discover. They are the same in the lowest idiots as in ordinary persons. (I took the impressions of some 80 of these, so idiotic that they mostly could not speak, or even stand, at the great Darenth Asylum, Dartford.) They are the same in clod-hoppers as in the upper classes, and yet they are as hereditary as other qualities, I think. Their tendency to symmetrical distribution on the two hands is marked, and symmetry is a form of kinship. My argument is that sexual selection can have had nothing to do with the patterns, neither can any other form of selection due to vigour, wits, and so forth, because they are not correlated with them. They just go their own gait, uninfluenced by anything that we can find or reasonably believe in, of a naturally selective influence, in the plain meaning of the phrase.—Very sincerely yours,

FRANCIS GALTON.

* * * * *

TO THEO. D.A. COCKERELL

Parkstone, Dorset. March 10, 1891.

Dear Mr. Cockerell,— ... Your theory to account for the influence of a first male on progeny by a second seems very probable—and in fact if, as I suppose, spermatozoa often enter ova without producing complete fertilisation, it must be so. That would be easily experimented on, with fowls, dogs, etc., but I do not remember the fact having been observed except with horses. It ought to be common, when females have young by successive males.—Yours faithfully,

A.R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

The next letter relates to a controversy with Romanes concerning Herbert Spencer's argument about Co-adaptation which Romanes had urged in support of Neo-Lamarckism as opposed to Natural Selection. Prof. Meldola endeavoured to show that the difficulties raised by Spencer and supported by Romanes had no real weight because the possibility of so-called "co-adaptations" being developed successively in the order of evolution had not been reckoned with. There was no real divergence between Wallace and Prof. Meldola on this matter when they subsequently discussed it. The correspondence is in Nature, xliii. 557, and subsequently. See also "Darwin and After Darwin," by Romanes, 1895, ii. 68.

TO PROF. MELDOLA

Parkstone, Dorset, April 25, 1891.

My dear Meldola,—You have now put your foot in it! Romanes agrees with you! Henceforth he will claim you as a disciple, converted by his arguments!

There was one admission in your letter I was very sorry to see, because it cannot be strictly true, and is besides open to much misrepresentation. I mean the admission that Romanes pounces upon in his second paragraph. Of course, the number of individuals in a species being finite, the chance of four coincident variations occurring in any one individual—each such variation being separately very common—cannot be anything like "infinity to one." Why, then, do you concede it most fully?—the result being that Romanes takes you to concede that it is infinity to one against the coincident variations occurring in "any individuals." Surely, with the facts of coincident independent variation we now possess, the occurrence of three, four, or five, coincident variations cannot be otherwise than frequent. As a fact, more than half the whole population of most species seems to vary to a perceptible and measurable, and therefore sufficient, amount in scores of ways. Take a species with a million pairs of individuals—half of these vary sufficiently, either + or -, in the four acquired characters A, B, C, D: what will be the proportion of individuals that vary + in these four characters according to the law of averages? Will it not be about 1 in 64? If so it is ample—in many cases—for Natural Selection to work on, because in many cases less than 1/64 of offspring survives.

On Romanes' view of the impossibility of Natural Selection doing anything alone, because the required coincident variations do not occur, the occurrence of a "strong man" or a racehorse that beats all others easily must be impossible, since in each of these cases there must be scores of coincident favourable variations.

Given sufficient variation, I believe divergent modification of a species in two lines could easily occur, even if free intercrossing occurred, because, the numbers varying being a large proportion of the whole, the numbers which bred like with like would he sufficient to carry on the two lines of divergence, those that intercrossed and produced less perfectly adapted offspring being eliminated. Of course some amount of segregate breeding does always occur, as Darwin always maintained, but, as he also maintained, it is not absolutely essential to evolution. Romanes argues as if "free intercrossing" meant that none would pair like with like! I hope you will have another slap at him, and withdraw or explain that unlucky "infinity to one," which is Romanes' sheet-anchor.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Parkstone, Dorset. June 16, 1892.

My dear Mr. Poulton,—Many thanks for sending me Weismann's additional Essays,[20] which I look forward to reading with much pleasure. I have, however, read the first, and am much disappointed with it. It seems to me the weakest and most inconclusive thing he has yet written. At p. 17 he states his theory as to degeneration of eyes, and again, on p. 18, of anthers and filaments; but in both cases he fails to prove it, and apparently does not see that his panmixia, or "cessation of selection," cannot possibly produce continuous degeneration culminating in the total or almost total disappearance of an organ. Romanes and others have pointed out this weakness in his theory, but he does not notice it, and goes on calmly throughout the essay to assume that mere panmixia must cause progressive degeneration to an unlimited extent; whereas all it can do is to effect a reduction to the average of the total population on which selection has been previously worked. He says "individuals with weak eyes would not be eliminated," but omits to notice that individuals with strong eyes would also "not be eliminated," and as there is no reason alleged why variations in all directions should not occur as before, the free intercrossing would tend to keep up a mean condition only a little below that which was kept up by selection. It is clear that some form of selection must always co-operate in degeneration, such as economy of growth, which he hardly notices except as a possible but not a necessary factor, or actual injuriousness. It appears to me that what is wanted is to take a number of typical cases, and in each of them show how Natural Selection comes in to carry on the degeneration begun by panmixia. Weismann's treatment of the subject is merely begging the question.—Yours faithfully,

A.R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Parkstone, Dorset. August 29, 1892.

My dear Mr. Poulton,—As to panmixia you have quite misunderstood my position. By the "mean condition," I do not mean the "mean" during the whole course of development of the organ, as you seem to take it. That would indeed be absurd. I do mean the "mean" of the whole series of individual variations now occurring, during a period sufficient to contain all or almost all the variations to which the species is now subject. Take, for instance, such a case as the wings of the swallow, on the full development of which the life of the bird depends. Many individuals no doubt perish for lack of wing-power, due to deficiency in size or form of wing, or in the muscles which move it. The extreme limits of variation would be seen probably if we examined every swallow that had reached maturity during the last century. The average of all those would perhaps be 5 or 10 per cent. below the average of those that survive to become the parents of the next generation in any year; and what I maintain is, that panmixia alone could not reduce a swallow's wings below this first average. Any further reduction must be due either to some form of selection or to "economy of growth"—which is also, fundamentally, a form of selection. So with the eyes of cave animals, panmixia could only cause an imperfection of vision equal to the average of those variations which occurred, say, during a century before the animal entered the cave. It could only produce more effect than this if the effects of disuse are hereditary—which is a non-Weismannian doctrine. I think this is also the position that Romanes took.—Yours faithfully,

A.R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MR. J.W. MARSHALL

Parkstone, Dorset. September 23, 1892.

My dear Marshall,—I am glad you enjoyed Mr. Hudson's book. His observations are inimitable—and his theories and suggestions, if not always the best, at least show thought on what he has observed.

I was most pleased with his demonstration as to the supposed instincts of young birds and lambs, showing clearly that the former at all events are not due to inherited experience, as Darwin thought. The whole book, too, is pervaded by such a true love of nature and such a perception of its marvels and mysteries as to be unique in my experience. The modern scientific morphologists seem so wholly occupied in tracing out the mechanism of organisms that they hardly seem to appreciate the overwhelming marvel of the powers of life, which result in such infinitely varied structures and such strange habits and so-called instincts. The older I grow the more marvellous seem to me the mere variety of form and habit in plants and animals, and the unerring certitude with which from a minute germ the whole complex organism is built up, true to the type of its kind in all the infinitude of details! It is this which gives such a charm to the watching of plants growing, and of kittens so rapidly developing their senses and habitudes!...—Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Parkstone, Dorset. February 1, 1893.

