Volume I Part 32 (2/2)

LETTER 201. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 4th [1867].

You have done me a very great service in sending me the pages of the ”Farmer.” I do not know whether you wish it returned; but I will keep it unless I hear that you want it. Old I. Anderson-Henry pa.s.ses a magnificent but rather absurd eulogium on me; but the point of such extreme value in my eyes is Mr. Traill's (201/1. Mr. Traill's results are given at page 420 of ”Animals and Plants,” Edition II., Volume I.

In the ”Life and Letters of G.J. Romanes,” 1896, an interesting correspondence is published with Mr. Darwin on this subject. The plan of the experiments suggested to Romanes was to raise seedlings from graft-hybrids: if the seminal offspring of plants hybridised by grafting should show the hybrid character, it would be striking evidence in favour of pangenesis. The experiment, however, did not succeed.) statement that he made a mottled mongrel by cutting eyes through and joining two kinds of potatoes. (201/2. For an account of similar experiments now in progress, see a ”Note on some Grafting Experiments”

by R. Biffen in the ”Annals of Botany,” Volume XVI., page 174, 1902.) I have written to him for full information, and then I will set to work on a similar trial. It would prove, I think, to demonstration that propagation by buds and by the s.e.xual elements are essentially the same process, as pangenesis in the most solemn manner declares to be the case.

LETTER 202. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 12th [1867?].

We come up on Sat.u.r.day, the 15th, for a week. I want much to see you for a short time to talk about my youngest boy and the School of Mines. I know it is rather unreasonable, but you must let me come a little after 10 o'clock on Sunday morning, the 16th. If in any way inconvenient, send me a line to ”6, Queen Anne Street W.,”; but if I do not hear, I will (stomacho volente) call, but I will not stay very long and spoil your whole morning as a holiday. Will you turn two or three times in your mind this question: what I called ”pangenesis” means that each cell throws off an atom of its contents or a gemmule, and that these aggregated form the true ovule or bud, etc.? Now I want to know whether I could not invent a better word. ”Cyttarogenesis” (202/1. From kuttaros, a bee's-cell: cytogenesis would be a natural form of the word from kutos.)--i.e. cell-genesis--is more true and expressive, but long.

”Atomogenesis” sounds rather better, I think, but an ”atom” is an object which cannot be divided; and the term might refer to the origin of atoms of inorganic matter. I believe I like ”pangenesis” best, though so indefinite; and though my wife says it sounds wicked, like pantheism; but I am so familiar now with this word, that I cannot judge. I supplicate you to help me.

LETTER 203. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, October, 12th and 13th [1867].

I ordered the journal (203/1. ”Quarterly Journal of Science,” October, 1867, page 472. A review of the Duke of Argyll's ”Reign of Law.”) a long time ago, but by some oversight received it only yesterday, and read it.

You will think my praise not worth having, from being so indiscriminate; but if I am to speak the truth, I must say I admire every word. You have just touched on the points which I particularly wished to see noticed.

I am glad you had the courage to take up Angraec.u.m (203/2. Angraec.u.m sesquipedale, a Madagascan orchid, with a whiplike nectary, 11 to 12 inches in length, which, according to Darwin (”Fertilisation of Orchids,” Edition II., page 163), is adapted to the visits of a moth with a proboscis of corresponding length. He points out that there is no difficulty in believing in the existence of such a moth as F. Muller has described (”Nature,” 1873, page 223)--a Brazilian sphinx-moth with a trunk of 10 to 11 inches in length. Moreover, Forbes has given evidence to show that such an insect does exist in Madagascar (”Nature,” VIII., 1873, page 121). The case of Angraec.u.m was put forward by the Duke of Argyll as being necessarily due to the personal contrivance of the Deity. Mr. Wallace (page 476) shows that both proboscis and nectary might be increased in length by means of Natural Selection. It may be added that Hermann Muller has shown good grounds for believing that mutual specialisation of this kind is beneficial both to insect and plant.) after the Duke's attack; for I believe the principle in this case may be widely applied. I like the figure, but I wish the artist had drawn a better sphinx. With respect to beauty, your remarks on hideous objects and on flowers not being made beautiful except when of practical use to them, strike me as very good. On this one point of beauty I can hardly think that the Duke was quite candid. I have used in the concluding paragraph of my present book precisely the same argument as you have, even bringing in the bull-dog (203/3. ”Variation of Animals and Plants,” Edition I., Volume II., page 431: ”Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport?”), with respect to variations not having been specially ordained. Your metaphor of the river (203/4. See Wallace, op. cit., pages 477-8. He imagines an observer examining a great river-system, and finding everywhere adaptations which reveal the design of the Creator. ”He would see special adaptation to the wants of man in broad, quiet, navigable rivers, through fertile alluvial plains that would support a large population, while the rocky streams and mountain torrents were confined to those sterile regions suitable only for a small population of shepherds and herdsmen.') is new to me, and admirable; but your other metaphor, in which you compare cla.s.sification and complex machines, does not seem to me quite appropriate, though I cannot point out what seems deficient. The point which seems to me strong is that all naturalists admit that there is a natural cla.s.sification, and it is this which descent explains. I wish you had insisted a little more against the ”North British” (203/5. At page 485 Mr. Wallace deals with Fleeming Jenkin's review in the ”North British Review,” 1867. The review strives to show that there are strict limits to variation, since the most rigorous and long-continued selection does not indefinitely increase such a quality as the fleetness of a racehorse. On this Mr. Wallace remarks that ”this argument fails to meet the real question,” which is, not whether indefinite change is possible, ”but whether such differences as do occur in nature could have been produced by the acc.u.mulation of variations by selection.”) on the reviewer a.s.suming that each variation which appears is a strongly marked one; though by implication you have made this very plain. Nothing in your whole article has struck me more than your view with respect to the limit of fleetness in the racehorse and other such cases: I shall try and quote you on this head in the proof of my concluding chapter. I quite missed this explanation, though in the case of wheat I hit upon something a.n.a.logous. I am glad you praise the Duke's book, for I was much struck with it. The part about flight seemed to me at first very good; but as the wing is articulated by a ball-and-socket joint, I suspect the Duke would find it very difficult to give any reason against the belief that the wing strikes the air more or less obliquely. I have been very glad to see your article and the drawing of the b.u.t.terfly in ”Science Gossip.” By the way, I cannot but think that you push protection too far in some cases, as with the stripes on the tiger. I have also this morning read an excellent abstract in the ”Gardeners'

