[Transcriber's note: Footnotes moved to end of book. ]

[Illustration]

Alfred Russel Wallace

Letters and Reminiscences

By

James Marchant

_With Two Photogravures and Eight Half-tone Plates_

IN TWO VOLUMES

Volume I

CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD

London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne

1916

To the Memory of

ANNIE WALLACE

PREFACE

These two volumes consist of a selection from several thousands ofletters entrusted to me by the Wallace family and dating from the dawnof Darwinism to the second decade of the twentieth century, supplementedby such biographical particulars and comments as are required for theelucidation of the correspondence and for giving movement and continuityto the whole. 

The wealth and variety of Wallace's own correspondence, excluding thelarge collection of letters which he received from many eminent men andwomen, and the necessity for somewhat lengthy introductions and manyannotations, have expanded the work to two (there was, indeed, enoughgood material to make four) volumes. The family has given me unstintedconfidence in using or rejecting letters and reminiscences, and althoughI have consulted scientific and literary friends, I alone must be blamedfor sins of omission or commission. Nothing has been suppressed in theunpublished letters, or in any of the letters which appear in thesevolumes, because there was anything to hide. Everything Wallace wrote, all his private letters, could be published to the world. His life wasan open book--"no weakness, no contempt, dispraise, or blame, nothingbut well and fair. "

The profoundly interesting and now historic correspondence betweenDarwin and Wallace, part of which has already appeared in the "Life andLetters of Charles Darwin" and "More Letters, " and part in Wallace'sautobiography, entitled "My Life, " is here published, with newadditions, for the first time as a whole, so that the reader now hasbefore him the necessary material to form a true estimate of the originand growth of the theory of Natural Selection, and of the personalrelationships of its noble co-discoverers. 

My warmest thanks are offered to Sir Francis Darwin for permission touse his father's letters, for his annotations, and for rendering help inchecking the typescript of the Darwin letters; to Mr. John Murray, C. V. O. , for permission to use letters and notes from the "Life andLetters of Charles Darwin" and from "More Letters"; to Messrs. Chapmanand Hall for their great generosity in allowing the free use of lettersand material in Wallace's "My Life"; to Prof. E. B. Poulton, Prof. SirW. F. Barrett, Sir Wm. Thiselton-Dyer, Dr. Henry Forbes, and others forletters and reminiscences; and to Prof. Poulton for reading the proofsand for valuable suggestions. An intimate chapter on Wallace's Home Lifehas been contributed by his son and daughter, Mr. W. G. Wallace and MissViolet Wallace. 

J. M. 

_March, 1916. _

CONTENTS

Volume I

INTRODUCTION

PART I

I. WALLACE AND DARWIN--EARLY YEARS

II. EARLY LETTERS (1854-62)

PART II

I. THE DISCOVERY OF NATURAL SELECTION

II. THE COMPLETE EXTANT CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN WALLACE AND DARWIN(1857-81)

Volume II

PART III

I. WALLACE'S WORKS ON BIOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

II. CORRESPONDENCE ON BIOLOGY, GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (1864-93)

III. CORRESPONDENCE ON BIOLOGY, GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (1894-1913)

PART IV

HOME LIFE

PART V

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL VIEWS

PART VI

SOME FURTHER PROBLEMS

I. ASTRONOMY

II. SPIRITUALISM

PART VII

CHARACTERISTICS

APPENDIX: LISTS OF WALLACE'S WRITINGS

INDEX

LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME I

A. R. WALLACE (1912)

A. R. WALLACE (SINGAPORE, 1862)

A. R. WALLACE'S MOTHER

A. R. WALLACE SOON AFTER HIS RETURN FROM THE EAST

Alfred Russel Wallace

Letters and Reminiscences

INTRODUCTION

In Westminster Abbey there repose, almost side by side, by no consciousdesign yet with deep significance, the mortal remains of Isaac Newtonand of Charles Darwin. "'The Origin of Species, '" said Wallace, "willlive as long as the 'Principia' of Newton. " Near by are the tombs of SirJohn Herschel, Lord Kelvin and Sir Charles Lyell; and the medallions inmemory of Joule, Darwin, Stokes and Adams have been rearranged so as toadmit similar memorials of Lister, Hooker and Alfred Russel Wallace. Nowthat the plan is completed, Darwin and Wallace are together in thiswonderful galaxy of the great men of science of the nineteenth century. Several illustrious names are missing from this eminent company;foremost amongst them being that of Herbert Spencer, the lofty master ofthat synthetic philosophy which seemed to his disciples to have theproportions and qualities of an enduring monument, and whoseincomparable fertility of creative thought entitled him to share thethrone with Darwin. It was Spencer, Darwin, Wallace, Hooker, Lyell andHuxley who led that historic movement which garnered the work of Lamarckand Buffon, and gave new direction to the ceaseless interrogation ofnature to discover the "how" and the "why" of the august progression oflife. 

Looking over the long list of the departed whose names are enshrined inour Minster, one has sorrowfully to observe that contemporary opinion oftheir place in history and abiding worth was not infrequently astray;that memory has, indeed, forgotten their works; and their memorialsmight be removed to some cloister without loss of respect for the dead, perhaps even with the silent approval of their own day and generationcould it awake from its endless sleep and review the strange andeventful course of human life since they left "this bank and shoal oftime. " But may it not be safely prophesied that of all the names on thestarry scroll of national fame that of Charles Darwin will, surely, remain unquestioned? And entwined with his enduring memory, by right ofworth and work, and we know with Darwin's fullest approval, oursuccessors will discover the name of Alfred Russel Wallace. Darwin andWallace were pre-eminent sons of light. 

Among the great men of the Victorian age Wallace occupied a uniqueposition. He was the co-discoverer of the illuminating theory of NaturalSelection; he watched its struggle for recognition against prejudice, ignorance, ridicule and misrepresentation; its gradual adoption by itstraditional enemies; and its final supremacy. And he lived beyond thehour of its signal triumph and witnessed the further advance into thesame field of research of other patient investigators who are disclosingfresh phases of the same fundamental laws of development, and areaccumulating a vast array of new facts which tell of still richer lightto come to enlighten every man born into the world. To have livedthrough that brilliant period and into the second decade of thetwentieth century; to have outlived all contemporaries, having been theco-revealer of the greatest and most far-reaching generalisation in anera which abounded in fruitful discoveries and in revolutionaryadvances in the application of science to life, is verily to have beenthe chosen of the gods. 

Who and what manner of man was Alfred Russel Wallace? Who were hisforbears? How did he obtain his insight into the closest secrets ofnature? What was the extent of his contributions to our stock of humanknowledge? In which directions did he most influence his age? What isknown of his inner life? These are some of the questions which mostpresent-day readers and all future readers into whose hands this bookmay come will ask. 

As to his descent, his upbringing, his education and his estimate of hisown character and work, we can, with rare good fortune, refer them tohis autobiography, in which he tells his own story and relates thecircumstances which, combined with his natural disposition, led him tobe a great naturalist and a courageous social reformer; nay more, hisautobiography is also in part a peculiar revelation of the inner mansuch as no biography could approach. We are also able to send inquirersto the biographies and works of his contemporaries--Darwin, Hooker, Lyell, Huxley and many others. All this material is already available tothe diligent reader. But there are other sources of information whichthe present book discloses--Wallace's home life, the large collection ofhis own letters, the reminiscences of friends, communications which hereceived from many co-workers and correspondents which, besides being ofinterest in themselves, often cast a sidelight upon his own mind andwork. All these are of peculiar and intimate value to those who desireto form a complete estimate of Wallace. And it is to help the reader toachieve this desirable result that the present work is published. 

It may be stated here that Wallace had suggested to the present writerthat he should undertake a new work, to be called "Darwin and Wallace, "which was to have been a comparative study of their literary andscientific writings, with an estimate of the present position of thetheory of Natural Selection as an adequate explanation of the process oforganic evolution. Wallace had promised to give as much assistance aspossible in selecting the material without which the task on such ascale would obviously have been impossible. Alas! soon after theagreement with the publishers was signed and in the very month that theplan of the work was to have been shown to Wallace, his hand wasunexpectedly stilled in death; and the book remains unwritten. But asthe names of Darwin and Wallace are inseparable even by the scythe oftime, a slight attempt is here made, in the first sections of Part I. And Part II. , to take note of their ancestry and the diversities andsimilarities in their respective characters and environments--social andeducational; to mark the chief characteristics of their literary worksand the more salient conditions and events which led them, independently, to the idea of Natural Selection. 

Finally, it may be remarked that up to the present time the unique workand position of Wallace have not been fully disclosed owing to his greatmodesty and to the fact that he outlived all his contemporaries. "I amafraid, " wrote Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer to him in one of his letters(1893), "the splendid modesty of the big men will be a rarer commodityin the future. No doubt many of the younger ones know an immense deal;but I doubt if many of them will ever exhibit the grasp of greatprinciples which we owe to you and your splendid band ofcontemporaries. " If this work helps to preserve the records of theinfluence and achievements of this illustrious and versatile genius andof the other eminent men who brought the great conception of Evolutionto light, it will surely have justified its existence. 

PART I

I. --Wallace and Darwin--Early Years

As springs burst forth, now here, now there, on the mountain side, andfind their way together to the vast ocean, so, at certain periods ofhistory, men destined to become great are born within a few years ofeach other, and in the course of life meet and mingle their varied giftsof soul and intellect for the ultimate benefit of mankind. Between theyears 1807 and 1825 at least eight illustrious scientists "saw thelight"--Sir Charles Lyell, Sir Joseph Hooker, T. H. Huxley, HerbertSpencer, John Tyndall, Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace and LouisAgassiz; whilst amongst statesmen and authors we recall Bismarck, Gladstone, Lincoln, Tennyson, Longfellow, Robert and Elizabeth Browning, Ruskin, John Stuart Blackie and Oliver Wendell Holmes--a wonderfulgalaxy of shining names. 

The first group is the one with which we are closely associated in thissection, in which we have brought together the names of Charles Darwinand Alfred Russel Wallace--between whose births there was a period offourteen years, Darwin being born on the 12th of February, 1809, andWallace on the 8th of January, 1823. 

In each case we are indebted to an autobiography for an account of theirearly life and work, written almost entirely from memory when at an agewhich enabled them to take an unbiased view of the past. 

The autobiography of Darwin was written for the benefit of his familyonly, when he was 67; while the two large volumes entitled "My Life"were written by Wallace when he was 82, for the pleasure of reviewinghis long career. These records are characterised by that charmingmodesty and simplicity of life and manner which was so marked a featureof both men. 

In the circumstances surrounding their early days there was very littleto indicate the similarity in character and mental gifts which became soevident in their later years. A brief outline of the hereditaryinfluences immediately affecting them will enable us to trace somethingof the essential differences as well as the similarities which markedtheir scientific and literary attainments. 

The earliest records of the Darwin family show that in 1500 an ancestorof that name (though spelt differently) was a substantial yeoman livingon the borders of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. In the reign of James I. The post of Yeoman of the Royal Armoury of Greenwich was granted toWilliam Darwin, whose son served with the Royalist Army under Charles I. During the Commonwealth, however, he became a barrister of Lincoln'sInn, and later the Recorder of the City of Lincoln. 

Passing over a generation, we find that a brother of Dr. Erasmus Darwin"cultivated botany, " and, when far advanced in years, published a volumeentitled "Principia Botanica, " while Erasmus developed into a poet andphilosopher. The eldest son of the latter "inherited a strong taste forvarious branches of science . .. And at a very early age collectedspecimens of all kinds. " The youngest son, Robert Waring, father ofCharles Darwin, became a successful physician, "a man of genialtemperament, strong character, fond of society, " and was the possessorof great psychic power by which he could readily sum up the charactersof others, and even occasionally read their thoughts. A judicious use ofthis gift was frequently found to be more efficacious than actualmedicine! To the end of his life Charles Darwin entertained the greatestaffection and reverence for his father, and frequently spoke of him tohis own children. 