My dear Poulton,—Thanks for the separate copy of your great paper on colours of larva, pupa, etc.[21] I have read your conclusions and looked over some of the experiments, and think you have now pretty well settled that question.

I am reading through the new volume of the Life of Darwin, and am struck with the curious example his own case affords of non-heredity of acquired variations. He expresses his constant dread—one of the troubles of his life—that his children would inherit his bad health. It seems pretty clear, from what F. Darwin says in the new edition, that Darwin's constant nervous stomach irritation was caused by his five years sea-sickness. It was thoroughly established before, and in the early years of, his marriage, and, on his own theory his children ought all to have inherited it. Have they? You know perhaps better than I do, whether any of the family show any symptoms of that particular form of illness—and if not it is a fine case!—Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

Wallace was formally admitted to the Royal Society in June, 1893. The postscript of the following letter refers to his cordial reception by the Fellows.

TO PROF. MELDOLA

Parkstone, Dorset. June 10, 1893.

My dear Meldola,—As we had no time to "discourse" on Thursday, I will say a few words on the individual adaptability question. We have to deal with facts, and facts certainly show that, in many groups, there is a great amount of adaptable change produced in the individual by external conditions, and that that change is not inherited. I do not see that this places Natural Selection in any subordinate position, because this individual adaptability is evidently advantageous to many species, and may itself have been produced or increased by Natural Selection. When a species is subject to great changes of conditions, either locally or at uncertain times, it may be a decided advantage to it to become individually adapted to that change while retaining the power to revert instantly to its original form when the normal conditions return. But whenever the changed conditions are permanent, or are such that individual adaptation cannot meet the requirements, then Natural Selection rapidly brings about a permanent adaptation which is inherited. In plants these two forms of adaptation are well marked and easily tested, and we shall soon have a large body of evidence upon it. In the higher animals I imagine that individual adaptation is small in amount, as indicated by the fact that even slight varieties often breed true.

In Lepidoptera we have the two forms of colour-adaptability clearly shown. Many species are, in all their stages, permanently adapted to their environment. Others have a certain power of individual adaptation, as of the pupae to their surroundings. If this last adaptation were strictly inherited it would be positively injurious, since the progeny would thereby lose the power of individual adaptability, and thus we should have light pupae on dark surroundings, and vice versa. Each kind of adaptation has its own sphere, and it is essential that the one should be non-inheritable, the other heritable. The whole thing seems to me quite harmonious and "as it should be."

Thiselton-Dyer tells me that H. Spencer is dreadfully disturbed on the question. He fears that acquired characters may not be inherited, in which case the foundation of his whole philosophy is undermined!—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.—I am afraid you are partly responsible for that kindly meant but too personal manifestation which disturbed the solemnity of the Royal Society meeting on Thursday!...

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Parkstone, Dorset. September 25, 1893.

My dear Poulton,—I suppose you were not at Nottingham and did not get the letter, paper, and photographs I sent you there, but to be opened by the Secretary of Section D in case you were not there. It was about a wonderful and perfectly authenticated case of a woman who dressed the arm of a gamekeeper after amputation, and six or seven months afterwards had a child born without the forearm on the right side, exactly corresponding in form and length of stump to that of the man. Photographs of the man, and of the boy seven or eight years old, were taken by the physician of the hospital where the man's arm was cut off, and they show a most striking correspondence. These, with my short paper, appear to have produced an effect, for a committee of Section D has been appointed to collect evidence on this and other matters....—Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Parkstone, Dorset. November 17, 1893.

My dear Poulton,—The letter I wrote to you at Nottingham was returned to me here (after a month), so I did not think it worth while to send it to you again, though it did contain my congratulations on your appointment,[22] which I now repeat. As you have not seen the paper I sent to the British Association, I will just say that I should not have noticed the subject publicly but, after a friend had given me the photographs (sent with my paper), I came across the following statement in the new edition of Chambers' Encyclopaedia, art. Deformities (by Prof. A. Hare): "In an increasing proportion of cases which are carefully investigated, it appears that maternal impressions, the result of shock or unpleasant experiences, may have a considerable influence in producing deformities in the offspring." In consequence of this I sent the case which had been furnished me, and which is certainly about as well attested and conclusive as anything can be. The facts are these:

A gamekeeper had his right forearm amputated at the North Devon Infirmary. He left before it was healed, thinking his wife could dress it, but as she was too nervous, a neighbour, a young recently married woman, a farmer's wife, still living, came and dressed it every day till it healed. About six months after she had a child born without right hand and forearm, the stump exactly corresponding in length to that of the gamekeeper. Dr. Richard Budd, M.D., F.R.C.P.,[23] of Barnstaple, the physician to the infirmary, when the boy was five or six years old, himself took a photograph of the boy and the gamekeeper side by side, showing the wonderful correspondence of the two arms. I have these facts direct from Dr. Budd, who was personally cognisant of the whole circumstances. A few years after, in November, 1876, Dr. Budd gave an account of the case and exhibited the photographs to a large meeting at the College of Physicians, and I have no doubt it is one of the cases referred to in the article I have quoted, though Dr. Budd thinks it has never been published. It will be at once admitted that this is not a chance coincidence, and that all theoretical difficulties must give way to such facts as this, ... Of course it by no means follows that similar causes should in all cases produce similar effects, since the idiosyncrasy of the mother is no doubt an important factor; but where the combined coincidences are so numerous as in this case—place, time, person and exact correspondence of resulting deformity—some causal relation must exist.—Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.



PART III (Concluded)



III.—Correspondence on Biology, Geographical Distribution, etc.

[1894—1913]

* * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A.R. WALLACE

Queen's Hotel, Cliftonville, Margate. August 10, 1894.

Dear Mr. Wallace,—Though we differ on some points we agree on many, and one of the points on which we doubtless agree is the absurdity of Lord Salisbury's representation of the process of Natural Selection based upon the improbability of two varying individuals meeting. His nonsensical representation of the theory ought to be exposed, for it will mislead very many people. I see it is adopted by the Pall Mall. I have been myself strongly prompted to take the matter up, but it is evidently your business to do that. Pray write a letter to the Times explaining that selection or survival of the fittest does not necessarily take place in the way he describes. You might set out by remarking that whereas he begins by comparing himself to a volunteer colonel reviewing a regiment of regulars, he very quickly changes his attitude and becomes a colonel of regulars reviewing volunteers and making fun of their bunglings. He deserves a-severe castigation. There are other points on which his views should be rectified, but this is the essential point.

It behoves you of all men to take up the gauntlet he has thrown down.—Very truly yours,

HERBERT SPENCER.

* * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A.R. WALLACE

Queen's Hotel, Cliftonville, Margate, Aug. 19, 1894.

Dear Mr. Wallace,—I cannot at all agree with you respecting the relative importance of the work you are doing and that which I wanted you to do. Various articles in the papers show that Lord Salisbury's argument is received with triumph, and, unless it is disposed of, it will lead to a public reaction against the doctrine of evolution at large, a far more serious evil than any error which you propose to rectify among biologists. Everybody will look to you for a reply, and if you make no reply it will be understood that Lord Salisbury's objection is valid. As to the non-publication of your letter in the Times, that is absurd, considering that your name and that of Darwin are constantly coupled together.—Truly yours,

HERBERT SPENCER.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Parkstone, Dorset. September 8, 1894.