Chronicle” of your paper on nests. (203/6. An abstract of a paper on ”Birds' Nests and Plumage,” read before the British a.s.sociation: see ”Gard. Chron.” 1867, page 1047.) I was not by any means fully converted by your letter, but I think now I am so; and I hope it will be published somewhere in extenso. It strikes me as a capital generalisation, and appears to me even more original than it did at first...

I have finished Volume I. of my book [”Variation of Animals and Plants”], and I hope the whole will be out by the end of November. If you have the patience to read it through, which is very doubtful, you will find, I think, a large acc.u.mulation of facts which will be of service to you in future papers; and they could not be put to better use, for you certainly are a master in the n.o.ble art of reasoning.

LETTER 204. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, October 3rd [no date].

I know you have no time for speculative correspondence; and I did not in the least expect an answer to my last. But I am very glad to have had it, for in my eclectic work the opinions of the few good men are of great value to me.

I knew, of course, of the Cuvierian view of cla.s.sification (204/1.

Cuvier proved that ”animals cannot be arranged in a single series, but that there are several distinct plans of organisation to be observed among them, no one of which, in its highest and most complicated modification, leads to any of the others” (Huxley's ”Darwiniana,” page 215).); but I think that most naturalists look for something further, and search for ”the natural system,”--”for the plan on which the Creator has worked,” etc., etc. It is this further element which I believe to be simply genealogical.

But I should be very glad to have your answer (either when we meet or by note) to the following case, taken by itself, and not allowing yourself to look any further than to the point in question. Grant all races of man descended from one race--grant that all the structure of each race of man were perfectly known--grant that a perfect table of the descent of each race was perfectly known--grant all this, and then do you not think that most would prefer as the best cla.s.sification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if collocated by structure alone?

Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races and their pedigrees would go together.

I should like to hear what you would say on this purely theoretical case.

It might be asked why is development so all-potent in cla.s.sification, as I fully admit it is? I believe it is because it depends on, and best betrays, genealogical descent; but this is too large a point to enter on.

LETTER 205. TO C. LYELL. Down, December 7th [1867].

I send by this post the article in the Victorian Inst.i.tute with respect to frogs' sp.a.w.n. If you remember in your boyhood having ever tried to take a small portion out of the water, you will remember that it is most difficult. I believe all the birds in the world might alight every day on the sp.a.w.n of batrachians, and never transport a single ovum. With respect to the young of molluscs, undoubtedly if the bird to which they were attached alighted on the sea, they would be instantly killed; but a land-bird would, I should think, never alight except under dire necessity from fatigue. This, however, has been observed near Heligoland (205/1. Instances are recorded by Gatke in his ”Heligoland as an Ornithological Observatory” (translated by Rudolph Rosenstock, Edinburgh, 1895) of land-birds, such as thrushes, buntings, finches, etc., resting for a short time on the surface of the water. The author describes observations made by himself about two miles west of Heligoland (page 129).); and land-birds, after resting for a time on the tranquil sea, have been seen to rise and continue their flight. I cannot give you the reference about Heligoland without much searching. This alighting on the sea may aid you in your unexpected difficulty of the too-easy diffusion of land-molluscs by the agency of birds. I much enjoyed my morning's talk with you.

LETTER 206. TO F. HILDEBRAND. Down, January 5th [1868].

I thank you for your letter, which has quite delighted me. I sincerely congratulate you on your success in making a graft-hybrid (206/1. Prof.

<script>