From this brief summary of the family history it is easy to perceive theinherited traits which were combined in the attractive personality ofthe great scientist. From his early forbears came the keen love of sportand outdoor exercise (to which considerable reference is made in hisyouth and early manhood); the close application of the philosopher; andthe natural aptitude for collecting specimens of all kinds. To hisgrandfather he was doubtless indebted for his poetic imagination, which, consciously or unconsciously, pervaded his thoughts and writings, savingthem from the cold scientific atmosphere which often chills the laymind. Lastly, the geniality of his father was strongly evidenced by hisown love of social intercourse, his courtesy and ready wit, whilst thegentleness of his mother--who unfortunately died when he was 7 yearsold--left a delicacy of feeling which pervaded his character to the verylast. 

No such sure mental influences, reaching back through severalgenerations, can be traced in the records of the Wallace family, although what is known reveals the source of the dogged perseverancewith which Wallace faced the immense difficulties met with by all earlypioneer travellers, of that happy diversity of mental interests whichhelped to relieve his periods of loneliness and inactivity, and of thatquiet determination to pursue to the utmost limit every idea whichimpressed his mind as containing the germ of a wider and morecomprehensive truth than had yet been generally recognised and accepted. 

The innate reticence and shyness of manner which were noticeable allthrough his life covered a large-heartedness even in the most carefulobservation of facts, and produced a tolerant disposition towards hisfellow-men even when he most disagreed with their views or dogmas. Hewas one of those of whom it may be truly said in hackneyed phrases thathe was "born great, " whilst destined to have "greatness thrust upon him"in the shape of honours which he received with hesitation. 

From his autobiography we gather that his father, though dimly tracinghis descent from the famous Wallace of Stirling, was born at Hanworth, in Middlesex, where there appears to have been a small colony ofresidents bearing the same name but occupying varied social positions, from admiral to hotel-keeper--the grandfather of Alfred Russel Wallacebeing known as a victualler. Thomas Vere Wallace was the only son ofthis worthy innkeeper; and, being possessed of somewhat wider ambitionsthan a country life offered, was articled to a solicitor in London, andeventually became an attorney-at-law. On his father's death he inheriteda small private income, and, not being of an energetic disposition, hepreferred to live quietly on it instead of continuing his practice. Hismain interests were somewhat literary and artistic, but without anydefinite aim; and this lack of natural energy, mental and physical, reappeared in most of the nine children subsequently born to him, including Alfred Russel, who realised that had it not been for the onedefinite interest which gradually determined his course in life (aninterest demanding steady perseverance and concentrated thought as wellas physical enterprise), his career might easily have been much lessuseful. 

It was undoubtedly from his father that he acquired an appreciation ofgood literature, as they were in the habit of hearing Shakespeare andsimilar works read aloud round the fireside on winter nights; whilstfrom his mother came artistic and business-like instincts--several ofher relatives having been architects of no mean skill, combining withtheir art sound business qualities which placed them in positions ofcivic authority and brought them the respect due to men of uprightcharacter and good parts. 

During the chequered experiences which followed the marriage of ThomasVere Wallace and Mary Ann Greenell there appears to have been completemutual affection and understanding. Although Wallace makes but slightreference to his mother's character and habits, one may readily concludethat her disposition and influence were such as to leave an indelibleimpression for good on the minds of her children, amongst her qualitiesbeing a talent for not merely accepting circumstances but in a quiet waymaking the most of each experience as it came--a talent which we findrepeated on many occasions in the life of her son Alfred. 

It is a little curious that each of these great scientists should havebeen born in a house overlooking a well-known river--the home of theDarwins standing on the banks of the Severn, at Shrewsbury, and that ofthe Wallaces a stone's throw from the waters of the romantic andbeautiful Usk, of Monmouthshire. 

With remarkable clearness Dr. Wallace could recall events and scenesback to the time when he was only 4 years of age. His first childishexperiment occurred about that time, due to his being greatly impressedby the story of the "Fox and the Pitcher" in Æsop's Fables. Finding ajar standing in the yard outside their house, he promptly proceeded topour a small quantity of water into it, and then added a handful ofsmall stones. The water not rising to the surface, as it did in thefable, he found a spade and scraped up a mixture of earth and pebbleswhich he added to the stones already in the jar. The result, however, proving quite unsatisfactory, he gave up the experiment in disgust andrefused to believe in the truth of the fable. His restless brain andvivid imagination at this early period is shown by some dreams which hecould still recall when 82 years of age; whilst the strong impressionleft on his mind by certain localities, with all their graphic detail ofform and colour, enabled him to enjoy over again many of the simplepleasures that made up his early life in the beautiful grounds of theancient castle in which he used to play. 

The first great event in his life was the journey undertaken byferry-boat and stage-coach from Usk to Hertford, to which town thefamily removed when he was 6 years old, and where they remained for thenext eight years, until he left school. 

The morning after their arrival an incident occurred which left itstrace as of a slender golden thread running throughout the fabric of hislong life. Alfred, with child-like curiosity about his new surroundings, wandered into the yard behind their house, and presently heard a voicecoming from the other side of the low wall, saying, "Hallo! who areyou?" and saw a boy about his own age peering over the top. Explanationsfollowed, and soon, by the aid of two water-butts, the small boys foundthemselves sitting side by side on the top of the wall, holding a longand intimate conversation. Thus began his friendship with George Silk, and by some curious trend of circumstances the two families becameneighbours on several subsequent occasions, [1] so that the friendshipwas maintained until in due course the boys separated each to his ownway in life--the one to wander in foreign lands, the other to occupy aresponsible position at home. 

After spending about a year at private schools, Alfred Wallace was sentwith his brother John to Hertford Grammar School. His recollections ofthese school days are full of interest, especially as contrasted withthe school life of to-day. He says: "We went to school even in thewinter at seven in the morning, and three days a week remained till fivein the afternoon; some artificial light was necessary, and this waseffected by the primitive method of every boy bringing his own candle orcandle-ends with any kind of candlestick he liked. An empty ink-bottlewas often used, or the candle was even stuck on to the desk with alittle of its own grease. So that it enabled us to learn our lessons ordo our sums, no one seemed to trouble about how we provided the light. "

Though never robust in health, he enjoyed all the usual boyish sports, especially such as appealed to his imagination and love of adventure. Not far from the school a natural cave, formed in a chalky slope andpartially concealed by undergrowth, made an excellent resort for"brigands"; and to this hiding place were brought potatoes and otherprovisions which could be cooked and eaten in primitive fashion, with anair of secrecy which added to the mystery and attraction of the boyishadventure. 

It is curious to note that one destined to become a great traveller andexplorer should have found the study of geography "a painful subject. "But this was, as he afterwards understood, entirely due to the method ofteaching then, and sometimes now, in vogue, which made no appealwhatever to the imagination by creating a mental picture of the peoplesand nations, or the varied wonders and beauties of nature whichdistinguish one country from another. "No interesting facts were evergiven, no accounts of the country by travellers were ever read, no goodmaps ever given us, nothing but the horrid stream of unintelligibleplace names to be learnt. " The only subjects in which he considered thathe gained some valuable grounding at school were Latin, arithmetic, andwriting. 

This estimate of the value of the grammar-school teaching is echoed inDarwin's own words when describing his school days at precisely the sameage at Shrewsbury Grammar School, where, he says, "the school as a meansof education to me was simply a blank. " It is therefore interesting tonotice, side by side, as it were, the occupation which each boy foundfor himself out of school hours, and which in both instances proved ofimmense value in their respective careers in later life. 

Darwin, even at this early age, found his "taste for natural history, and more especially for collecting, " well developed. "I tried, " he says, "to make out the names of plants, and collected all sorts of things, shells, seals, franks, coins and minerals. The passion for collectingwhich leads a man to be a systematic naturalist . .. Was very strong inme, and was clearly innate, as none of my sisters or brothers ever hadthis taste. "

He also speaks of himself as having been a very "simple little fellow"by the manner in which he was either himself deceived or tried todeceive others in a harmless way. As an instance of this, he remembereddeclaring that he could "produce variously coloured polyanthuses andprimroses by watering them with certain coloured fluids, " though he knewall the time it was untrue. His feeling of tenderness towards allanimals and insects is revealed in the fact that he could notremember--except on one occasion--ever taking more than one egg out of abird's nest; and though a keen angler, as soon as he heard that hecould kill the worms with salt and water he never afterwards "spitted aliving worm, though at the expense, probably, of some loss of success!"

Nothing thwarted young Darwin's intense joy and interest in collectingminerals and insects, and in watching and making notes upon the habitsof birds. In addition to this wholesome outdoor hobby, the tedium ofschool lessons was relieved for him by reading Shakespeare, Byron andScott--also a copy of "Wonders of the World" which belonged to one ofthe boys, and to which he always attributed his first desire to travelin remote countries, little thinking how his dreams would be fulfilled. 

Whilst Charles Darwin occupied himself with outdoor sport andcollecting, with a very moderate amount of reading thrown in atintervals, Wallace, on the contrary, devoured all the books he couldget; and fortunately for him, his father having been appointed Librarianto the Hertford Town Library, Alfred had access to all the books thatappealed to his mental appetite; and these, especially the historicalnovels, supplemented the lack of interesting history lessons at school, besides giving him an insight into many kinds of literature suited tohis varied tastes and temperament. In addition, however, to the hoursspent in reading, he and his brother John found endless delight inturning the loft of an outhouse adjoining their yard into a sort ofmechanical factory. Here they contrived, by saving up all their pence(the only pocket-money that came to them), to make crackers and othersimple fireworks, and to turn old keys into toy cannon, besides making alarge variety of articles for practical domestic purposes. Thus hecultivated the gift of resourcefulness and self-reliance on which he hadso often to depend when far removed from all civilisation during histravels on the Amazon and in the Malay Archipelago. 

A somewhat amusing instance of this is found in a letter to his sister, dated June 25th, 1855, at a time when he wanted a really capable man forhis companion, in place of the good-natured but incapable boy Charles, whom he had brought with him from London to teach collecting. In replyto some remarks by his sister about a young man who she thought would besuitable, he wrote: "Do not tell me merely that he is 'a very nice youngman. ' Of course he is. .. . I should like to know whether he can live onrice and salt fish for a week on occasion. .. . Can he sleep on aboard?. .. Can he walk twenty miles a day? Whether he can work, for thereis sometimes as hard work in collecting as in anything. Can he saw apiece of wood straight? Ask him to make you anything--a little card box, a wooden peg or bottle-stopper, and see if he makes them neat andsquare. "

In another letter he describes the garden and live stock he had beenable to obtain where he was living; and in yet another he gives a longlist of his domestic woes and tribulations--which, however, wereovercome with the patience inculcated in early life by his hobbies, andalso by the fact that the family was always more or less in straitenedcircumstances, so that the children were taught to make themselvesuseful in various ways in order to assist their mother in the home. 

As he grew from childhood into youth, Alfred Wallace's extremesensitiveness developed to an almost painful degree. He grew rapidly, and his unusual height made him still more shy when forced to occupy anyprominent position amongst boys of his own age. During the latter partof his time at Hertford Grammar School his father was unable to pay theusual fees, and it was agreed that Alfred should act as pupil teacherin return for the lessons received. This arrangement, while acceptableon the one hand, caused him actual mental and physical pain on theother, as it increased his consciousness of the disabilities under whichhe laboured in contrast with most of the other boys of his own age. 