My dear Poulton,—I was glad to see your exposure of another American Neo-Lamarckian in Nature.[24] It is astonishing how utterly illogical they all are! I was much pleased with your point of the adaptations supposed to be produced by the inorganic environment when they are related to the organic. It is I think new and very forcible. For nearly a month I have been wading through Bateson's book,[25] and writing a criticism of it, and of Galton, who backs him up with his idea of "organic stability." ... Neither he nor Galton appears to have any adequate conception of what Natural Selection is, or how impossible it is to escape from it. They seem to think that, given a stable variation, Natural Selection must hide its diminished head!

Bateson's preface, concluding reflections, etc., are often quite amusing.... He is so cocksure he has made a great discovery—which is the most palpable of mare's nests.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.—I allude of course to his grand argument—"environment continuous—species discontinuous—therefore variations which produce species must be also discontinuous"! (Bateson—Q.E.D.).

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Parkstone, Dorset. February 19, 1895.

My dear Poulton,—I have read your paper on "Theories of Evolution"[26] with great pleasure. It is very clear and very forcible, and I should think must have opened the eyes of some of your hearers. Your cases against Lamarckism were very strong, and I think quite conclusive. There is one, however, which seems to me weak—that about the claws of lobsters and the tails of lizards moving and acting when detached from the body. It may be argued, fairly, that this is only an incidental result of the extreme muscular irritability and contractibility of the organs, which might have been caused on Lamarckian as well as on the Darwinian hypothesis. The running of a fowl after its head is chopped off is an example of the same kind of thing, and this is certainly not useful. The detachment itself of claw and tail is no doubt useful and adaptive.

When discussing the objection as to failures not being found fossil, there are two additional arguments to those you adduce: (1) Every failure has been, first, a success, or it could not have come into existence (as a species); and (2) the hosts of huge and very specialised animals everywhere recently extinct are clearly failures. They were successes as long as the struggle was with animal competitors only, physical conditions being highly favourable. But, when physical conditions became adverse, as by drought, cold, etc., they failed and became extinct. The entrance of new enemies from another area might equally render them failures. As to your question about myself and Darwin, I had met him once only for a few minutes at the British Museum before I went to the East.... —Yours very faithfully,

A.R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MR. CLEMENT REID

Parkstone, Dorset. November 18, 1894.

My dear Clement Reid,— ... The great, the grand, and long-expected, the prophesied discovery has at last been made—Miocene or Old Pliocene Man in India!!! Good worked flints found in situ by the palaeontologist to the Geological Survey of India! It is in a ferruginous conglomerate lying beneath 4,000 feet of Pliocene strata and containing hippotherium, etc. But perhaps you have seen the article in Natural Science describing it, by Rupert Jones, who, very properly, accepts it! Of course we want the bones, but we have got the flints, and they may follow. Hurrah for the missing link! Excuse more.—Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

The next letter relates to the rising school of biologists who, in opposition to Darwin's views, held that species might arise by what was at the time termed "discontinuous variation."

TO PROF. MELDOLA

February 4, 1895.

My dear Professor Meldola,—I hope to have copies of my "Evolution" article in a few days, and will send you a couple. The article was in print last September, but, being long, was crowded out month after month, and only now got in by being cut in two. I think I have demolished "discontinuous variation" as having any but the most subordinate part in evolution of species.

Congratulations on Presidency of the Entomological Society.

A.R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Parkstone, Dorset. March 15, 1895.

My dear Poulton,—I have now nearly finished reading Romanes, but do not find it very convincing. There is a large amount of special pleading. On two points only I feel myself hit. My doubt that Darwin really meant that all the individuals of a species could be similarly modified without selection is evidently wrong, as he adduces other quotations which I had overlooked. The other point is, that my suggested explanation of sexual ornaments gives away my case as to the utility of all specific characters. It certainly does as it stands, but I now believe, and should have added, that all these ornaments, where they differ from species to species, are also recognition characters, and as such were rendered stable by Natural Selection from their first appearance.

I rather doubt the view you state, and which Gulick and Romanes make much of, that a portion of a species, separated from the main body, will have a different average of characters, unless they are a local race which has already been somewhat selected. The large amount of variation, and the regularity of the curve of variation, whenever about 50 or 100 individuals are measured in the same locality, shows that the bulk of a species are similar in amount of variation everywhere. But when a portion of a species begins to be modified in adaptation to new conditions, distinction of some kind is essential, and therefore any slight difference would be increased by selection. I see no reason to believe that species (usually) have been isolated first and modified afterwards, but rather that new species usually arise from species which have a wide range, and in different areas need somewhat different characters and habits. Then distinctness arises both by adaptation and by development of recognition marks to minimise intercrossing.

I wonder Darwin did not see that if the unknown "constant causes" he supposes can modify all the individuals of a species, either indifferently, usefully, or hurtfully, and that these characters so produced are, as Romanes says, very, very numerous in all species, and are sometimes the only specific characters, then the Neo-Lamarckians are quite right in putting Natural Selection as a very secondary and subordinate influence, since all it has to do is to weed out the hurtful variations.

Of course, if a species with warning colours were, in part, completely isolated, and its colours or markings were accidentally different from the parent form, whatever set of markings and colours it had would be, I consider, rendered stable for recognition, and also for protection, since if it varied too much the young birds and other enemies would take a heavier toll in learning it was uneatable. It might then be said that the character by which this species differs from the parent species is a useless character. But surely this is not what is usually meant by a "useless character." This is highly useful in itself, though the difference from the other species is not useful. If they were in contact it would be useful, as a distinction preventing intercrossing, and so long as they are not brought together we cannot really tell if it is a species at all, since it might breed freely with the parent form and thus return back to one type. The "useless characters" I have always had in mind when arguing this question are those which are or are supposed to be absolutely useless, not merely relatively as regards the difference from an allied species. I think this is an important distinction.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A.R. WALLACE

64 Avenue Road, Regent's Park, London, N.W. September 28, 1895

Dear Mr. Wallace,—As I cannot get you to deal with Lord Salisbury I have decided to do it myself, having been finally exasperated into doing it by this honour paid to his address in France—the presentation of a translation to the French Academy. The impression produced upon some millions of people in England cannot be allowed to be thus further confirmed without protest.

One of the points which I propose to take up is the absurd conception Lord Salisbury sets forth of the process of Natural Selection. When you wrote you said you had dealt with it yourself in your volume on Darwinism. I have no doubt that it is also in some measure dealt with by Darwin himself, by implication or incidentally. You of course know Darwin by heart, and perhaps you would be kind enough to save me the trouble of searching by indicating the relevant passages both in his books and in your own. My reading power is very small, and it tries me to find the parts I want by much reading.—Truly yours,

HERBERT SPENCER.

* * * * *

To the following letter from Mr. Gladstone, Wallace attached this pencil note: "In 1881 I put forth the first idea of mouth-gesture as a factor in the origin of language, in a review of E.B. Tylor's 'Anthropology,' and in 1895 I extended it into an article in the Fortnightly Review, and reprinted it with a few further corrections in my 'Studies,' under the title 'The Expressiveness of Speech or Mouth-Gesture as a Factor in the Origin of Language.' In it I have developed a completely new principle in the theory of the origin of language by showing that every motion of the jaws, lips and tongue, together with inward or outward breathing, and especially the mute or liquid consonants ending words which serve to indicate abrupt or continuous motion, have corresponding meanings in so many cases as to show a fundamental connection. I thus enormously extended the principle of onomatopoeia in the origin of vocal language. As I have been unable to find any reference to this important factor in the origin of language, and as no competent writer has pointed out any fallacy in it, I think I am justified in supposing it to be new and important. Mr. Gladstone informed me that there were many thousands of illustrations of my ideas in Homer."—A.R.W.

* * * * *

W.E. GLADSTONE TO A.R. WALLACE

Hawarden Castle, Chester. October 18, 1895.

