Volume I Part 29 (1/2)

I have thus candidly stated ibly) of what seeerous state of systey Innumerable labourers,into the field, and it depends, I think, on the present generation whether the science is to descend to posterity a chaotic anisation If we could only get a congress of deputies fro ht be done, but, as the case stands, I confess I do not clearly seeto reform NUMBER ONE

Yours ever, HE STRICKLAND

CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH STRICKLAND Down, Sunday [February 4th, 1849]

My dear Strickland,

I a, , and clear letter, and the Report I will consider your arguht, but I confess I cannot yet bring myself to reject very WELL-KNOWN names, not in ONE country, but over the world, for obscure ones,--siround that I do not believe I should be followed Pray believe that I should break the law of priority only in rare cases; will you read the enclosed (and return it), and tell er you? (NB I PROMISE that I will not give you any more trouble) I want simple answers, and not for you to waste your tiard to Balanus

I put the case of Otion, etc, to W Thoave it up in such well-known names I ae genus of Cirripedia has ANY ONE species been correctly defined; it is pure guesswork (being guided by range and conise any species: thus I can make out, from plates or descriptions, hardly any of the British sessile cirripedes I cannot bear to give new na to attach old nauess; I cannot at present tell the least which of two species all writers have iven that name to the one which is rather the commonest Literally, not one species is properly defined; not one naturalist has ever taken the trouble to open the shell of any species to describe it scientifically, and yet all the genera have half-a-dozen synonyhly well, any one who happens to have the original speciured and named hundreds of species, will be able to upset allto the law of priority (for he may maintain his descriptions are sufficient), do you think it advantageous to science that this should be done: I think not, and that convenience and high ument) had better co

I hope you will occasionally turn in your ument of the evil done by the ”mihi” attached to specific names; I can most clearly see the EXCESSIVE evil it has caused; in e to merely name; a person does not take up the subject without he intends to work it out, as he knows that his ONLY clai ably done, and has no relation whatever to NAMING I give up one point, and grant that reference to first describer's naiven in all systeained if a reference was given without the author's na actually appended as part of the binomial name, and I think, except in systematic works, a reference, such as I propose, would dah all Natural History, as if so a species; I think scarcely any, or none, is due; if he works out MINUTELY and anatoroup, credit is due, but I , and that no INJUSTICE is done hireat inconvenience to Natural History is thus caused I do not thinka species, than to a carpenter for ers, or rather against their vanity; it is useful and necessary hich must be done; but they act as if they had actually made the species, and it was their own property

I use Agassiz's nomenclator; at least two-thirds of the dates in the Cirripedia are grossly wrong

I shall do what I can in fossil Cirripedia, and should be very grateful for specienera) can be defined by single valves; as in every recent species yet exareatly: to describe a species by valves alone, is the same as to describe a crab fro highly variable, and not, as in Crustacea, ise for the trouble which I have given you, but indeed I will give no more

Yours most sincerely, C DARWIN

PS--In conversation I found Owen and Andrew S authors' nae party to join W Thoo nearly as far as I am

CHARLES DARWIN TO HUGH STRICKLAND Down, February 10th [1849]

My dear Strickland,

I have again to thank you cordially for your letter Your remarks shall fructify to soid virtue and priority; but as for calling Balanus ”Lepas” (which I did not think of), I cannot do it, reat hopes so dates in Agassiz, and to one, in but few cases, to original sources With respect to adopting my own notions in my Cirripedia book, I should not like to do so without I found others approved, and in some public way,--nor, indeed, is it well adapted, as I can never recognise a species without I have the original specimen, which, fortunately, I have in many cases in the British Museu mihi or ”Darwin” afterno authors' names at all, as the systematic Part will serve for those ant to know the History of a species as far as I can imperfectly work it out

CHARLES DARWIN TO JD HOOKER [The Lodge, Malvern, March 28th, 1849]

My dear Hooker,

Your letter of the 13th of October has rerateful return for a letter which interested me so much, and which contained so much and curious information But I have had a bad winter

On the 13th of November, my poor dear father died, and no one who did not know hihty-three years old could have retained so tender and affectionate a disposition, with all his sagacity unclouded to the last I was at the time so unwell, that I was unable to travel, which added to hand an to be affected, so thatI was not able to do anything one day out of three, and was altogether too dispirited to write to you, or to do anything but what I was co the way of all flesh Having heard, accidentally, of two persons who had received ot Dr

Gully's book, and made further enquiries, and at last started here, ife, children, and all our servants We have taken a house for two ht I aerDr Gully feels pretty sure he can do ular doctors could notI feel certain that the water-cure is no quackery

How I shall enjoy getting back to Doith renovated health, if such is to bethe beloved Barnacles Now I hope that you will forgivesooner answered your letter I was uncorand expedition, fro How earnestly I hope that it may prove in every way successful

[When my father was at the Water-cure Establishht into contact with clairvoyance, of which he writes in the following extract from a letter to Fox, September, 1850