At the age of 14 Wallace was taken away from school, and until somethingcould be definitely decided about his future--as up to the present hehad no particular bent in any one direction--he was sent to London tolive with his brother John, who was then working for a master builder inthe vicinity of Tottenham Court Road. This was in January, 1837, and itwas during the following summer that he joined his other brother, William, at Barton-on-the-Clay, Bedfordshire, and began land surveying. In the meantime, while in London, he had been brought very closely intocontact with the economics and ethics of Robert Owen, the well-knownSocialist; and although very young in years he was so deeply impressedwith the reasonableness and practical outcome of these theories that, though considerably modified as time went on, they formed the foundationfor his own writings on Socialism and allied subjects in after years. 

As one of our aims in this section is to suggest an outline of thecontrasting influences governing the early lives of Wallace and Darwin, it is interesting to note that at the ages of 14 and 16 respectively, and immediately on leaving school, they came under the first definitemental influence which was to shape their future thought and action. Yethow totally different from Wallace's trials as a pupil teacher was theremoval of Darwin from Dr. Butler's school at Shrewsbury because "he wasdoing no good" there, and his father thought it was "time he settleddown to his medical study in Edinburgh, " never heeding the fact thathis son had already one passion in life, apart from "shooting, dogs, andrat-catching, " which stood a very good chance of saving him frombecoming the disgrace to the family that his good father feared. So thatwhile Wallace was imbibing his first lessons in Socialism at 14 years ofage, Darwin at 16 found himself merely enduring, with a feeling ofdisgust, Dr. Duncan's lectures, which were "something fearful toremember, " on materia medica at eight o'clock on a winter's morning, and, worse still, Dr. Munro's lectures on human anatomy, which were "asdull as he was himself. " Yet he always deeply regretted not having beenurged to practise dissection, because of the invaluable aid it wouldhave been to him as a naturalist. 

By mental instinct, however, Darwin soon found himself studying marinezoology and other branches of natural science. This was in a largemeasure due to his intimacy with Dr. Grant, who, in a later article onFlustra, made some allusion to a paper read by Darwin before the LinneanSociety on a small discovery which he had made by the aid of a "wretchedmicroscope" to the effect that the so-called ova of Flustra were reallylarvæ and had the power of independent action by means of cilia. 

During his second year in Edinburgh he attended Jameson's lectures ongeology and zoology, but found them so "incredibly dull" that hedetermined never to study the science. 

Then came the final move which, all unknowingly, was to lead Darwin intothe pursuit of a science which up to that time had only been a hobby andnot in any sense the serious profession of his life. But again how widethe difference between his change from Edinburgh to Cambridge, and thatof Wallace from a month's association with a working-class Socialisticcommunity in London to land surveying under the simplest ruralconditions prevalent amongst the respectable labouring farmers ofBedfordshire--Darwin to the culture and privileges of a great Universitywith the object of becoming a clergyman, and Wallace taking the firstroad that offered towards earning a living, with no thought as to theultimate outcome of this life in the open and the systematic observationof soils and land formation. 

But the inherent tendencies of Darwin's nature drew him away fromtheology to the study of geology, entomology and botany. The ensuingfour years at Cambridge were very happy ones. While fortunate in beingable to follow his various mental and scientific pursuits with thefreedom which a good social and financial position secured for him, hefound himself by a natural seriousness of manner, balanced by a cheerfultemperament and love of sport, the friend and companion of men manyyears his seniors and holding positions of authority in the world ofscience. Amongst these the name of Professor Henslow will always takeprecedence. "This friendship, " says Darwin, "influenced my whole careermore than any other. " Henslow's extensive knowledge of botany, geology, entomology, chemistry and mineralogy, added to his sincere andattractive personality, well-balanced mind and excellent judgment, formed a strong and effective bias in the direction Darwin was destinedto follow. 

Apart, however, from the strong personal influence of Henslow, Sedgwickand others with whom he came much in contact, two books which he read atthis time aroused his "burning zeal to add the most humble contributionto the noble structure of Natural Science"; these were Sir J. Herschel's"Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy, " and Humboldt's"Personal Narrative. " Indeed, so fascinated was he by the descriptiongiven of Teneriffe in the latter that he at once set about a planwhereby he might spend a holiday, with Henslow, in that locality, aholiday which was, indeed, to form part of his famous voyage. 

By means of his explorations in the neighbourhood of Cambridge, and oneor two visits to North Wales, Darwin's experimental knowledge of geologyand allied sciences was considerably increased. In his zeal forcollecting beetles he employed a labourer to "scrape the moss off oldtrees in winter, and place it in a bag, and likewise to collect therubbish at the bottom of the barges in which reeds were brought from thefens, and thus . .. Got some very rare species. "

During the summer vacation of 1831, at the personal request of Henslow, he accompanied Professor Sedgwick on a geological tour in North Wales. In order, no doubt, to give him some independent experience, Sedgwicksent Darwin on a line parallel with his own, telling him to bring backspecimens of the rocks and to mark the stratification on a map. In lateryears Darwin was amazed to find how much both of them had failed toobserve, "yet these phenomena were so conspicuous that . .. A house burntdown by fire could not tell its story more plainly than did the valleyof Cwm Idwal. "

This tour was the introduction to a momentous change in his life. Onreturning to Shrewsbury he found a letter awaiting him which containedthe offer of a voyage in H. M. S. _Beagle_. But owing to severalobjections raised by Dr. Darwin, he wrote and declined the offer; and ifit had not been for the immediate intervention of his uncle, Mr. JosiahWedgwood (to whose house he went the following day to begin the shootingseason), who took quite a different view of the proposition, the"Journal of Researches during the Voyage of H. M. S. _Beagle_, " by CharlesDarwin, would never have been written. 

At length, however, after much preparation and many delays, the_Beagle_ sailed from Plymouth on December 27th, 1831, and five yearselapsed before Darwin set foot again on English soil. The period, therefore, in Darwin's life which we find covered by his term atEdinburgh and Cambridge, until at the age of 22 he found himselfsuddenly launched on an entirely new experience full of adventure andfresh association, was spent by Wallace in a somewhat similar manner inso far as his outward objective in life was more or less distinct fromthe pursuits which gradually dawned upon his horizon, though they werefollowed as a "thing apart" and not as an ultimate end. 

With Wallace's removal into Bedfordshire an entirely new life opened upbefore him. His health, never very good, rapidly improved; both brainand eye were trained to practical observations which proved eminentlyvaluable. His descriptions of the people with whom he came in contactduring these years of country life reveal the quiet toleration of thefaults and foibles of others, not devoid of the keen sense of humour andjustice which characterised his lifelong attitude towards hisfellow-men. 

The many interests of his new life, together with the use of a pocketsextant, prompted him to make various experiments for himself. The onlysources from which he could obtain helpful information, however, weresome cheap elementary books on mechanics and optics which he procuredfrom the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge; these he studiedand "puzzled over" for several years. "Having no friends of my own age, "he wrote, "I occupied myself with various pursuits in which I had begunto take an interest. Having learnt the use of the sextant in surveying, and my brother having a book on Nautical Astronomy, I practised a few ofthe simpler observations. Among these were determining the meridian byequal altitudes of the sun, and also by the pole-star at its upper orlower culmination; finding the latitude by the meridian altitude of thesun, or of some of the principal stars; and making a rude sundial byerecting a gnomon towards the pole. For these simple calculations I hadHannay and Dietrichsen's Almanac, a copious publication which gave allthe important data in the Nautical Almanac, besides much otherinteresting matter useful for the astronomical amateur or the ordinarynavigator. I also tried to make a telescope by purchasing a lens ofabout 2 ft. Focus at an optician's in Swansea, fixing it in a paper tubeand using the eye-piece of a small opera-glass. With it I was able toobserve the moon and Jupiter's satellites, and some of the largerstar-clusters; but, of course, very imperfectly. Yet it served toincrease my interest in astronomy, and to induce me to study with somecare the various methods of construction of the more importantastronomical instruments; and it also led me throughout my life to bedeeply interested in the grand onward march of astronomicaldiscovery. "[2]

At the same time Wallace became attracted by, and interested in, theflowers, shrubs and trees growing in that part of Bedfordshire, and heacquired some elementary knowledge of zoology. "It was, " he writes, "while living at Barton that I obtained my first information that therewas such a science as geology. .. . My brother, like most land-surveyors, was something of a geologist, and he showed me the fossil oysters of thegenus Gryphæa and the Belemnites . .. And several other fossils whichwere abundant in the chalk and gravel around Barton. .. . It was here, too, that during my solitary rambles I first began to feel the influenceof nature and to wish to know more of the various flowers, shrubs andtrees I daily met with, but of which for the most part I did not evenknow the English names. At that time I hardly realised that there wassuch a science as systematic botany, that every flower and every meanestand most insignificant weed had been accurately described andclassified, and that there was any kind of system or order in theendless variety of plants and animals which I knew existed. This wish toknow the names of wild plants, to be able to speak . .. About them, hadarisen from a chance remark I had overheard about a year before. A lady. .. Whom we knew at Hertford, was talking to some friends in the streetwhen I and my father met them . .. [and] I heard the lady say, 'We foundquite a rarity the other day--the Monotropa; it had not been found herebefore. ' This I pondered over, and wondered what the Monotropa was. Allmy father could tell me was that it was a rare plant; and I thought hownice it must be to know the names of rare plants when you foundthem. "[3]

One can picture the tall quiet boy going on these solitary rambles, hiseye becoming gradually quickened to perceive new forms in nature, contrasting them one with another, and beginning to ponder over the_cause_ which led to the diverse formation and colouring of leavesapparently of the same family. 

It was in 1841, four years later, that he heard of, and at onceprocured, a book published at a shilling by the S. P. C. K. (the title ofwhich he could not recall in after years), to which he owed his firstscientific glimmerings of the vast study of botany. The next step was toprocure, at much self-sacrifice, Lindley's "Elements of Botany, "published at half a guinea, which to his immense disappointment he foundof very little use, as it did not deal with British plants! Hisdisappointment was lessened, however, by the loan from a Mr. Hayward ofLondon's "Encyclopedia of Plants, " and it was with the help of these twobooks that he made his first classification of the specimens which hehad collected and carefully kept during the few preceding years. 

"It must be remembered, " he says in "My Life, " "that my ignorance ofplants at this time was extreme. I knew the wild rose, bramble, hawthorn, buttercup, poppy, daisy and foxglove, and a very few othersequally common. .. . I knew nothing whatever as to genera and species, norof the large number of distinct forms related to each and grouped intonatural orders. My delight, therefore, was great when I was . .. Able toidentify the charming little eyebright, the strange-looking cow-wheatand louse-wort, the handsome mullein and the pretty creeping toad-flax, and to find that all of them, as well as the lordly foxglove, formedparts of one great natural order, and that under all their superficialdiversity of form was a similarity of structure which, when once clearlyunderstood, enabled me to locate each fresh species with greater ease. "This, however, was not sufficient, and the last step was to form aherbarium. 

"I soon found, " he wrote, "that by merely identifying the plants I foundin my walks I lost much time in gathering the same species severaltimes, and even then not being always quite sure that I had found thesame plant before. I therefore began to form a herbarium, collectinggood specimens and drying them carefully between drying papers and acouple of boards weighted with books or stones. .. . I first named thespecies as nearly as I could do so, and then laid them out to be pressedand dried. At such times, " he continues--and I have quoted the passagefor the sake of this revealing confession--"I experienced the joy whichevery discovery of a new form of life gives to the lover of nature, almost equal to those raptures which I afterwards felt at every captureof new butterflies on the Amazon, or at the constant stream of newspecies of birds, beetles and butterflies in Borneo, the Moluccas, andthe Aru Islands. "[4]

Anything in the shape of gardening papers and catalogues which came inhis way was eagerly read, and to this source he owed his first interestin the fascinating orchid. 