Dear Sir,—Your kindness in sending me your most interesting article draws on you the inconvenience of an acknowledgment.

My pursuits in connection with Homer, especially, have made me a confident advocate of the doctrine that there is, within limits, a connection in language between sound and sense.

I would consent to take the issue simply on English words beginning with st. You go upon a kindred class in sn. I do not remember a perfectly innocent word, a word habitually used in bonam partem, and beginning with sn, except the word "snow," and "snow," as I gather from Schnee, is one of the worn-down words.

May I beg to illustrate you once more on the ending in p. I take our old schoolboy combinations: hop, skip and jump. Each motion an ending motion; and to each word closed with p compare the words run, rennen, courir, currere.

But I have now a new title to speak. It is deafness; and I know from deafness that I run a worse chance with a man whose mouth is covered with beard and moustache.

A young relation of mine, slightly deaf, was sorely put to it in an University examination because one of his examiners was secretal in this way.

I will not trouble you further except to express, with misgiving, a doubt on a single point, the final f.

In driving with Lord Granville, who was deaf but not very deaf, I had occasion to mention to him the Duke of Fife, I used every effort, but in no way could I contrive to make him hear the word.

I break my word to add one other particular. Out of 27,000 odd lines in Homer, every one of them expressed, in a sense, heavy weight or force; the blows of heavy-armed men on the breastplates of foes ... [illegible] and the like.—With many thanks, I remain yours very faithfully,

W.E. GLADSTONE.

P.S.—I should say that the efficacy of lip-expression, undeniably, is most subtle, and defies definite description.

* * * * *

TO DR. ARCHDALL REID

Parkstone, Dorset. April 19, 1896.

Dear Sir,—I am sorry I had not space to refer more fully to your interesting work.[27] The most important point on which I think your views require emendation is on instinct. I see you quote Spalding's experiments, but these have been quite superseded and shown to be seriously incorrect by Prof. Lloyd Morgan. A paper by him in the Fortnightly Review of August, 1893, gives an account of his experiments, and he read a paper on the same subject at the British Association last year. He is now preparing a volume on the subject which will contain the most valuable series of observations yet made on this question. Another point of some importance where I cannot agree with you is your treating dipsomania as a disease, only to be eliminated by drunkenness and its effects. It appears to me to be only a vicious habit or indulgence which would cease to exist in a state of society in which the habit were almost universally reprobated, and the means for its indulgence almost absent. But this is a matter of comparatively small importance.—Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO DR. ARCHDALL REID

Parkstone. April 28, 1896.

Dear Sir,—"We can but reason from the facts we know." We know a good deal of the senses of the higher animals, very little of those of insects. If we find—as I think we do—that all cases of supposed "instinctive knowledge" in the former turn out to be merely intuitive reactions to various kinds of stimulus, combined with very rapidly acquired experience, we shall be justified in thinking that the actions of the latter will some day be similarly explained. When Lloyd Morgan's book is published we shall have much information on this question. (See "Natural Selection and Tropical Nature," pp. 91-7.)—Yours truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. MELDOLA

Parkstone, Dorset. October 12, 1896.

My dear Meldola,—I got Weismann's "Germinal Selection" two or three months back and read it very carefully, and on the whole I admire it very much, and think it does complete the work of ordinary variation and selection. Of course it is a pure hypothesis, and can never perhaps be directly proved, but it seems to me a reasonable one, and it enables us to understand two groups of facts which I have never been able to work out satisfactorily by the old method. These two facts are: (1) the total, or almost total, disappearance of many useless organs, and (2) the continuous development of secondary sexual characters beyond any conceivable utility, and, apparently, till checked by inutility. It explains both these. Disuse alone, as I and many others have always argued, cannot do the first, but can only cause regression to the mean, with perhaps some further regression from economy of material.

As to the second, I have always felt the difficulty of accounting for the enormous development of the peacock's train, the bird of paradise plumes, the long wattle of the bell bird, the enormous tail-feathers of the Guatemalan trogon, of some humming-birds, etc. etc. etc. The beginnings of all these I can explain as recognition marks, and this explains also their distinctive character in allied species, but it does not explain their growing on and on far beyond what is needful for recognition, and apparently till limited by absolute hurtfulness. It is a relief to me to have "germinal selection" to explain this.

I do not, however, think it at all necessary to explain adaptations, however complex. Variation is so general and so large, in dominant species, and selection is so tremendously powerful, that I believe all needful adaptation may be produced without it. But, if it exists, it would undoubtedly hasten the process of such adaptation and would therefore enable new places in the economy of nature to be more rapidly filled up.

I was thinking of writing a popular exposition of the new theory for Nature, but have not yet found time or inclination for it. I began reading "Germinal Selection" with a prejudice against it. That prejudice continued through the first half, but when I came to the idea itself, and after some trouble grasped the meaning and bearing of it, I saw the work it would do and was a convert at once. It really has no relation to Lamarckism, and leaves the non-heredity of acquired characters exactly where it was.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

The next letter relates to the great controversy then being carried on with respect to Weismann's doctrine of the non-inheritance of "acquired" characters, which doctrine implied complete rejection of the last trace of Lamarckism from Darwinian evolution. Wallace ultimately accepted the Weismannian teaching. Darwin had no opportunity during his lifetime of considering this question, which was raised later in an acute form by Weismann.

TO PROF. MELDOLA

Parkstane, Dorset. January 6, 1897.

My dear Meldola,—The passage to which you refer in the "Origin" (top of p. 6) shows Darwin's firm belief in the "heredity of acquired variations," and also in the importance of definite variations, that is, "sports," though elsewhere he almost gives these up in favour of indefinite variations; and this last is now the view of all Darwinians, and even of many Lamarckians. I therefore always now assume this as admitted. Weismann's view as to "possible variations" and "impossible variations" on p. 1 of "Germinal Selection" is misleading, because it can only refer to "sports" or to "cumulative results," not to "individual variations" such as are the material Natural Selection acts on. Variation, as I understand it, can only be a slight modification in the offspring of that which exists in the parent. The question whether pigs could possibly develop wings is absurd, and altogether beside the question, which is, solely, so far as direct evidence goes, as to the means by which the change from one species to another closely allied species has been brought about. Those who want to begin by discussing the causes of change from a dog to a seal, or from a cow to a whale, are not worth arguing with, as they evidently do not comprehend the A, B, C of the theory.

Darwin's ineradicable acceptance of the theory of heredity of the effects of climate, use and disuse, food, etc., on the individual led to much obscurity and fallacy in his arguments, here and there.—Yours very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON Parkstone, Dorset. February 14, 1897.

My dear Poulton,—Thanks for copy of your British Association Address,[28] which I did not read in Nature, being very busy just then. I have now read it with much pleasure, and think it a very useful and excellent discussion that was much needed. There is, however, one important error, I think, which vitiates a vital part of the argument, and which renders it possible so to reduce the time indicated by geology as to render the accordance of Geology and Physics more easy to effect. The error I allude to was made by Sir A. Geikie in his Presidential Address[29] which you quote. Immediately it appeared I wrote to him pointing it out, but he merely acknowledged my letter, saying he would consider it. To me it seems a most palpable and extraordinary blunder. The error consists in taking the rate of deposition as the same as the rate of denudation, whereas it is about twenty times as great, perhaps much more—because the area of deposition is at least twenty times less than that of denudation. In order to equal the area of denudation, it would require that every bed of every formation should have once extended over the whole area of all the land of the globe! The deposition in narrow belts along coasts of all the matter brought down by rivers, as proved by the Challenger, leads to the same result. In my "Island Life," 2nd Edit., pp. 221-225, I have discussed this whole matter, and on reading it again I can find no fallacy in it. I have, however, I believe, overestimated the time required for deposition, which I believe would be more nearly one-fortieth than one-twentieth that of mean denudation; because there is, I believe, also a great overestimate of the maximum of deposition, because it is partly made up of beds which may have been deposited simultaneously. Also the maximum thickness is probably double the mean thickness.

