Volume I Part 39 (1/2)

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY Down, July 20th [1856]

It is not a little egotistical, but I should like to tell you (and I do not THINK I have) how I vieork Nineteen years (!) ago it occurred to ht perhaps do good if I noted any sort of facts bearing on the question of the origin of species, and this I have since been doing

Either species have been independently created, or they have descended from other species, like varieties from one species I think it can be shown to be probable thatsuch as arise best worth keeping and destroying the others, but I should fill a quire if I were to go on To be brief, I assUME that species arise like our domestic varieties with MUCH extinction; and then test this hypothesis by coeneral and pretty well-established propositions as I can find ical history, affinities, etc, etc And it seems to eneral propositions, we ought, in accordance with the co all sciences, to admit it till some better hypothesis be found out For to my mind to say that species were created so and so is no scientific explanation, only a reverent way of saying it is so and so But it is nonsensical trying to sho I try to proceed in the compass of a note But as an honest man, I must tell you that I have cos as independently created species--that species are only strongly defined varieties I know that this will make you despise me I do not much underrate the many HUGE difficulties on this view, but yet it seems to me to explain too much, otherwise inexplicable, to be false Just to allude to one point in your last note, viz, about species of the sa a common or continuous area; if they are actual lineal descendants of one species, this of course would be the case; and the sadly too many exceptions (for es A fortiori on this view (but on exactly sarounds), all the individuals of the same species should have a continuous distribution On this latter branch of the subject I have put a chapter together, and Hooker kindly read it over I thought the exceptions and difficulties were so great that on the whole the balance weighed against my notions, but I was ht with Hooker, who said he had never been so ered about the permanence of species

I must say one word more in justification (for I feel sure that your tendency will be to despise me and e are derived froriculturists and horticulturists; and I believe I see e her species and ADAPT theencies to which every living being is exposed

CHARLES DARWIN TO JD HOOKER Down, July 30th 1856

My dear Hooker,

Your letter is of MUCH value to et a definite answer from Lyell (On the continental extensions of Forbes and others), as you will see in the enclosed letters, though I inferred that he thought nothing of uments Had it not been for this correspondence, I should have written sadly too strongly You may rely on it I shall put my doubts moderately There never was such a predicament as mine: here you continental extensionists would remove enormous difficulties opposed to me, and yet I cannot honestly adet over the fact that not a fragment of secondary or palaeozoic rock has been found on any island above 500 or 600 miles from a mainland You rather misunderstand me when you think I doubt the POSSIBILITY of subsidence of 20,000 or 30,000 feet; it is only probability, considering such evidence as we have independently of distribution I have not yet worked out in full detail the distribution of mammalia, both IDENTICAL and allied, with respect to the ONE ELEMENT OF DEPTH OF THE SEA; but as far as I have gone, the results are to ly accordant with raphical changes as you believe; and in mammalia we certainly know more of MEANS of distribution than in any other class Nothing is so vexatious todifferent conclusions froes than myself, from the saraphical) great difficulties opposed to my notions, but God knows it may be all hallucination

Please return Lyell's letters

What a capital letter of Lyell's that to you is, and what a wonderfulthat those who believe that species are NOT fixed will multiply specific names: I know in my own case my most frequent source of doubt hether others would not think this or that was a God-created Barnacle, and surely deserved a naht whether the amount of difference and permanence was sufficient to justify a na it immaterial whether species are absolute or not: whenever it is proved that all species are produced by generation, by laws of change, what good evidence we shall have of the gaps in formations And what a science Natural History will be, e are in our graves, when all the laws of change are thought one of the most important parts of Natural History

I cannot conceive why Lyell thinks such notions as es,' will invalidate specific centres But I must not run on and take up your tio abroad With hearty thanks

Ever yours, C DARWIN

PS--After giving ument versus continental extensions, I shall append soes than ht to theust 5th [1856]

I quite agree about Lyell's letters to , have afforded ht Your letters, under the GEOLOGICAL point of view, have been ine how earnestly I wish I could s continental extension, but I cannot; the et the subject out of my head), the more difficult I find it If there were only some half-dozen cases, I should not feel the least difficulty; but the generality of the facts of all islands (except one or two) having a considerable part of their productions in coers me What a wonderful case of the Epacridae! It is , to me that I cannot follow and subscribe to the way in which you strikingly put your view of the case I look at your facts (about Eucalyptus, etc) as daainst continental extension, and if you like also daration, or at least of ENORMOUS difficulty I see the ground of our difference (in a letter I ) lies, inis known of ree with A De Candolle's (and I dare say your) opinion that it is poor work putting together the merely POSSIBLE means of distribution; but I see no other way in which the subject can be attacked, for I think that A De Candolle's arguland except by ht I cannot but think that the theory of continental extension does do soation of the means of dispersal, which, whether NEGATIVE or positive, seeatived, then every one who believes in single centres will have to admit continental extensions

I see from your remarks that you do not understand ) about modification; I attribute very little to the direct action of cliard to specific centres, we are at cross purposes; I should call the kitchen garden in which the red cabbage was produced, or the farm in which Bakewell made the Shorthorn cattle, the specific centre of these SPECIES! And surely this is centralisation enough!

I thank you most sincerely for all your assistance; and whether or no my book may be wretched, you have done your best to ood spirits and sometimes very low about it My own in of species; but, good heavens, how little that is worth!

[With regard to ”specific centres,” a passage from a letter dated July 25, 1856, by Sir Charles Lyell to Sir JD Hooker ('Life' ii page 216) is of interest:

”I fear ues that species are phantole centres of dispersion are phantoms also, and that would deprive me of much of the value which I ascribe to the present provinces of anies in physical geography”

He seenised, however, that the phantom doctrine would soon have to be faced, for he wrote in the same letter: ”Whether Darwin persuades you and ical epochs are considered) or not, I foresee that o over to the indefinite modifiability doctrine”

In the auturaphical distribution, and again sought the aid of Sir JD Hooker

A LETTER TO SIR JD HOOKER [September, 1856]

”In the course of some weeks, you unfortunate wretch, you will have raphical Distribution I will however, never ask such a favour again; but in regard to this one piece of MS, it is of infinite importance to me for you to see it; for never in my life have I felt such difficulty what to do, and I heartily wish I could slur the whole subject over”

In a letter to Sir JD Hooker (June, 1856), the following characteristic passage occurs, suggested, no doubt, by the kind of hich his chapter on Geographical Distribution entailed:

”There is wonderful ill logic in his [E Forbes'] famous and admirable ot it up so as to give the heads in a page Depend on it,is a true one, viz, that a coinal eneralise and speculate; but, oh, et up AT SECOND HAND a New Zealand Flora, that is work”