"A catalogue published by a great nurseryman in Bristol . .. Contained anumber of tropical orchids, of whose wonderful variety and beauty I hadobtained some idea from the woodcuts in Loudon's 'Encyclopedia. ' Thefirst epiphytal orchid I ever saw was at a flower show in Swansea . .. Which caused in me a thrill of enjoyment which no other plant in theshow produced. My interest in this wonderful order of plants was furtherenhanced by reading in the _Gardener's Chronicle_ an article by Dr. Lindley on one of the London flower shows, where there was a gooddisplay of orchids, in which . .. He added, 'and _Dendrobium Devonianum_, too delicate and beautiful for a flower of earth. ' This and otherreferences . .. Gave them, in my mind, a weird and mysterious charm . .. Which, I believe, had its share in producing that longing for thetropics which a few years later was satisfied in the equatorial forestsof the Amazon. "[5]

For a brief period, when there was a lull in the surveying business andhis prospects of continuing in this profession looked uncertain, hetried watchmaking, and would probably--though not by choice--have beenapprenticed to it but for an unexpected circumstance which caused hismaster to give up his business. Alfred gladly, when the occasionoffered, returned to his outdoor life, which had begun to make thestrongest appeal to him, stronger, perhaps, than he was really aware. 

Early in 1844 another break occurred, due to the sudden falling off ofland surveying as a profitable business. His brother could no longerafford to keep him as assistant, finding it indeed difficult to obtainsufficient employment for himself. As Wallace knew no other trade orprofession, the only course which occurred to his mind as possible bywhich to earn a living was to get a post as school teacher. 

After one or two rather amusing experiences, he eventually found himselfin very congenial surroundings under the Rev. Abraham Hill, headmasterof the Collegiate School at Leicester. Here he stayed for a little morethan a year, during which time--in addition to his school work and aconsiderable amount of hard reading on subjects to which he had nothitherto been able to devote himself--he was led to become greatlyinterested in phrenology and mesmerism, and before long found himselfsomething of an expert in giving mesmeric demonstrations before smallaudiences. Phrenology, he believed, proved of much value in determininghis own characteristics, good and bad, and in guiding him to a wise useof the faculties which made for his ultimate success; while hisintroduction to mesmerism had not a little to do with his becominginterested and finally convinced of the part played by spiritualisticforces and agencies in human life. 

The most important event, however, during this year at Leicester was hismeeting with H. W. Bates, through whom he was introduced to the absorbingstudy of beetles and butterflies, the link which culminated in theirmutual exploration of the Amazon. It is curious that Wallace retained nodistinct recollection of how or when he met Bates for the first time, but thought that "he heard him mentioned as an enthusiasticentomologist and met him at the Library. " Bates was at this timeemployed by his father, who was a hosiery manufacturer, and he couldtherefore only devote his spare time to collecting beetles in thesurrounding neighbourhood. The friendship brought new interests intoboth lives, and though Wallace was obliged a few months later to leaveLeicester and return to his old work of surveying (owing to the suddendeath of his brother William, whose business affairs were left in anunsatisfactory condition and needed personal attention), he no longerfound in it the satisfaction he had previously experienced, and hisletters to Bates expressed the desire to strike out on some new line, one which would satisfy his craving for a definite pursuit in thedirection of natural science. 

Somewhere about the autumn of 1847, Bates paid a visit to Wallace atNeath, and the plan to go to the Amazon which had been slowly formingitself at length took shape, due to the perusal of a little bookentitled "A Voyage up the River Amazon, " by W. H. Edwards. Furtherinvestigations showed that this would be particularly advantageous, asthe district had only been explored by the German zoologist, von Spix, and the botanist von Martins, in 1817-20, and subsequently by Count deCastelnau. 

During this interval we find, in a letter to Bates, the followingallusion to Darwin, which is the first record of Wallace's high estimateof the man with whom his own name was to be dramatically associated tenyears later. "I first, " he says, "read Darwin's Journal three or fouryears ago, and have lately re-read it. As the journal of a scientifictraveller it is second only to Humboldt's Narrative; as a work ofgeneral interest, perhaps superior to it. He is an ardent admirer andmost able supporter of Mr. Lyell's views. His style of writing I verymuch admire, so free from all labour, or egotism, yet so full ofinterest and original thought. "[6]

The early part of 1848 was occupied in making arrangements with Mr. Samuel Stevens, of King Street, Covent Garden, to act as their agent indisposing of a duplicate collection of specimens which they proposedsending home; by this means paying their expenses during the time theywere away, any surplus being invested against their return. This andother matters being satisfactorily settled, they eventually sailed fromLiverpool on April 20th in a barque of 192 tons, said to be "a very fastsailer, " which proved to be correct. On arriving at Para about a monthlater, they immediately set about finding a house, learning something ofthe language, the habits of the people amongst whom they had come tolive, and making short excursions into the forest before starting onlonger and more trying explorations up country. 

Wallace's previous vivid imaginings of what life in the tropics wouldmean, so far as the surpassing beauty of nature was concerned, were notimmediately fulfilled. As a starting-point, however, Para had manyadvantages. Besides the pleasant climate, the country for some hundredsof miles was found to be nearly level at an elevation of about 30 or 40ft. Above the river; the first distinct rise occurring some 150 miles upthe river Tocantins, south-west of Para; the whole district wasintersected by streams, with cross channels connecting them, access bythis means being comparatively easy to villages and estates lyingfarther inland. 

Before making an extensive excursion into the interior, he spent sometime on the larger islands at the mouth of the Amazon, on one of whichhe immediately noticed the scarcity of trees, while "the abundance ofevery kind of animal life crowded into a small space was here verystriking, compared with the sparse manner in which it is scattered inthe virgin forests. It seems to force us to the conclusion that theluxuriance of tropical vegetation is not favourable to the production ofanimal life. The plains are always more thickly peopled than the forest;and a temperate zone, as has been pointed out by Mr. Darwin, seemsbetter adapted to the support of large land animals than the tropics. "

We have already referred to the fact that at the very early age of 14Wallace had imbibed his first ideas of Socialism, or how the"commonwealth" of a people or nation was the outcome of cause andeffect, largely due to the form of government, political economy andprogressive commerce best suited to any individual State or country. Theseed took deep root, and during the years spent for the most partamongst an agricultural people in England and Wales his interest inthese questions had been quickened by observation and intelligentinquiry. It is no wonder, therefore, that during the whole of histravels we find many intimate references to such matters regarding thelocality in which he happened to find himself, but which can only benoticed in a very casual manner in this section. For instance, he soondiscovered that the climate and soil round Para conduced to thecultivation of almost every kind of food, such as cocoa, coffee, sugar, farinha (the universal bread of the country) from the mandioca plant, with vegetables and fruits in inexhaustible variety; while the articlesof export included india-rubber, Brazil nuts, and piassaba (the coarse, stiff fibre of a palm, used for making brooms for street sweeping), aswell as sarsaparilla, balsam-capivi, and a few other drugs. 

The utter lack of initiative, or even ordinary interest, in making themost of the opportunities lying at hand, struck him again and again ashe went from place to place and was entertained hospitably by hosts ofvarious nationalities; until at times the impression is conveyed thatapart from his initial interest as a naturalist, a longing seized him toarouse those who were primarily responsible for these conditions out ofthe apathy into which they had fallen, and to make them realise thelarger pleasure which life offers to those who recognise theopportunities at hand, not only for their own advancement but also forthe benefit of those placed under their control. All of which we findhappily illustrated during his visit to Sarawak, in the MalayArchipelago. 

The whole of these four years was crowded with valuable experiences ofone sort and another. Some of the most toilsome journeys proved only adisappointment, while others brought success beyond his most sanguinedreams. At the end of two years it was agreed between himself and Batesthat they should separate, Wallace doing the northern parts andtributaries of the Amazon, and Bates the main stream, which, from thefork of the Rio Negro, is called the Upper Amazon, or the Solimoes. Bythis arrangement they were able to cover more ground, besides devotingthemselves to the special goal of research on which each was bent. 

In the meantime, Wallace's younger brother, Herbert, had come out tojoin him, and for some time their journeys were made conjointly; butfinding that his brother was not temperamentally fitted to become anaturalist, it was decided that he should return to England. Accordingly, they parted at Barra when Wallace started on his longjourney up the Rio Negro, the duration of which was uncertain; and itwas not until many months after the sad event that he heard thedistressing news that Herbert had died of yellow fever on the eve of hisdeparture from Para for home. Fortunately, Bates was in Para at thetime, and did what he could for the boy until stricken down himself withthe same sickness, from which, however, his stronger constitutionenabled him to recover. 

Perhaps the most eventful and memorable journey during this period wasthe exploration of the Uaupés River, of which Wallace wrote nearly sixtyyears later: "So far as I have heard, no English traveller has to thisday ascended the Uaupés River so far as I did, and no collector hasstayed at any time at Javita, or has even passed through it. "

From a communication received from the Royal Geographical Society itappears that the first complete survey of this river (a compass traversesupplemented by astronomical observations) was made (1907-8) by Dr. Hamilton Rice, starting from the side of Colombia, and tracing the wholecourse of the river from a point near the source of its head-stream. Theresult showed that the general course of the lower river was much asrepresented by Wallace, though considerable corrections were necessaryboth in latitude and longitude. "I am assured by authorities on the RioNegro region, " writes Dr. Scott Keltie to Mr. W. G. Wallace, under dateMay 21, 1915, "that your father's work still holds good. "

In May, 1852, Wallace returned to Para, and sailed for England thefollowing July. The ship took fire at sea, and all his treasures (notpreviously sent to England) were unhappily lost. Ten days and nightswere spent in an open boat before another vessel picked them up, and indescribing this terrible experience he says: "When the danger appearedpast I began to feel the greatness of my loss. With what pleasure had Ilooked upon every rare and curious insect I had added to my collection!How many times, when almost overcome by the ague, had I crawled into theforest and been rewarded by some unknown and beautiful species! Howmany places, which no European foot but my own had trodden, would havebeen recalled to my memory by the rare birds and insects they hadfurnished to my collection! How many weary days and weeks had I passed, upheld only by the fond hope of bringing home many new and beautifulforms from these wild regions . .. Which would prove that I had notwasted the advantage I had enjoyed, and would give me occupation andamusement for many years to come! And now . .. I had not one specimen toillustrate the unknown lands I had trod, or to call back therecollection of the wild scenes I had beheld! But such regrets were vain. .. And I tried to occupy myself with the state of things which actuallyexisted. "[7]

On reaching London, Wallace took a house in Upper Albany Street, wherehis mother and his married sister (Mrs. Sims), with her husband, aphotographer, came to live with him. The next eighteen months were fullyoccupied with sorting and arranging such collections as had previouslyreached England; writing his book of travels up the Amazon and Rio Negro(published in the autumn of 1853), and a little book on the palm treesbased on a number of fine pencil sketches he had preserved in a tin box, the only thing saved from the wreck. 