The mean rate of denudation, both for European rivers and for all the rivers that have been measured, is a foot in three million years, which is the figure that should be taken in calculations.—Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. MELDOLA

Parkstone, Dorset. April 27, 1897.

My dear Meldola,— ... I thought Romanes' article in reply to Spencer was very well written and wonderfully clear for him, and I agree with most of it, except his high estimate of Spencer's co-adaptation argument. It is quite true that Spencer's biology rests entirely on Lamarckism, so far as heredity of acquired characters goes. I have been reading Weismann's last book, "The Germ Plasm." It is a wonderful attempt to solve the most complex of all problems, and is almost unreadable without some practical acquaintance with germs and their development.—Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Parkstone, Dorset. June 13, 1897.

My dear Poulton,— ... The rate of deposition might be modified in an archipelago, but would not necessarily be less than now, on the average. On the ocean side it might be slow, but wherever there were comparatively narrow straits between the islands it might be even faster than now, because the area of deposition would be strictly limited. In the seas between Java and Borneo and between Borneo and Celebes the deposition may be above the average. Again, during the development of continents there were evidently extensive mountain ridges and masses with landlocked seas, or inland lakes, and in all these deposition would be rapid. Anyhow, the fact remains that there is no necessary equality between rates of denudation and deposition (in thickness) as Geikie has assumed.

I was delighted with your account of Prichard's wonderful anticipation of Galton and Weismann! It is so perfect and complete.... It is most remarkable that such a complete statement of the theory and such a thorough appreciation of its effects and bearing should have been so long overlooked. I read Prichard when I was very young, and have never seen the book since. His facts and arguments are really useful ones, and I should think Weismann must be delighted to have such a supporter come from the grave. His view as to the supposed transmission of disease is quite that of Archdall Reid's recent book. He was equally clear as to Selection, and had he been a zoologist and traveller he might have anticipated the work of both Darwin and Weismann!

To bring out such a book as his "Researches" when only twenty-seven, and a practising physician, shows what a remarkable man he was.—Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. MELDOLA

Parkstone, Dorset. July 8, 1897.

My dear Meldola,— ... I am now reading a wonderfully interesting book—O. Fisher's "Physics of the Earth's Crust." It is really a grand book, and, though full of unintelligible mathematics, is so clearly explained and so full of good reasoning on all the aspects of this most difficult question that it is a pleasure to read it. It was especially a pleasure to me because I had just been writing an article on the Permanence of the Oceanic Basins, at the request of the Editor of Natural Science, who told me I was not orthodox on the point. But I find that Fisher supports the same view with very great force, and it strikes me that if weight of argument and number of capable supporters create orthodoxy in science, it is the other side who are not orthodox. I have some fresh arguments, and I was delighted to be able to quote Fisher. It seems almost demonstrated now that Sir W. Thomson was wrong, and that the earth has a molten interior and a very thin crust, and in no other way can the phenomena of geology be explained....—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO SIR OLIVER LODGE

Parkstone, Dorset. March 8, 1898.

My dear Sir,—My own opinion has long been—and I have many times given reasons for it—that there is always an ample amount of variation in all directions to allow any useful modification to be produced, very rapidly, as compared with the rate of those secular changes (climate and geography) which necessitate adaptation; hence no guidance of variation in certain lines is necessary. For proof of this I would ask you to look at the diagrams in Chapter III. of my "Darwinism," reading the explanation in the text. The proof of such constant indefinite variability has been much increased of late years, and if you consider that instead of tens or hundreds of individuals, Nature has as many thousands or millions to be selected from, every year or two, it will be clear that the materials for adaptation are ample.

Again, I believe that the time, even as limited by Lord Kelvin's calculations, is ample, for reasons given in Chapter X., "On the Earth's Age," in my "Island Life," and summed up on p. 236. I therefore consider the difficulty set forth on p. 2 of the leaflet you send is not a real one. To my mind, the development of plants and animals from low forms of each is fully explained by the variability proved to exist, with the actual rapid multiplication and Natural Selection. For this no other intellectual agency is required. The problem is to account for the infinitely complex constitution of the material world and its forces which rendered living organisms possible; then, the introduction of consciousness or sensation, which alone rendered the animal world possible; lastly, the presence in man of capacities and moral ideas and aspirations which could not conceivably be produced by variation and Natural Selection. This is stated at p. 473-8 of my "Darwinism," and is also referred to in the article I enclose (at p. 443) and which you need not return.

The subject is so large and complex that it is not to be wondered so many people still maintain the insufficiency of Natural Selection, without having really mastered the facts. I could not, therefore, answer your question without going into some detail and giving references.... —Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MR. H.N. RIDLEY

Parkstone, Dorset. October 3, 1898.

My dear Mr. Ridley,— ... We are much interested now about De Rougemont, and I dare say you have seen his story in the Wide World Magazine, while in the Daily Chronicle there have been letters, interviews and discussions without end. A few people, who think they know everything, treat him as an impostor; but unfortunately they themselves contradict each other, and so far are proved to be wrong more often than De Rougemont. I firmly believe that his story is substantially true—making allowance for his being a foreigner who learnt one system of measures, then lived thirty years among savages, and afterwards had to reproduce all his knowledge in English and Australian idioms. As an intelligent writer in the Saturday Review says, putting aside the sensational illustrations there is absolutely nothing in his story but what is quite possible and even probable. He must have reached Singapore the year after I returned home, and I dare say there are people there who remember Jensen, the owner of the schooner Veilland, with whom he sailed on his disastrous pearl-fishing expedition. Jensen is said now to be in British New Guinea, and has often spoken of his lost cargo of pearls. —— and ——, of the Royal Geographical Society, state that they are convinced of the substantial truth of the main outlines of his story, and after three interviews and innumerable questions are satisfied of his bona fides—and so am I.—With best wishes, believe me to be yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

MR. SAMUEL WADDINGTON TO A.R. WALLACE

7 Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W. February 19, 1901.

Dear Sir,—I trust you will forgive a stranger troubling you with a letter, but a friend has asked me whether, as a matter of fact, Darwin held that all living creatures descended from one and the same ancestor, and that the pedigree of a humming-bird and that of a hippopotamus would meet if traced far enough back. Can you tell me whether Darwin did teach this?

I should have thought that as life was developed once, it probably could and would be developed many times in different places, as month after month, and year after year went by; and that, from the very first, it probably took many different forms and characters, in the same way as crystals take different forms and shapes, even when composed of the same substance. From these many developments of "life" would descend as many separate lines of evolution, one ending in the humming-bird, another in the hippopotamus, a third in the kangaroo, etc., and their pedigrees (however far back they might be traced) would not join until they reached some primitive form of protoplasm,—Yours faithfully,

SAMUEL WADDINGTON.

* * * * *

TO MR. SAMUEL WADDINGTON

Parkstone, Dorset. February 23, 1901.

Dear Sir,—Darwin believed that all living things originated from "a few forms or from one"—as stated in the last sentence of his "Origin of Species." But privately I am sure he believed in the one origin. Of course there is a possibility that there were several distinct origins from inorganic matter, but that is very improbable, because in that case we should expect to find some difference in the earliest forms of the germs of life. But there is no such difference, the primitive germ-cells of man, fish or oyster being almost indistinguishable, formed of identical matter and going through identical primitive changes.

