Volume I Part 10 (2/2)

1834, it is defined as the production of an atypical form either by arrest or excess of development.), I should have thought that the archetype in imagination was always in some degree embryonic, and therefore capable [of] and generally undergoing further development.

Is it not an extraordinary fact, the great difference in position of the heart in different species of Cleodora? (33/5. A genus of Pteropods.) I am a believer that when any part, usually constant, differs considerably in different allied species that it will be found in some degree variable within the limits of the same species. Thus, I should expect that if great numbers of specimens of some of the species of Cleodora had been examined with this object in view, the position of the heart in some of the species would have been found variable. Can you aid me with any a.n.a.logous facts?

I am very much pleased to hear that you have not given up the idea of noticing my cirripedial volume. All that I have seen since confirms everything of any importance stated in that volume--more especially I have been able rigorously to confirm in an anomalous species, by the clearest evidence, that the actual cellular contents of the ovarian tubes, by the gland-like action of a modified portion of the continuous tube, pa.s.ses into the cementing stuff: in fact cirripedes make glue out of their own unformed eggs! (33/6. On Darwin's mistake in this point see ”Life and Letters,” III., page 2.)

Pray believe me, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.

I told the above case to Milne Edwards, and I saw he did not place the smallest belief in it.

LETTER 34. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 2nd, [1854].

My second volume on the everlasting barnacles is at last published (34/1. ”A Monograph of the Sub-cla.s.s Cirripedia. II. The Balanidae, the Verrucidae.” Ray Society, 1854.), and I will do myself the pleasure of sending you a copy to Jermyn Street next Thursday, as I have to send another book then to Mr. Baily.

And now I want to ask you a favour--namely, to answer me two questions.

As you are so perfectly familiar with the doings, etc., of all Continental naturalists, I want you to tell me a few names of those whom you think would care for my volume. I do not mean in the light of puffing my book, but I want not to send copies to those who from other studies, age, etc., would view it as waste paper. From a.s.sistance rendered me, I consider myself bound to send copies to: (1) Bosquet of Maestricht, (2) Milne Edwards, (3) Dana, (4) Aga.s.siz, (5) Muller, (6) W. Dunker of Hesse Ca.s.sel. Now I have five or six other copies to distribute, and will you be so very kind as to help me? I had thought of Von Siebold, Loven, d'Orbigny, Kolliker, Sars, Kroyer, etc., but I know hardly anything about any of them.

My second question, it is merely a chance whether you can answer,--it is whether I can send these books or any of them (in some cases accompanied by specimens), through the Royal Society: I have some vague idea of having heard that the Royal Society did sometimes thus a.s.sist members.

I have just been reading your review of the ”Vestiges” (34/2. In his chapter on the ”Reception of the Origin of Species” (”Life and Letters,”

II., pages 188-9), Mr. Huxley wrote: ”and the only review I ever have qualms of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one I wrote on the 'Vestiges.'” The article is in the ”British and Foreign Medico-chirurgical Review,” XIII., 1854, page 425. The ”great man”

referred to below is Owen: see Huxley's review, page 439, and Huxley's ”Life.” I., page 94.), and the way you handle a great Professor is really exquisite and inimitable. I have been extremely interested in other parts, and to my mind it is incomparably the best review I have read on the ”Vestiges”; but I cannot think but that you are rather hard on the poor author. I must think that such a book, if it does no other good, spreads the taste for Natural Science.

But I am perhaps no fair judge, for I am almost as unorthodox about species as the ”Vestiges” itself, though I hope not quite so unphilosophical. How capitally you a.n.a.lyse his notion about law. I do not know when I have read a review which interested me so much. By Heavens, how the blood must have gushed into the capillaries when a certain great man (whom with all his faults I cannot help liking) read it!

I am rather sorry you do not think more of Aga.s.siz's embryological stages (34/3. See ”Origin,” Edition VI., page 310: also Letter 40, Note.), for though I saw how exceedingly weak the evidence was, I was led to hope in its truth.

LETTER 35. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1854].

With respect to ”highness” and ”lowness,” my ideas are only eclectic and not very clear. It appears to me that an unavoidable wish to compare all animals with men, as supreme, causes some confusion; and I think that nothing besides some such vague comparison is intended, or perhaps is even possible, when the question is whether two kingdoms such as the Articulata or Mollusca are the highest. Within the same kingdom I am inclined to think that ”highest” usually means that form which has undergone most ”morphological differentiation” from the common embryo or archetype of the cla.s.s; but then every now and then one is bothered (as Milne Edwards has remarked) by ”retrograde development,” i.e., the mature animal having fewer and less important organs than its own embryo. The specialisation of parts to different functions, or ”the division of physiological labour” (35/1. A slip of the pen for ”physiological division of labour.”) of Milne Edwards exactly agrees (and to my mind is the best definition, when it can be applied) with what you state is your idea in regard to plants. I do not think zoologists agree in any definite ideas on this subject; and my ideas are not clearer than those of my brethren.

LETTER 36. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 2nd [1854].

I have had the house full of visitors, and when I talk I can do absolutely nothing else; and since then I have been poorly enough, otherwise I should have answered your letter long before this, for I enjoy extremely discussing such points as those in your last note. But what a villain you are to heap gratuitous insults on my ELASTIC theory: you might as well call the virtue of a lady elastic, as the virtue of a theory accommodating in its favours. Whatever you may say, I feel that my theory does give me some advantages in discussing these points. But to business: I keep my notes in such a way, viz., in bulk, that I cannot possibly lay my hand on any reference; nor as far as the vegetable kingdom is concerned do I distinctly remember having read any discussion on general highness or lowness, excepting Schleiden (I fancy) on Compositae being highest. Ad. de Jussieu (36/1. ”Monographie de la Famille des Malpighiacees,” by Adrien de Jussieu, ”Arch. du Museum.”

Volume III., page 1, 1843.), in ”Arch. du Museum,” Tome 3, discusses the value of characters of degraded flowers in the Malpighiaceae, but I doubt whether this at all concerns you. Mirbel somewhere has discussed some such question.

Plants lie under an enormous disadvantage in respect to such discussions in not pa.s.sing through larval stages. I do not know whether you can distinguish a plant low from non-development from one low from degradation, which theoretically, at least, are very distinct. I must agree with Forbes that a mollusc may be higher than one articulate animal and lower than another; if one was asked which was highest as a whole, the Molluscan or Articulate Kingdom, I should look to and compare the highest in each, and not compare their archetypes (supposing them to be known, which they are not.)

But there are, in my opinion, more difficult cases than any we have alluded to, viz., that of fish--but my ideas are not clear enough, and I do not suppose you would care to hear what I obscurely think on this subject. As far as my elastic theory goes, all I care about is that very ancient organisms (when different from existing) should tend to resemble the larval or embryological stages of the existing.

I am glad to hear what you say about parallelism: I am an utter disbeliever of any parallelism more than mere accident. It is very strange, but I think Forbes is often rather fanciful; his ”Polarity”

(36/2. See Letter 41, Note.) makes me sick--it is like ”magnetism”

turning a table.

If I can think of any one likely to take your ”Ill.u.s.trations” (36/3.

<script>