In summing up the most vivid impressions left on his mind, apart frompurely scientific results, after his four years in South America, hewrote that the feature which he could never think of without delight was"the wonderful variety and exquisite beauty of the butterflies and birds. .. Ever new and beautiful, strange and even mysterious, " so that hecould "hardly recall them without a thrill of admiration and wonder. "But "the most unexpected sensation of surprise and delight was my firstmeeting and living with man in a state of nature--with absoluteuncontaminated savages!. .. And the surprise of it was that I did notexpect to be at all so surprised. .. . These true wild Indians of theUaupés . .. Had nothing that we call clothes; they had peculiarornaments, tribal marks, etc. ; they all carried tools or weapons oftheir own manufacture. .. . But more than all, their whole aspect andmanner was different--they were all going about their own work orpleasure, which had nothing to do with white men or their ways; theywalked with the free step of the independent forest-dweller, and, exceptthe few that were known to my companion, paid no attention whatever tous, mere strangers of an alien race! In every detail they were originaland self-sustaining as are the wild animals of the forest, absolutelyindependent of civilisation. .. . I could not have believed that therewould have been so much difference in the aspect of the same people intheir native state and when living under European supervision. The truedenizen of the Amazonian forest, like the forest itself, is unique andnot to be forgotten. "

The foregoing "impressions" recall forcibly those expressed by Darwin insimilar terms at the close of his "Journal": "Delight . .. Is a weak termto express the feelings of a naturalist who, for the first time, haswandered by himself in a Brazilian forest. The elegance of the grasses, the novelty of the parasitical plants, the beauty of the flowers, theglossy green of the foliage . .. The general luxuriance of thevegetation, filled me with admiration. A paradoxical mixture of soundand silence pervades the shady parts of the wood . .. Yet within therecesses . .. A universal silence appears to reign . .. Such a day as thisbrings with it a deeper pleasure than he (a naturalist) can ever hope toexperience again, "[8] And in another place: "Among the scenes which aredeeply impressed on my mind, none can exceed in sublimity the primevalforests undefaced by the hand of man; . .. Temples filled with thevarious productions of the God of Nature; . .. No one can stand in thesesolitudes unmoved, and not feel that there is more in man than the merebreath of his body. "[9]

In complete contrast to the forest, the bare, treeless, and uninhabitedplains of Patagonia "frequently crossed before" Darwin's eyes. Why, hecould not understand, except that, being so "boundless, " they left "freescope for the imagination. "

As these travels, [10] undertaken at comparatively the same age, representthe foundation upon which their scientific work and theories were basedduring the long years which followed, a glance at the conditionsgoverning the separate expeditions--both mental and physical--may be ofsome value. The most obvious difference lies, perhaps, in the fact thatDarwin was free from the thought of having to "pay his way" by theimmediate result of his efforts, and likewise from all care and anxietyregarding domestic concerns; the latter being provided for him when onboard the _Beagle_, or arranged by those who accompanied him on histravels overland and by river. The elimination of these minor carestended to leave his mind free and open to absorb and speculate atcomparative leisure upon all the strange phenomena which presentedthemselves throughout the long voyage. 

A further point of interest in determining the ultimate gain or losslies in the fact that Darwin's private excursions had to be somewhatsubservient to the movements of the _Beagle_ under the command ofCaptain Fitz-Roy. This, in all probability, was beneficial to one of histemperament--unaccustomed to be greatly restricted by outwardcircumstances or conditions, though never flagrantly (or, perhaps, consciously) going against them. The same applies in a measure toWallace, who, on more than one occasion, confessed his tendency to afeeling of semi-idleness and dislike to any form of enforced physicalexertion; but as every detail, involving constant forethought andarrangement, as well as the execution, devolved upon himself, the latentpowers of methodical perseverance, which never failed him, no matterwhat difficulties barred his way, were called forth. Darwin's estimateof the "habit of mind" forced upon himself during this period may notinaptly be applied to both men: "Everything about which I thought orread was made to bear directly on what I had seen, or was likely to see;and this habit of mind was continued during the five years of thevoyage. I feel sure that it was this training which enabled me to dowhatever I have done in science. "

It may be further assumed that Darwin was better equipped mentally--froma scientific point of view--owing to his personal intercourse witheminent scientific men previous to his assuming this responsibleposition. Wallace, on the contrary, had practically little beyondbook-knowledge and such experience as he had been able to gain bysolitary wanderings in the localities in which he had, by circumstances, been forced to reside. His plan of operations must, therefore, have beenlargely modified and adapted as time went on, and as his financesallowed. To both, therefore, credit is due for the adaptability evincedunder conditions not always congenial or conducive to the pursuits theyhad undertaken. 

Although the fact is not definitely stated by Wallace, it may readily beinferred that the idea of making this the starting-point of a new lifewas clearly in his mind; while Darwin simply accepted the opportunitywhen it came, and was only brought to a consciousness of its fullmeaning and bearing on his future career whilst studying the geologicalaspect of Santiago when "the line of white rock revealed a new andimportant fact, " namely, that there had been afterwards subsidence roundthe craters, which had since been in action and had poured forth lava. "It then, " he says, "first dawned on me that I might perhaps write abook on the geology of the various countries visited, and this made methrill with delight. That was a memorable hour to me; and how distinctlyI can call to mind the low cliff of lava, beneath which I rested, withthe sun glaring hot, a few strange desert plants growing near, and withliving corals in the tidal pools at my feet!"[11]

Another point of comparison lies in the fact that at no time did thestudy of man or human nature, from the metaphysical and psychologicalpoint of view, appeal to Darwin as it did to Wallace; and this being so, the similarity between the impression made on them individually by theirfirst contact with primitive human beings is of some interest. 

Wallace's words have already been quoted; here are Darwin's: "Nothing ismore certain to create astonishment than the first sight in his nativehaunt of a barbarian, of man in his lowest and most savage state. Oneasks: 'Could our progenitors have been men like these--men whose verysigns and expressions are less intelligible to us than those of thedomesticated animals; men who do not possess the instinct of thoseanimals, nor yet appear to boast of human reason, or at least of artsconsequent on that reason?' I do not believe it is possible to describeor paint the difference between a savage and civilised man. It is thedifference between a wild and tame animal. "[12]

The last words suggest the seed-thought eventually to be enlarged in"The Descent of Man, " and there is also perhaps a subtle suggestion ofthe points in which Wallace differed from Darwin when the time came forthem to discuss this important section of the theory of Evolution. Itneeded, however, the further eight years spent by Wallace in the MalayArchipelago to bring about a much wider knowledge of nature-sciencebefore he was prepared in any way to assume the position of exponent oftheories not seriously thought of previously in the scientific world. 

In the autumn of 1853, on the completion of his "Travels on the Amazonand Rio Negro, " Wallace paid his first visit to Switzerland, on awalking tour in company with his friend George Silk. On his return, andduring the winter months, he was constant in his attendance at themeetings of the Entomological and Zoological Societies. It was at one ofthese evening gatherings that he first met Huxley, and he also had avague recollection of once meeting and speaking to Darwin at the BritishMuseum. Had it not been for his extreme shyness of disposition, and(according to his own estimation) "lack of conversational powers, " hewould doubtless have become far more widely known, and have enjoyed thefriendship of not a few of the eminent men who shared his interests, during this interval before starting on his journey to Singapore. 

It was due to his close study of the Insect and Bird Departments of theBritish Museum that he decided on Singapore as a new starting-point forhis natural history collections. As the region was generally healthy, and no part of it (with the exception of the Island of Java) had beenexplored, it offered unlimited attractions for his special work. But asthe journey out would be an expensive one, he was advised to lay hisplans before Sir Roderick Murchison, then President of the RoyalGeographical Society, and it was through his kindly interest andpersonal application to the Government that a passage was provided inone of the P. And O. Boats going to Singapore. He left early in 1854. Arrived at Singapore, an entirely new world opened up before him. Newpeoples and customs thronged on all hands, a medley of nationalitiessuch as can only be seen in the East, where, even to-day, and thoughforming part of one large community, each section preserves its nativedress, customs and religious habits. After spending some time atSingapore he moved from place to place, but finally decided upon makingTernate his head-quarters, as he discovered a comfortable bungalow, nottoo large, and adaptable in every way as a place in which to collect andprepare his specimens between the many excursions to other parts of theArchipelago. The name is now indelibly associated with that particularvisit which ended after a trying journey in an attack of intermittentfever and general prostration, during which he first conceived the ideawhich has made Ternate famous in the history of natural science. 

[Illustration: A. R. WALLACE Singapore, 1862]

One or two points in the following letters recall certain contrastssimilar to those already drawn between Darwin's impression of places andpeople and those made on the mind of Wallace by practically the sameconditions. A typical instance is found in their estimate of the lifeand work of the missionaries whom they met and from whom they receivedthe warmest hospitality. Their experience included both Protestant andRoman Catholic, and from Darwin's account the former appeared to him tohave the more civilising effect on the people, not only from areligious but also from the economic and industrial points of view. 

In the "Journal" (p. 419) we find a detailed account of a visit to themissionary settlement at Waimate, New Zealand. After describing thefamiliar English appearance of the whole surroundings, he adds: "Allthis is very surprising when it is considered that five years agonothing but the fern flourished here. Moreover, native workmanship, taught by these missionaries, has effected this change--the lesson ofthe missionary is the enchanter's wand. The house had been built, thewindows framed, the fields ploughed, and even the trees grafted, by theNew Zealander. When I looked at the whole scene it was admirable. It wasnot that England was brought vividly before my mind; . .. Nor was it thetriumphant feeling at seeing what Englishmen could effect; but ratherthe high hopes thus inspired for the future progress of this fineisland. "

No such feeling was inspired by the conditions surrounding the RomanCatholic missionaries whom he met from time to time. In an earlier partof the "Journal" he records an evening spent with one living in a lonelyplace in South America who, "coming from Santiago, had contrived tosurround himself with some few comforts. Being a man of some littleeducation, he bitterly complained of the total want of society. With noparticular zeal for religion, no business or pursuit, how completelymust this man's life be wasted. "

In complete opposition to these views, passages occur in the followingletters which show that Wallace thought more highly of the RomanCatholic than of the Protestant missionaries. In one place, speaking ofthe former, he says: "Most are Frenchmen . .. Well-educated men who giveup their lives for the good of the people they live among, I thinkCatholics and Protestants are equally wrong, but as missionaries I thinkCatholics are the best, and I would gladly see none others rather thanhave, as in New Zealand, sects of native Dissenters more rancorousagainst each other than in England. The unity of the Catholics is theirstrength, and an unmarried clergy can do as missionaries what marriedmen never can undertake. "

As a sidelight on these contradictory estimates of the same work, itshould be borne in mind that Darwin had but recently given up the ideaof becoming a clergyman, and doubtless retained some of the instinctiveregard for sincere Christian Protestantism (whether represented by theChurch of England or by Nonconformists), while Wallace had long sincerelinquished all doctrinal ideas on religion and all belief in thebeneficial effect produced by forms of worship on the individual. 

Among the regions Wallace visited was Sarawak. Of one of his sojournshere some interesting reminiscences have been sent to me by Mr. L. V. Helmes. He says:

 It was in 1854 that Wallace came to Sarawak. I was there then, sent by a private firm, which later became the Borneo Company, to open up, by mining, manufacture and trade, the resources of the country, and amongst these enterprises was coal-mining on the west. Wallace came in search of new specimens of animal and especially insect life. The clearing of ancient forests at these mines offered a naturalist great opportunities, and I gave Wallace an introduction to our engineer in charge there. His collections of beetles and butterflies there were phenomenal; but the district was also the special home of the great ape, the orang-utan, or meias, as the natives called them, of which he obtained so many valuable specimens. Many notes must at that time have passed between us, for I took much interest in his work. We had put up a temporary hut for him at the mines, and on my occasional visits there I saw him and his young assistant, Charles Allen, at work, admired his beautiful collections, and gave my help in forwarding them. 

 But it was mainly in social intercourse that we met, when Wallace, in intervals of his labours, came to Ku-ching, and was the Rajah's guest. Then occurred those interesting discussions at social gatherings to which he refers in a letter to me in 1909, when he wrote: "I was pleased to receive your letter, with reminiscences of old times. I often recall those pleasant evenings with Rajah Brooke and our little circle, but since the old Rajah's death I have not met any of the party. "

 Wallace was in Sarawak at the happy period in the country's history. It was beginning to emerge from barbarism. The Borneo Company was just formed, and the seed of the country's future prosperity was sown. Wallace, therefore, found us all sanguine and cheerful; yet we were on the brink of a disaster which brought many sorrows in its train. But the misfortunes of the Chinese revolt had not yet cast their shadows before them. The Rajah's white guests round his hospitable table; the Malay chiefs and office-holders, who made evening calls from curiosity or to pay their respects; Dyaks squatting in dusky groups in corners of the hall, with petitions to make or advice to seek from their white ruler--such would be the gathering of which Wallace would form a part. No suspicion or foreboding would trouble the company; yet within a few months that hall would be given to the flames of an enemy's torch, and the Rajah himself and many of those who formed that company would be fugitives in the jungle. .. . 