As to the humming-bird and hippopotamus, there is no doubt whatever of a common origin—if evolution is accepted at all; since both are vertebrates—a very high type of organism whose ancestral forms can be traced back to a simple type much earlier than the common origin of mammals, birds and reptiles.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO SIR FRANCIS DARWIN

Parkstone, Dorset. July 3, 1901.

Dear Mr. Darwin,—Thanks for the letter returned. I do hold the opinion expressed in the last sentence of the article you refer to, and have reprinted it in my volume of Studies, etc. But the stress must be laid on the word proof. I intended it to enforce the somewhat similar opinion of your father, in the "Origin" (p. 424, 6th Edit.), where he says, "Analogy may be a deceitful guide." But I really do not go so far as he did. For he maintained that there was not any proof that the several great classes or kingdoms were descended from common ancestors.

I maintain, on the contrary, that all without exception are now proved to have originated by "descent with modification," but that there is no proof, and no necessity, that the very same causes which have been sufficient to produce all the species of a genus or Order were those which initiated and developed the greater differences. At the same time I do not say they were not sufficient. I merely urge that there is a difference between proof and probability.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Broadstone, Wimborne. August 5, 1904.

My dear Poulton,— ... What a miserable abortion of a theory is "Mutation," which the Americans now seem to be taking up in place of Lamarckism, "superseded." Anything rather than Darwinism! I am glad Dr. F.A. Dixey shows it up so well in this week's Nature,[30] but too mildly!—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Broadstone, Wimborne. April 3, 1905.

My dear Poulton,—Many thanks for copy of your Address,[31] which I have read with great pleasure and will forward to Birch next mail. You have, I think, produced a splendid and unanswerable set of facts proving the non-heredity of acquired characters. I was particularly pleased with the portion on "instincts," in which the argument is especially clear and strong. I am afraid, however, the whole subject is above and beyond the average "entomologist" or insect collector, but it will be of great value to all students of evolution. It is curious how few even of the more acute minds take the trouble to reason out carefully the teaching of certain facts—as in the case of Romanes and the "variable protection," and as I showed also in the case of Mivart (and also Romanes and Gulick) declaring that isolation alone, without Natural Selection, could produce perfect and well-defined species (see Nature, Jan. 12, 1899).... —Yours faithfully,

A.R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO SIR FRANCIS DARWIN

Broadstone, Wimborne. October 29, 1905.

Dear Mr. Darwin,—I return you the two articles on "Mutation" with many thanks. As they are both supporters of de Vries, I suppose they put his case as strongly as possible. Professor Hubrecht's paper is by far the clearest and the best written, and he says distinctly that de Vries claims that all new species have been produced by mutations, and none by "fluctuating variations." Professor Hubrecht supports this and says that de Vries has proved it! And all this founded upon a few "sports" from one species of plant, itself of doubtful origin (variety or hybrid), and offering phenomena in no way different from scores of other cultivated plants. Never, I should think, has such a vast hypothetical structure been erected on so flimsy a basis!

The boldness of his statements is amazing, as when he declares (as if it were a fact of observation) that fluctuating variability, though he admits it as the origin of all domestic animals and plants, yet "never leads to the formation of species"! (Hubrecht, p. 216.) There is one point where he so grossly misinterprets your father that I think you or some other botanist should point it out. De Vries is said to quote from "Life and Letters," II., p. 83, where Darwin refers to "chance variations"—explained three lines on as "the slight differences selected by which a race or species is at length formed." Yet de Vries and Hubrecht claim that by "chance variations" Darwin meant "sports" or "mutations," and therefore agrees with de Vries, while both omit to refer to the many passages in which, later, he gave less and less weight to what he termed "single large variations"—the same as de Vries' "mutations"!—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER

Broadstone, Wimborne. November 10, 1905.

My dear Sir Joseph,—I am writing to apologise for a great oversight. When I sent my publishers a list of persons who had contributed to "My Life" in various ways, your name, which should have been first, was strangely omitted, and the omission was only recalled to me yesterday by reading your letters to Bates in Clodd's edition of his Amazon book, which I have just purchased. I now send you a copy by parcel-post, in the hope that you will excuse the omission to send it sooner.

Now for a more interesting subject, I was extremely pleased and even greatly surprised, in reading your letters to Bates, to find that at that early period (1862) you were already strongly convinced of three facts which are absolutely essential to a comprehension of the method of organic evolution, but which many writers, even now, almost wholly ignore. They are (1) the universality and large amount of normal variability, (2) the extreme rigour of Natural Selection, and (3) that there is no adequate evidence for, and very much against, the inheritance of acquired characters.

It was only some years later, when I began to write on the subject and had to think out the exact mode of action of Natural Selection, that I myself arrived at (1) and (2), and have ever since dwelt upon them—in season and out of season, as many will think—as being absolutely essential to a comprehension of organic evolution. The third I did not realise till I read Weismann, I have never seen the sufficiency of normal variability for the modification of species more strongly or better put than in your letters to Bates. Darwin himself never realised it, and consequently played into the hands of the "discontinuous variation" and "mutation" men, by so continually saying "if they vary"—"without variation Natural Selection can do nothing," etc.

Your argument that variations are not caused by change of environment is equally forcible and convincing. Has anybody answered de Vries yet?

F. Darwin lent me Prof. Hubrecht's review from the Popular Science Monthly, in which he claims that de Vries has proved that new species have always been produced from "mutations," never through normal variability, and that Darwin latterly agreed with him! This is to me amazing! The Americans too accept de Vries as a second Darwin!—Yours very sincerely,

ALFRED E. WALLACE.

* * * * *

SIR J. HOOKER TO A.R. WALLACE

The Camp, Sunningdale. November 12, 1905.

My dear Wallace,—My return from a short holiday at Sidmouth last Thursday was greeted by your kind and welcome letter and copy of your "Life." The latter was, I assure you, never expected, knowing as I do the demand for free copies that such a work inflicts on the writer. In fact I had put it down as one of the annual Christmas gifts of books that I receive from my own family. Coming, as it thus did, quite unexpectedly, it is doubly welcome, and I do heartily thank you for this proof of your greatly valued friendship. It will prove to be one of four works of greatest interest to me of any published since Darwin's "Origin," the others being Waddell's "Lhasa," Scott's "Antarctic Voyage," and Mill's "Siege of the South Pole."

I have not seen Clodd's edition of Bates's "Amazon," which I have put down as to be got, and I had no idea that I should have appeared in it. Your citation of my letters and their contents are like dreams to me; but to tell you the truth, I am getting dull of memory as well as of hearing, and what is worse, in reading: what goes in at one eye goes out at the other. So I am getting to realise Darwin's consolation of old age, that it absolves me from being expected to know, remember, or reason upon new facts and discoveries. And this must apply to your query as to anyone having as yet answered de Vries. I cannot remember having seen any answer; only criticisms of a discontinuous sort. I cannot for a moment entertain the idea that Darwin ever assented to the proposition that new species have always been produced from mutation and never through normal variability. Possibly there is some quibble on the definition of mutation or of variation. The Americans are prone to believe any new things, witness their swallowing the thornless cactus produced by that man in California—I forget his name—which Kew exposed by asking for specimens to exhibit in the Cactus House....—I am, my dear Wallace, sincerely yours,

JOS. D. HOOKER.

* * * * *

TO MR. E. SMEDLEY

Broadstone, Wimborne. January 31, 1906.