 The Malay Archipelago, in the unregenerated days when Wallace roamed the forests, and sailed the Straits in native boats and canoes, was full of danger to wanderers of the white race. Anarchy prevailed in many parts; usurping nobles enslaved the people in their houses; and piratical fleets scoured the sea, capturing and enslaving yearly thousands of peaceful traders, women and children. The writer was himself in 1862 besieged in a Bornean river by a pirate fleet, which was eventually destroyed by a Sarawak Government steamer with the following result of the fight: 190 pirates and 140 captives were killed or drowned, and 250 of the latter were liberated and sent to their homes; showing how formidable these pirates were. But Wallace, absorbed in his scientific pursuits, minded not these dangers, nor the hardships of any kind which a roving life in untrodden jungles and feverish swamps brings. 

 When Wallace left Sarawak after his fifteen months' residence in the country, he left his young assistant, Charles Allen, there. He entered my service, and remained some time after the formation of the Borneo Company. Later, he again joined Wallace, and then went to New Guinea, doing valuable collecting and exploring work. He finally settled in Singapore, where I met him in 1899. He had married and was doing well; but died not long after my interview with him. He had come to the East with Wallace as a lad of 16, and had been his faithful companion and assistant during years of arduous work. --L. V. H. 

The eight years spent by Wallace in this almost unknown part of theworld were times of strenuous mental and physical exertion, resulting inthe gathering together of an enormous amount of matter for futurescientific investigation, but counterbalanced unfortunately by more orless continuous ill-health--which at times made the effort of clearreasoning and close application to scientific pursuits extremelydifficult. 

An indication of the unwearying application with which he went about histask is seen in the fact that during this period he collected 125, 660specimens of natural history, travelled about 14, 000 miles within theArchipelago, and made sixty or seventy journeys, "each involving somepreparation and loss of time, " so that "not more than six years werereally occupied in collecting. "

A faint idea of this long and solitary sojourn in lonely places isgiven in a letter to his old friend Bates, dated December 24th, 1860, inwhich he says: "Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I havemyself suffered much in the same way as you describe, and I think moreseverely. The kind of _tædium vitæ_ you mention I also occasionallyexperience here. I impute it to a too monotonous existence. " And againwhen he begs his friend to write, as he is "half froze for news. "

As already stated, Wallace, at no time during these wanderings, had anyescort or protection, having to rely entirely upon his own tact andpatience, combined with firmness, in his dealings with the natives. Onone occasion he was taken ill, and had to remain six weeks with none butnative Papuans around him, and he became so attached to them that whensaying good-bye it was with the full intention of returning amongst themat a later period. In another place he speaks of sleeping under cover ofan open palm-leaf hut as calmly as under the protection of theMetropolitan Police!

Up to that time, also, he was the only Englishman who had actually seenthe beautiful "birds of paradise in their native forests, " this successbeing achieved after "five voyages to different parts of the districtthey inhabit, each occupying in its preparation and execution the largerpart of a year. " And then only five species out of a possible fourteenwere procured. His enthusiasm as a naturalist and collector knew nobounds, butterflies especially calling into play all his feelings of joyand satisfaction. Describing his first sight of the _Ornithopteracroesus_, he says that the blood rushed to his head and he felt muchmore like fainting than he had done when in apprehension of immediatedeath; a similar sensation being experienced when he came across anotherlarge bird-winged butterfly, _Ornithoptera poseidon_. 

"It is one thing, " he says, "to see such beauty in a cabinet, and quiteanother to feel it struggling between one's fingers, and to gaze uponits fresh and living beauty, a bright-green gem shining out amid thesilent gloom of a dark and tangled forest. The village of Dobbo heldthat evening at least one contented man. "

These thrills of joy may be considered as some compensation for suchexperiences as those contained in his graphic account of a singlejourney in a "prau, " or native boat. "My first crew, " he wrote, "ranaway; two men were lost for a month on a desert island; we were tentimes aground on coral reefs; we lost four anchors; our sails weredevoured by rats; the small boat was lost astern; we were thirty-eightdays on the voyage home which should have taken twelve; we were manytimes short of food and water; we had no compass-lamp owing to there notbeing a drop of oil in Waigiou when we left; and to crown it all, duringthe whole of our voyage, occupying in all seventy-eight days (all inwhat was supposed to be the favourable season), we had not one singleday of fair wind. "

The scientific discoveries arising out of these eight years of laboriouswork and physical hardship were first--with the exception of thememorable Essay on Natural Selection--included in his books on the MalayArchipelago, the Geographical Distribution of Animals, Island Life, andAustralasia, besides a number of papers contributed to variousscientific journals. 

A bare catalogue of the places visited and explored includes Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Celebes, the Moluccas, Timor, New Guinea, the Aru and KéIslands. Comparing this list with that given by Darwin at the close ofthe "Journal, " we find that though in some respects the ground coveredby the two men was similar, it never actually overlapped. The countriesand islands visited by the _Beagle_ came in the following order: Cape deVerde Islands, St. Paul's Rocks, Fernando Noronha, South America(including the Galapagos Archipelago, the Falkland Isles, and Tierra delFuego), Tahiti, New Zealand, Australia, Tasmania, Keeling Island, Maldive coral atolls, Mauritius, St. Helena, Ascension. Brazil wasrevisited for a short time, and the _Beagle_ touched at the Cape deVerde Islands and the Azores on the homeward voyage. 

The very nature of this voyage did not permit Darwin to give unlimitedtime to the study of any particular spot or locality; but his accurateobservation of every detail, together with his carefully kept journal, afforded ample scope and foundation for future contemplation. ToWallace, the outstanding result may be summed up in the fact that hediscovered that the Malay Archipelago is divided into a western group ofislands, which in their zoological affinities are Asiatic, and aneastern, which are Australian. The Oriental Borneo and Bali arerespectively divided from the Australian Celebes and Lombok by a narrowbelt of sea known as "Wallace's line, " on the opposite side of which theindigenous mammalia are as widely divergent as in any two parts of theworld. 

To both men Darwin's estimate of the influence of travel may aptly applyin the sense that from a geographical point of view "the map of theworld ceases to be a blank . .. Each part assumes its proper dimensions, "continents are no longer considered islands, nor islands as mere specks. 

Wallace's homeward journey was not so eventful as the previous one hadbeen, except for the unsuccessful efforts to bring back several speciesof live birds, which, with the exception of his birds of paradise, diedon the way. On reaching London in the spring of 1862, he again made hishome with his married sister, Mrs. Sims (who was living in WestbourneGrove). In a large empty room at the top of the house he found himselfsurrounded with packing-cases which he had not seen for five or sixyears, and which, together with his recent collections, absorbed histime and interest for the first few weeks. Later, he settled down to hisliterary work, and, with the exception of one or two visits to theContinent and America, spent the remainder of his life in England--alife full of activity, the results of which still permeate scientificresearch. 

PART I (_Continued_)

II. --Early Letters

[1854--62]

Of the few letters which have been preserved relating to this period, anumber have already been published in "My Life, " and need not bereprinted here. But in some cases portions of these letters have beengiven because they bring out aspects of Wallace's character which arenot revealed elsewhere. The various omissions which have been made inother letters refer either to unimportant personal matters or totechnical scientific details. The first of the letters was writtenduring Wallace's voyage to the Malay Archipelago. 

 * * * * *

TO G. SILK

_Steamer "Bengal, " Red Sea. March 26, [1854]. _

My dear George, -- . .. Of all the eventful days of my life my first inAlexandria was the most striking. Imagine my feelings when, coming outof the hotel (whither I had been conveyed in an omnibus) for the purposeof taking a quiet stroll through the city, I found myself in the midstof a vast crowd of donkeys and their drivers, all thoroughly determinedto appropriate my person to their own use and interest, without in theleast consulting my inclinations. In vain with rapid strides and wavingarms I endeavoured to clear a way and move forward; arms and legs wereseized upon, and even the Christian coat-tails were not sacred from theprofane Mahometans. One would hold together two donkeys by their tailswhile I was struggling between them, and another, forcing together theirheads, would thus hope to compel me to mount upon one or both of them;and one fellow more impudent than the rest I laid flat upon the ground, and sending the donkey staggering after him, I escaped a moment midsthideous yells and most unearthly cries. I now beckoned to a fellow moresensible-looking than the rest, and told him that I wished to walk andwould take him for a guide, and hoped now to be at rest; but vainthought! I was in the hands of the Philistines, and getting us upagainst a wall, they formed an impenetrable phalanx of men and brutesthoroughly determined that I should only get away from the spot on thelegs of a donkey. Bethinking myself now that donkey-riding was anational institution, and seeing a fat Yankee (very like my Parisfriend) mounted, being like myself hopeless of any other means ofescape, I seized upon a bridle in hopes that I should then be left inpeace. But this was the signal for a more furious onset, for, seeingthat I would at length ride, each one was determined that he aloneshould profit by the transaction, and a dozen animals were forcedsuddenly upon me and a dozen hands tried to lift me upon theirrespective beasts. But now my patience was exhausted, so, keeping firmhold of the bridle I had first taken with one hand, I hit right and leftwith the other, and calling upon my guide to do the same, we succeededin clearing a little space around us. Now then behold your friendmounted upon a jackass in the streets of Alexandria, a boy behindholding by his tail and whipping him up, Charles (who had been lostsight of in the crowd) upon another, and my guide upon a third, and offwe go among a crowd of Jews and Greeks, Turks and Arabs, and veiledwomen and yelling donkey-boys to see the city. We saw the bazaars andthe slave market, where I was again nearly pulled to pieces for"backsheesh" (money), the mosques with their elegant minarets, and thenthe Pasha's new palace, the interior of which is most gorgeous. 

We have seen lots of Turkish soldiers walking in comfortableirregularity; and, after feeling ourselves to be dreadful guys for twohours, returned to the hotel whence we were to start for the canalboats. You may think this account is exaggerated, but it is not; thepertinacity, vigour and screams of the Alexandrian donkey-drivers nodescription can do justice to. .. . --Yours sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS MOTHER

_Singapore, April 30, 1854_. 

My dear Mother, --We arrived here safe on the 20th of this month, havinghad very fine weather all the voyage. On shore I was obliged to go to ahotel, which was very expensive, so I tried to get out into the countryas soon as I could, which, however, I did not manage in less than aweek, when I at last got permission to stay with a French Roman Catholicmissionary who lives about eight miles out of the town and close to thejungle. The greater part of the inhabitants of Singapore are Chinese, many of whom are very rich, and all the villages about are almostentirely of Chinese, who cultivate pepper and gambir. Some of theEnglish merchants here have splendid country houses. I dined with one towhom I brought an introduction. His house was most elegant, and full ofmagnificent Chinese and Japanese furniture. We are now at the Mission ofBukit Tima. The missionary speaks English, Malay and Chinese, as well asFrench, and is a very pleasant man. He has built a very pretty churchhere, and has about 300 Chinese converts. Having only been here fourdays, I cannot tell much about my collections yet. Insects, however, are plentiful. .. . 

Charles gets on pretty well in health, and catches a few insects; but heis very untidy, as you may imagine by his clothes being all torn topieces by the time we arrived here. He will no doubt improve and willsoon be useful. 

Malay is the universal language, in which all business is carried on. Itis easy, and I am beginning to pick up a little, but when we go toMalacca shall learn it most, as there they speak nothing else. 

I am very unfortunate with my watch. I dropped it on board and broke thebalance-spring, and have now sent it home to Mr. Matthews to repair, asI cannot trust anyone here to do it. .. . 