Dear Mr. Smedley,—I have read Oliver Lodge's book in answer to Haeckel, but I do not think it very well done or at all clearly written or well argued. A book[32] has been sent me, however, which is a masterpiece of clearness and sound reasoning on such difficult questions, and is a far more crushing reply to Haeckel than O. Lodge's. I therefore send you a copy, and feel sure you will enjoy it. It is a stiff piece of reasoning, and wants close attention and careful thought, but I think you will be able to appreciate it. In my opinion it comes as near to an intelligible solution of these great problems of the Universe as we are likely to get while on earth. It is a book to read and think over, and read again. It is a masterpiece....—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Broadstone, Wimborne. July 27, 1907.

My dear Poulton,—Thanks for your very interesting letter. I am glad to hear you have a new book on "Evolution"[33] nearly ready and that in it you will do something to expose the fallacies of the Mutationists and Mendelians, who pose before the world as having got all wisdom, before which we poor Darwinians must hide our diminished heads!

Wishing to know the best that could be said for these latter-day anti-Darwinians, I have just been reading Lock's book on "Variation, Heredity, and Evolution." In the early part of his book he gives a tolerably fair account of Natural Selection, etc. But he gradually turns to Mendelism as the "one thing needful"—stating that there can be "no sort of doubt" that Mendel's paper is the "most important" contribution of its size ever made to biological science!

"Mutation," as a theory, is absolutely nothing new—only the assertion that new species originate always in sports, for which the evidence adduced is the most meagre and inconclusive of any ever set forth with such pretentious claims! I hope you will thoroughly expose this absurd claim.

Mendelism is something new, and within its very limited range, important, as leading to conceptions as to the causes and laws of heredity, but only misleading when adduced as the true origin of species in nature, as to which it seems to me to have no part.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Broadstone, Wimborne. November 26, 1907.

My dear Poulton,—Many thanks for letting me see the proofs.[34] ... The whole reads very clearly, and I am delighted with the way you expose the Mendelian and Mutational absurd claims. That ought to really open the eyes of the newspaper men to the fact that Natural Selection and Darwinism are not only holding their ground but are becoming more firmly established than ever by every fresh research into the ways and workings of living nature. I shall look forward to great pleasure in reading the whole book. I was greatly pleased with Archdall Reid's view of Mendelism in Nature.[35] He is a very clear and original thinker.

I see in Essay X. you use in the title the term "defensive coloration." Why this instead of the usual "protective"? Surely the whole function of such colours and markings is to protect from attack—not to defend when attacked. The latter is the function of stings, spines and hard coats. I only mention this because using different terms may lead to some misconception.

Your illustration of mutation by throwing colours on a screen, and the argument founded on it, I liked much. That reminds me that H. Spencer's argument for inheritance of acquired variations—that co-ordination of many parts at once, required for adaptations, would be impossible by chance variations of those parts—applies with a hundredfold force to mutations, which are admittedly so much less frequent both in their numbers and the repetitions of them.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Broadstone, Wimborne. December 18, 1907.

My dear Poulton,—The importance of Mendelism to Evolution seems to me to be something of the same kind, but very much less in degree and importance, as Galton's fine discovery of the law of the average share each parent has in the characters of the child—one quarter, the four grandparents each one-sixteenth, and so on. That illuminates the whole problem of heredity, combined with individual diversity, in a way nothing else does. I almost wish you could introduce that!—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO DR. ARCHDALL REID

Broadstone, Wimborne. January 19, 1908.

Dear Sir,— ... I was much pleased the other day to read, in a review of Mr. T. Rice Holmes's fine work on "Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar," that the author has arrived by purely historical study at the conclusion that we have not risen morally above our primitive ancestors. It is a curious and important coincidence.

I myself got the germ of the idea many years ago, from a very acute thinker, Mr. Albert Mott, who gave some very original and thoughtful addresses as President of the Liverpool Philosophical Society, one of which dealt with the question of savages being often, perhaps always, the descendants of more civilised races, and therefore affording no proof of progression. At that time (about 1860-70) I could not accept the view, but I have now come to think he was right.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. November 2, 1908.

My dear Poulton,— ... You may perhaps have heard that I have been invited by the Royal Institution (through Sir W. Crookes) to give them a lecture on the jubilee of the "Origin of Species" in January, After some consideration I accepted, because I think I can give a broad and general view of Darwinism, that will finally squash up the Mutationists and Mendelians, and be both generally intelligible and interesting. So far as I know this has never yet been done, and the Royal Institution audience is just the intelligent and non-specialist one I shall be glad to give it to if I can.

I have been very poorly the last three weeks, but am now recovering my health and strength slowly. It will take me all my time the next two months to get this ready, and now I must write a letter in reply to the absurd and gross misrepresentation of Prof. Hubrecht, as to imaginary differences between Darwin and myself, in the last Contemporary!—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

The next letter relates to Wallace's Friday evening Discourse at the Royal Institution. His friends were afraid whether his voice could be sustained throughout the hour—fears which were abundantly dispelled by the actual performance. This was his last public lecture.

TO PROF. MELDOLA

Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. December 20, 1908.

My dear Meldola,—Thanks for your kind offer to read for me if necessary. But when Sir Wm. Crookes first wrote to me about it, he offered to read all, or any parts of the lecture, if my voice did not hold out. I am very much afraid I cannot stand the strain of speaking beyond my natural tone for an hour, or even for half that time—but I may be able to do the opening and conclusion....

I am glad that you see, as I do, the utter futility of the claims of the Mutationists. I may just mention them in the lecture, but I hope I have put the subject in such a way that even "the meanest capacity" will suffice to see the absurdity of their claims.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. January 26, 1909.

My dear Poulton,—I had a delightful two hours at the Museum on Saturday morning, as Mr. Rothschild brought from Tring several of his glass-bottomed drawers with his finest new New Guinea butterflies. They were a treat! I never saw anything more lovely and interesting!...

As to your very kind and pressing invitation,[36] I am sorry to be obliged to decline it. I cannot remain more than one day or night away from home, without considerable discomfort, and all the attractions of your celebration are, to me, repulsions....

My lecture, even as it will be published in the Fortnightly, will be far too short for exposition of all the points I wish to discuss, and I hope to occupy myself during this year in saying all I want to say in a book (of a wider scope) which is already arranged for. One of the great points, which I just touched on in the lecture, is to show that all that is usually considered the waste of Nature—the enormous number produced in proportion to the few that survive—was absolutely essential in order to secure the variety and continuity of life through all the ages, and especially of that one line of descent which culminated in man. That, I think, is a subject no one has yet dealt with.—Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. March 1, 1909.

Dear Poulton,— ... I am glad that Lankester has replied to the almost disgraceful Centenary article in the Times. But it is an illustration of the widespread mischief the Mutationists, etc., are doing. I have no doubt, however, it will all come right in the end, though the end may be far off, and in the meantime we must simply go on, and show, at every opportunity, that Darwinism actually does explain the whole fields of phenomena that they do not even attempt to deal with, or even approach....—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER

Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. March 6, 1909.

Dear Mrs. Fisher,— ... Another point I am becoming more and more impressed with is, a teleology of fundamental laws and forces rendering development of the infinity of life-forms possible (and certain) in place of the old teleology applied to the production of each species. Such are the case of feathers reproduced annually, which I gave at end of lecture, and the still more marvellous fact of the caterpillar, often in two or three weeks of chrysalis life, having its whole internal, muscular, nervous, locomotive and alimentary organs decomposed and recomposed into a totally different being—an absolute miracle if ever there is one, quite as wonderful as would be the production of a complex marine organism out of a mass of protoplasm. Yet, because there has been continuity, the difficulty is slurred over or thought to be explained!—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER

Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. June 22, 1909.

Dear Sir William,—On Saturday, to my great pleasure, I received a copy of the Darwin Commemoration volume. I at once began reading your most excellent paper on the Geographical Distribution of Plants. It is intensely interesting to me, both because it so clearly brings out Darwin's views and so judiciously expounds his arguments—even when you intimate a difference of opinion—but especially because you bring out so clearly and strongly his views on the general permanence of continents and oceans, which to-day, as much as ever, wants insisting upon. I may just mention here that none of the people who still insist on former continents where now are deep oceans have ever dealt with the almost physical impossibility of such a change having occurred without breaking the continuity of terrestrial life, owing to the mean depth of the ocean being at least six times the mean height of the land, and its area nearly three times, so that the whole mass of the land of the existing continents would be required to build up even one small continent in the depths of the Atlantic or Pacific! I have demonstrated this, with a diagram, in my "Darwinism" (Chap, XII.), and it has never been either refuted or noticed, but passed by as if it did not exist! Your whole discussion of Dispersal and Distribution is also admirable, and I was much interested with your quotations from Guppy, whose book I have not seen, but must read.

Most valuable to me also are your numerous references to Darwin's letters, so that the article serves as a compendious index to the five volumes, as regards this subject.

Especially admirable is the way in which you have always kept Darwin before us as the centre of the whole discussion, while at the same time fairly stating the sometimes adverse views of those who differ from him on certain points....—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO A.R. WALLACE

The Ferns, Witcombe, Gloucester. June 25, 1909.

Dear Dr. Wallace,—It is difficult for me to tell you how gratified I am by your extraordinarily kind letter.... The truth is that success was easy. It has been my immense good fortune to know most of those who played in the drama. The story simply wanted a straightforward amanuensis to tell itself. But it is a real pleasure to me to know that I have met with some measure of success.

There are many essays in the book that you will not like any more than I do. The secret of this lies in the fact, which you pointed out in your memorable speech at the Linnean Celebration, that no one but a naturalist can really understand Darwin.

I did not go to Cambridge—I had my hands full here. I was not sorry for the excuse. There seemed to me a note of insincerity about the whole business. I am short-tempered. I cannot stand being told that the origin of species has still to be discovered, and that specific differences have no "reality" (Bateson's Essay, p. 89). People are of course at liberty to hold such opinions, but decency might have presented another occasion for ventilating them.—Yours sincerely,

W.T. THISELTON-DYER.

* * * * *

SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO A.R. WALLACE

The Ferns, Witcombe, Gloucester. July 11, 1909.

Dear Mr. Wallace,— ... I have just got F. Darwin's "Foundations." He tries to make out that his father could have dispensed with Malthus. But the selection death-rate in a slightly varying large population is the pith of the whole business. The Darwin-Wallace theory is, as you say, "the continuous adjustment of the organic to the inorganic world." It is what mathematicians call "a moving equilibrium." In fact, I have always maintained that it is a mathematical conception.

It seemed to me there was a touch of insincerity about the whole celebration,[37] as the younger Cambridge School as a whole do not even begin to understand the theory.... I take it that the reason is, as you pointed out, that none of them are naturalists.—Yours sincerely,

W.T. THISELTON-DYER.

* * * * *

TO DR. ARCHDALL REID

Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. December 28, 1909.

Dear Dr. Archdall Reid,—Many thanks for your very interesting and complimentary letter. I am very glad to hear of your new book, which I doubt not will be very interesting and instructive. The subjects you treat are, however, so very complex, and require so much accurate knowledge of the facts, and so much sound reasoning upon them, that I cannot possibly undertake the labour and thought required before I should feel justified in expressing an opinion upon your treatment of them....

I rejoice to hear that you have exposed the fallacy of the claims of the Mendelians. I have also tried to do so, but I find it quite impossible for me to follow their detailed studies and arguments. It wants a mathematical mind, which I have not.

But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever-varying conditions. Moreover, when crossed they reproduce the same pair of types in the same proportions as at first, and therefore without selection; they are antagonistic to evolution by continually reproducing injurious or useless characters—which is the reason they are so rarely found in nature, but are mostly artificial breeds or sports. My view is, therefore, that Mendelian characters are of the nature of abnormalities or monstrosities, and that the "Mendelian laws" serve the purpose of eliminating them when, as usually, they are not useful, and thus preventing them from interfering with the normal process of natural selection and adaptation of the more plastic races. I am also glad to hear of your new argument for non-inheritance of acquired characters.—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER

Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne, February 8, 1911.

Dear Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer,—I thank you very much for taking so much trouble as you have done in writing your views of my new book.[38] I am glad to find that you agree with much of what I have said in the more evolutionary part of it, and that you differ only on some of my suggested interpretations of the facts. I have always felt the disadvantage I have been under—more especially during the last twenty years—in having not a single good biologist anywhere near me, with whom I could discuss matters of theory or obtain information as to matters of fact. I am therefore the more pleased that you do not seem to have come across any serious misstatements in the botanical portions, as to which I have had to trust entirely to second-hand information, often obtained through a long and varied correspondence.

As to your disagreement from me in the conclusions arrived at and strenuously advocated in the latter portions of my work, I am not surprised. I am afraid, now, that I have not expressed myself sufficiently clearly as to the fundamental phenomena which seem to me absolutely to necessitate a guiding mind and organising power. Hardly one of my critics (I think absolutely not one) has noticed the distinction I have tried and intended to draw between Evolution on the one hand, and the fundamental powers and properties of Life—growth, assimilation, reproduction, heredity, etc.—on the other. In Evolution I recognise the action of Natural Selection as universal and capable of explaining all the facts of the continuous development of species from species, "from amoeba to man." But this, as Darwin, Weismann, Kerner, Lloyd-Morgan, and even Huxley have seen, has nothing whatever to do with the basic mysteries of life—growth, etc. etc. The chemists think they have done wonders when they have produced in their laboratories certain organic substances—always by the use of other organic products—which life builds up within each organism, and from the few simple elements available in air, earth, and water, innumerable structures—bone, horn, hair, skin, blood, muscle, etc. etc.; and these are not amorphous—mere lumps of dead matter—but organised to serve certain definite purposes in each living organism. I have dwelt on this in my chapter on "The Mystery of the Cell." Now I have been unable to find any attempt by any biologist or physiologist to grapple with this problem. One and all, they shirk it, or simply state it to be insoluble. It is here that I state guidance and organising power are essential. My little physiological parable or allegory (p. 296) I think sets forth the difficulty fairly, though by no means adequately, yet not one of about fifty reviews I have read even mentions it.

If you know of any writer of sufficient knowledge and mental power, who has fully recognised and fairly grappled with this fundamental problem, I should be very glad to be referred to him. I have been able to find no approach to it. Yet I am at once howled at, or sneered at, for pointing out the facts that such problems exist, that they are not in any way touched by Evolution, but are far before it, and the forces, laws and agencies involved are those of existences possessed of powers, mental and physical, far beyond those mere mechanical, physical, or chemical forces we see at work in nature....—Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

SIR W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO A.R. WALLACE

The Ferns, Witcombe, Gloucester. February 12, 1911.

Dear Mr. Wallace,— ... You must let me correct you on one technical point in your letter. It is no longer possible to say that chemists effect the synthesis of organic products "by the use of other organic substances." From what has been already effected, it cannot be doubted that eventually every organic substance will be built up from "the few simple elements available in air, earth and water." I think you may take it from me that this does not admit of dispute....

At any rate we are in agreement as to Natural Selection being capable of explaining evolution "from amoeba to man."

It is generally admitted that that is a mechanical or scientific explanation. That is to say, it invokes nothing but intelligible actions and causes.

De Vries, however, asserts that the Darwinian theory is not scientific at all, and that is of course a position he has a right to take up.