Love to Fanny and Thomas, --I remain your affectionate son, ALFRED B. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS MOTHER

_Bukit Tama, Singapore. May 28, 1854. _

My dear Mother, --I send you a few lines through G. Silk as I thought youwould like to hear from me. I am very comfortable here living with aRoman Catholic missionary. .. . I send by this mail a small box of insectsfor Mr. Stevens--I think a very valuable one--and I hope it will gosafely. I expected a letter from you by the last mail, but received onlytwo _Athenoeums_ of March 18 and 25. .. . 

The forest here is very similar to that of South America. Palms are verynumerous, but they are generally small and horridly spiny. There arenone of the large and majestic species so abundant on the Amazon. I amso busy with insects now that I have no time for anything else, I sendnow about a thousand beetles to Mr. Stevens, and I have as many otherinsects still on hand which will form part of my next and principalconsignment. Singapore is very rich in beetles, and before I leave Ithink I shall have a most beautiful collection. 

[Illustration: A. R. WALLACE'S MOTHER]

I will tell you how my day is now occupied. Get up at half-past five. Bath and coffee. Sit down to arrange and put away my insects of the daybefore, and set them safe out to dry. Charles mending nets, fillingpincushions, and getting ready for the day. Breakfast at eight. Out tothe jungle at nine. We have to walk up a steep hill to get to it, andalways arrive dripping with perspiration. Then we wander about till twoor three, generally returning with about 50 or 60 beetles, some veryrare and beautiful. Bathe, change clothes, and sit down to kill and pininsects. Charles ditto with flies, bugs and wasps; I do not trust himyet with beetles. Dinner at four. Then to work again till six. Coffee. Read. If very numerous, work at insects till eight or nine. Then to bed. 

Adieu, with love to all. --Your affectionate son, ALFRED E. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS MOTHER

_In the Jungle near Malacca. July, 1854. _

My dear Mother, --As this letter may be delayed getting to Singapore Iwrite at once, having an opportunity of sending to Malacca to-morrow. Wehave been here a week, living in a Chinese house or shed, which remindsme remarkably of my old Rio Negro habitation. I have now for the firsttime brought my "rede" into use, and find it very comfortable. 

We came from Singapore in a small schooner with about fifty Chinese, Hindoos and Portuguese passengers, and were two days on the voyage, with nothing but rice and curry to eat, not having made any provision, it being our first experience of these country vessels. Malacca is anold Dutch city, but the Portuguese have left the strongest mark of theirpossession in the common language of the place being still theirs. Ihave now two Portuguese servants, a cook and a hunter, and find myselfthus almost brought back again to Brazil by the similarity of language, the people, and the jungle life. In Malacca we stayed only two days, being anxious to get into the country as soon as possible. I stayed witha Roman Catholic missionary; there are several here, each devoted to aparticular part of the population, Portuguese, Chinese and wild Malaysof the jungle. The gentleman we were with is building a large church, ofwhich he is architect himself, and superintends the laying of everybrick and the cutting of every piece of timber. Money enough could notbe raised here, so he took a voyage _round the world!_ and in the UnitedStates, California, and India got subscriptions sufficient to completeit. 

It is a curious and not very creditable thing that in the Englishcolonies of Singapore and Malacca there is not a single Protestantmissionary; while the conversion, education and physical and moralimprovement of the inhabitants (non-European) is entirely left to theseFrench missionaries, who without the slightest assistance from ourGovernment devote their lives to the Christianising and civilising ofthe varied populations which we rule over. 

Here the birds are abundant and most beautiful, more so than on theAmazon, and I think I shall soon form a most beautiful collection. Theyare, however, almost all common, and so are of little value except thatI hope they will be better specimens than usually come to England. Myguns are both very good, but I find powder and shot in Singaporecheaper than in London, so I need not have troubled myself to take any. So far both I and Charles have enjoyed excellent health. He can nowshoot pretty well, and is so fond of it that I can hardly get him to doanything else. He will soon be very useful, if I can cure him of hisincorrigible carelessness. At present I cannot trust him to do thesmallest thing without watching that he does it properly, so that Imight generally as well do it myself. I shall remain here probably twomonths, and then return to Singapore to prepare for a voyage to Cambodiaor somewhere else, so do not be alarmed if you do not hear from meregularly. Love to all. --Your affectionate son, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS MOTHER

_Singapore. September 30, 1854. _

My dear Mother, --I last wrote to you from Malacca in July. I have nowjust returned to Singapore after two months' hard work. At Malacca I hada pretty strong touch of fever with the old Rio Negro symptoms, but theGovernment doctor made me take a great quantity of quinine every day fora week together and so killed it, and in less than a fortnight I wasquite well and off to the jungle again. I see now how to treat thefever, and shall commence at once when the symptoms again appear. Inever took half enough quinine in America to cure me. Malacca is apretty place, and I worked very hard. Insects are not very abundantthere, still by perseverance I got a good number and many rare ones. Ofbirds, too, I made a good collection. I went to the celebrated MountOphir and ascended to the top. The walk was terrible--thirty milesthrough jungle, a succession of mud holes. My boots did good service. Welived there a week at the foot of the mountain, in a little hut builtby our men, and I got some fine new butterflies there and hundreds ofother new and rare insects. We had only rice and a little fish and tea, but came home quite well. The height of the mountain is about 4, 000feet. .. . Elephants and rhinoceroses, as well as tigers, are abundantthere, but we had our usual bad luck in not seeing any of them. 

On returning to Malacca I found the accumulations of two or three posts, a dozen letters and fifty newspapers. .. . 

I am glad to be safe in Singapore with my collections, as from here theycan be insured. I have now a fortnight's work to arrange, examine, andpack them, and then in four months hence there will be some work for Mr. Stevens. 

Sir James Brooke is here. I have called on him. He received me mostcordially, and offered me every assistance at Sarawak. I shall go therenext, as the missionary does not go to Cambodia for some months. Besides, I shall have some pleasant society at Sarawak, and shall get onin Malay, which is very easy, but I have had no practice--though still Ican ask for most common things. My books and instruments arrived inbeautiful condition. They looked as if they had been packed up but aday. Not so the unfortunate eatables. .. . --I remain your affectionateson, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO G. SILK

_Singapore. October 15, 1854. _

Dear G. , --To-morrow I sail for Sarawak. Sir J. Brooke has given me aletter to his nephew, Capt. Brooke, to make me at home till he arrives, which may be a month, perhaps. I look forward with much interest to seewhat he has done and how he governs. I look forward to spending a verypleasant time at Sarawak. .. . 

Sir W. Hooker's remarks are encouraging, but I cannot afford to collectplants. I have to work for a living, and plants would not pay unless Icollect nothing else, which I cannot do, being too much interested inzoology. I should like a botanical companion like Mr. Spruce very much. We are anxiously expecting accounts of the taking of Sebastopol. 

I am much obliged to Latham for quoting me, and hope to see it soon. That ought to make my name a little known. I have not your talent atmaking acquaintances, and find Singapore very dull. I have not found asingle companion. I long for you to walk about with and observe thequeer things in the streets of Singapore. The Chinamen and their waysare inexhaustibly amusing. My revolver is too heavy for daily use. Iwish I had had a small one. --Yours sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO AN UNKNOWN CORRESPONDENT[13]

_Si Munjon Coal Works, Borneo. May, 1855. _

One of the principal reasons which induced me to come here was that itis the country of those most strange and interesting animals, theorang-utans, or "mias" of the Dyaks. In the Sarawak district, thoughscarce twenty miles distant, they are quite unknown, there being someboundary line in this short space which, obeying the inexplicable lawsof distribution, they never pass. The Dyaks distinguish three differentkinds, which are known in Europe by skulls or skeletons only, muchconfusion still existing in their synonymy, and the external charactersof the adult animals being almost or quite unknown. I have already beenfortunate enough to shoot two young animals of two of the species, which were easily distinguishable from each other, and I hope by stayinghere some time to get adult specimens of all the species, and also toobtain much valuable information as to their habits. The jungle here isexceedingly monotonous; palms are scarce and flowers almost wanting, except some species of dwarf gingerwort. It is high on the trees thatflowers are alone to be found. .. . Oak trees are rather plentiful, as Ihave already found three species with red, brown, and black acorns. Thisis confirmatory of Dr. Hooker's statement that, contrary to thegenerally received opinion, oaks are equally characteristic of atropical as of a temperate climate. I must make an exception to thescarcity of flowers, however, tall slender trees occurring notunfrequently, whose stems are flower-bearing. One is a magnificentobject, 12 or 15 ft. Of the stem being almost hidden by richorange-coloured flowers, which in the gloomy forest have, as I havebefore remarked of tropical insects under similar circumstances, analmost magical effect of brilliancy. Not less beautiful is another treesimilarly clothed with spikes of pink and white berries. 

The only striking features of the animal world are the hornbills, whichare very abundant and take the place of the toucans of Brazil, though Ibelieve they have no real affinity with them; and the immense flights offruit-eating bats which frequently pass over us. They extend as far asthe eye can reach, and continue passing for hours. By counting andestimation I calculated that at least 30, 000 passed one evening while wecould see them, and they continued on some time after dark. The speciesis probably the _Pteropus edulis_; its expanded wings are near 5 ft. Across, and it flies with great ease and rapidity. Fruit seems so scarcein these jungles that it is a mystery where they find enough to supplysuch vast multitudes. 

Our mode of life here is very simple--rather too much so, as we have acontinual struggle to get enough to eat. The Sarawak market is to agreat extent supplied with rice, fowls, and sweet potatoes from thisriver, yet I have been obliged to send to Sarawak to purchase these veryarticles. The reason is that the Dyaks are almost all in debt to theMalay traders, and will therefore not sell anything, fearful of nothaving sufficient to satisfy their creditors. They have now just got intheir rice harvest, and though it is not a very abundant one there is noimmediate pressure of hunger to induce them to earn anything by huntingor snaring birds, etc. This also prevents them from being veryindustrious in seeking for the "mias, " though I have offered a highprice for full-grown animals. The old men here relate with pride howmany heads they have taken in their youth, and though they allacknowledge the goodness of the present Rajah's government, yet theythink that if they could still take a few heads they would have betterharvests. The more I see of uncivilised people, the better I think ofhuman nature on the whole, and the essential differences betweenso-called civilised and savage man seem to disappear. Here are we, twoEuropeans surrounded by a population of Chinese, Malays, and Dyaks. TheChinese are generally considered, and with some truth, to be thieves, liars, and careless of human life, and these Chinese are coolies of thevery lowest and least educated class. The Malays are invariablycharacterised as treacherous and bloodthirsty, and the Dyaks have onlyrecently ceased to think head-taking an absolute necessity. We are twodays' journey from Sarawak, where, though the Government is European, yet it only exists by the consent and support of the native population. Now I can safely say that in any part of Europe, if the same facilitiesfor crime and disturbance existed, things would not go on so smoothlyas they do here. We sleep with open doors and go about constantlyunarmed; one or two petty robberies and a little private fighting havetaken place among the Chinese, but the great proportion of them arequiet, honest, decent sort of men. They did not at first like thestrictness and punctuality with which the English manager kept them totheir work, and two or three ringleaders tried to get up a strike forshort hours and higher wages, but Mr. G. 's energy and decision soonstopped this by sending off the ringleaders at once, and summoning allthe Dyaks and Malays in the neighbourhood to his assistance in case ofany resistance being attempted. It was very gratifying to see howrapidly they came up at his summons, and this display of power did muchgood, for since then everything has gone on smoothly. Preparations arenow making for building a "joss house, " a sure sign that the Chinesehave settled to the work, and giving every promise of success in anundertaking which must have a vast influence on the progress of commerceand civilisation of Borneo and the surrounding countries. India, Australia, and every country with which they have communication mustalso be incalculably benefited by an abundant supply of good coal withintwo days' steam of Singapore. Let us wish success, then, to the SiMunjon Coal Works!--A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS

_Sadong River Borneo]. June 25, 1855. _

My dear Fanny, -- . .. I am now obliged to keep fowls and pigs, or weshould get nothing to eat. I have three pigs now and a China boy toattend to them, who also assists in skinning "orang-utans, " which he andCharles are doing at this moment. I have also planted some onions andpumpkins, which were above ground in three days and are growingvigorously. I have been practising salting pork, and find I can makeexcellent pickled pork here, which I thought was impossible, as everyoneI have seen try has failed. It is because they leave it to servants, whowill not take the necessary trouble. I do it myself. I shall thereforealways keep pigs in the future. I find there will not be time foranother box round the Cape, so must have a small parcel overland. Ishould much like my _lasts_, but nothing else, unless some canvas shoesare made. 

If the young man my mother and Mr. Stevens mentioned comes, he can bringthem. I shall write to Mr. Stevens about the terms on which I can takehim. I am, however, rather shy about it, having hitherto had no one tosuit me. As you seem to know him, I suppose he comes to see yousometimes. Let me know what you think of him. Do not tell me merely thathe is "a very nice young man. " Of course he is. So is Charles a verynice boy, but I could not be troubled with another like him for anyconsideration whatever. I have written to Mr. Stevens to let me know hischaracter, as regards _neatness_ and _perseverance_ in doing anything heis set about. From you I should like to know whether he is quiet orboisterous, forward or shy, talkative or silent, sensible or frivolous, delicate or strong. Ask him whether he can live on rice and salt fishfor a week on an occasion--whether he can do without wine or beer, andsometimes without tea, coffee or sugar--whether he can sleep on aboard--whether he likes the hottest weather in England--whether he istoo delicate to skin a stinking animal--whether he can walk twenty milesa day--whether he can work, for there is sometimes as hard work incollecting as in anything. Can he draw (not copy)? Can he speak French?Does he write a good hand? Can he make anything? Can he saw a piece ofboard straight? (Charles cannot, and every bit of carpenter work I haveto do myself. ) Ask him to make you anything--a little card box, awooden peg or bottle-stopper, and see if he makes them neat, straightand square. Charles never does anything the one or the other. Charleshas now been with me more than a year, and every day some suchconversation as this ensues: "Charles, look at these butterflies thatyou set out yesterday. " "Yes, sir. " "Look at that one--is it set outevenly?" "No, sir. " "Put it right then, and all the others that wantit. " In five minutes he brings me the box to look at. "Have you put themall right?" "Yes, sir. " "There's one with the wings uneven, there'sanother with the body on one side, then another with the pin crooked. Put them all right this time. " It most frequently happens that they haveto go back a third time. Then all is right. If he puts up a bird, thehead is on one side, there is a great lump of cotton on one side of theneck like a wen, the feet are twisted soles uppermost, or somethingelse. In everything it is the same, what ought to be straight is alwaysput crooked. This after twelve months' constant practice and constantteaching! And not the slightest sign of improvement. I believe he neverwill improve. Day after day I have to look over everything he does andtell him of the same faults. Another with a similar incapacity woulddrive me mad. He never, too, by any chance, puts anything away afterhim. When done with, everything is thrown on the floor. Every other dayan hour is lost looking for knife, scissors, pliers, hammer, pins, orsomething he has mislaid. Yet out of doors he does very well--hecollects insects well, and if I could get a neat, orderly person in thehouse I would keep him almost entirely at out-of-door work and atskinning, which he does also well, but cannot put into shape. .. . --Youraffectionate brother, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS MOTHER

_Sarawak. Christmas Day, 1855. _

My dear Mother, --You will see I am spending a second Christmas Day withthe Rajah. .. . I have lived a month with the Dyaks and have been ajourney about sixty miles into the interior. I have been very muchpleased with the Dyaks. They are a very kind, simple and hospitablepeople, and I do not wonder at the great interest Sir J. Brooke takes inthem. They are more communicative and lively than the American Indians, and it is therefore more agreeable to live with them. In moral characterthey are far superior to either Malays or Chinese, for thoughhead-taking has been a custom among them it is only as a trophy of war. In their own villages crimes are very rare. Ever since Sir J. Has beenhere, more than twelve years, in a large population there has been butone case of murder in a Dyak tribe, and that one was committed by astranger who had been adopted into the tribe. One wet day I got a pieceof string to show them how to play "scratch cradle, " and was quiteastonished to find that they knew it better than I did and could makeall sorts of new figures I had never seen. They were also very cleverwith tricks with string on their fingers, which seemed to be a favouriteamusement. Many of the distant tribes think the Rajah cannot be a man. They ask all sorts of curious questions about him, whether he is not asold as the mountains, whether he cannot bring the dead to life, and Ihave no doubt for many years after his death he will be looked upon as adeity and expected to come back again. I have now seen a good deal ofSir James, and the more I see of him the more I admire him. With thehighest talents for government he combines the greatest goodness ofheart and gentleness of manner. At the same time he has such confidenceand determination, that he has put down with the greatest ease someconspiracies of one or two Malay chiefs against him. It is a unique casein the history of the world, for a European gentleman to rule over twoconflicting races of semi-savages with their own consent, without anymeans of coercion, and depending solely upon them for protection andsupport, and at the same time to introduce the benefits of civilisationand check all crime and semi-barbarous practices. Under his government, "running amuck, " so frequent in all other Malay countries, has nevertaken place, and with a population of 30, 000 Malays, all of whom carrytheir "creese" and revenge an insult by a stab, murders do not occurmore than once in five or six years. 

The people are never taxed but with their own consent, and Sir J. 'sprivate fortune has been spent in the government and improvement of thecountry; yet this is the man who has been accused of injuring otherparties for his own private interests, and of wholesale murder andbutchery to secure his government!. .. --Your ever affectionate son, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS

_Singapore. . February 20, 1856. _

My dear Fanny, -- . .. I have now left Sarawak, where I began to feelquite at home, and may perhaps never return to it again; but I shallalways look back with pleasure to my residence there and to myacquaintance with Sir James Brooke, who is a gentleman and a nobleman inthe noblest sense of both words. .. . 

Charles has left me. He has stayed with the Bishop of Sarawak, who wantsteachers and is going to try to educate him for one. I offered to takehim on with me, paying him a fair price for all the insects, etc. , hecollected, but he preferred to stay. I hardly know whether to be glador sorry he has left. It saves me a great deal of trouble and annoyance, and I feel it quite a relief to be without him. On the other hand, it isa considerable loss for me, as he had just begun to be valuable incollecting. I must now try and teach a China boy to collect and pininsects. My collections in Borneo have been very good, but some of themwill, I fear, be injured by the long voyages of the ships. I havecollected upwards of 25, 000 insects, besides birds, shells, quadrupeds, and plants. The day I arrived here a vessel sailed for Macassar, and Ifear I shall not have another chance for two months unless I go aroundabout way, and perhaps not then, so I have hardly made up my mindwhat to do, --Your affectionate brother, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW, THOMAS SIMS

_Singapore. [Probably about March, 1856. ]_

Dear Thomas, -- . .. You and Fanny talk of my coming back for a triflingsore as if I was within an omnibus ride of Conduit St. I am nowperfectly well, and only waiting to go eastward. The far east is to mewhat the far west is to the Americans. They both meet in California, where I hope to arrive some day. I quite enjoy being a few days atSingapore now. The scene is at once so familiar and strange. Thehalf-naked Chinese coolies, the neat shopkeepers, the clean, fat, old, long-tailed merchants, all as busy and full of business as anyLondoners. Then the handsome Klings, who always ask double what theytake, and with whom it is most amusing to bargain. The crowd of boatmenat the ferry, a dozer begging and disputing for a farthing fare, theAmericans, the Malays, and the Portuguese make up a scene doublyinteresting to me now that I know something about them and can talk tothem in the general language of the place. The streets of Singapore on afine day are as crowded and busy as Tottenham Court Road, and from thevariety of nations and occupations far more interesting. I am moreconvinced than ever that no one can appreciate a new country in a shortvisit. After two years in the country I only now begin to understandSingapore and to marvel at the life and bustle, the varied occupations, and strange population, on a spot which so short a time ago was anuninhabited jungle. .. . --Yours affectionately, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS

_Singapore. April 21, 1856. _

My dear Fanny, --I believe I wrote to you last mail, and have now littleto say except that I am still a prisoner in Singapore and unable to getaway to my land of promise, Macassar, with whose celebrated oil you aredoubtless acquainted. I have been spending three weeks with my oldfriend the French missionary, going daily into the jungle, and fastingon Fridays on omelet and vegetables, a most wholesome custom which Ithink the Protestants were wrong to leave off. I have been reading Huc'stravels in China in French, and talking with a French missionary justarrived from Tonquin. I have thus obtained a great deal of informationabout these countries and about the extent of the Catholic missions inthem, which is astonishing. How is it that they do their work so muchmore thoroughly than the Protestant missionaries? In Cochin China, Tonquin, and China, where all Christian missionaries are obliged to livein secret and are subject to persecution, expulsion, and often death, yet every province, even those farthest in the interior of China, havetheir regular establishment of missionaries constantly kept up by freshsupplies who are taught the languages of the countries they are going toat Penang or Singapore. In China there are near a million Catholics, inTonquin and Cochin China more than half a million! One secret of theirsuccess is the cheapness of their establishments. A missionary isallowed about £30 a year, on which he lives, in whatever country he maybe. This has two good effects. A large number of missionaries can beemployed with limited funds, and the people of the countries in whichthey reside, seeing they live in poverty and with none of the luxuriesof life, are convinced they are sincere. Most are Frenchmen, and those Ihave seen or heard of are well-educated men, who give up their lives tothe good of the people they live among. No wonder they make converts, among the lower orders principally. For it must be a great comfort tothese poor people to have a man among them to whom they can go in anytrouble or distress, whose sole object is to comfort and advise them, who visits them in sickness, who relieves them in want, and whom theysee living in daily danger of persecution and death only for theirbenefit. 

You will think they have converted me, but in point of doctrine I thinkCatholics and Protestants are equally wrong. As missionaries I thinkCatholics are best, and I would gladly see none others, rather thanhave, as in New Zealand, sects of native Dissenters more rancorousagainst each other than in England. The unity of the Catholics is theirstrength, and an unmarried clergy can do as missionaries what marriedmen can never undertake. I have written on this subject because I havenothing else to write about. Love to Thomas and Edward. --Believe me, dear Fanny, your ever affectionate brother, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS

_Macassar. December 10, 1856. _

My dear Fanny, --I have received yours of September, and my mother's ofOctober, and as I am now going out of reach of letters for six months Imust send you a few lines to let you know that I am well and in goodspirits, though rather disappointed with the celebrated Macassar. .. . Forthe last fortnight, since I came in from the country, I have been livinghere rather luxuriously, getting good rich cow's milk to my tea andcoffee, very good bread and excellent Dutch butter (3s. A lb. ). Thebread here is raised with toddy just as it is fermenting, and it impartsa peculiar sweet taste to the bread which is very nice. At last, too, there is some fruit here. The mangoes have just come in, and they arecertainly magnificent. The flavour is something between a peach and amelon, with the slightest possible flavour of turpentine, and veryjuicy. They say they are unwholesome, and it is a good thing for me I amgoing away now. When I come back there will be not one to be had. .. . --Iremain, dear Fanny, your ever affectionate brother, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

H. W. BATES TO A. R. WALLACE

_Tunantins, Upper Amazon. November 19, 1856. _

Dear Wallace, -- . .. I received about six months ago a copy of your paperin the _Annals_ on "The Laws which have Governed the Introduction of NewSpecies. " I was startled at first to see you already ripe for theenunciation of the theory. You can imagine with what interest I read andstudied it, and I must say that it is perfectly well done. The idea islike truth itself, so simple and obvious that those who read andunderstand it will be struck by its simplicity; and yet it is perfectlyoriginal. The reasoning is close and clear, and although so brief anessay, it is quite complete, embraces the whole difficulty, andanticipates and annihilates all objections. 

Few men will be in a condition to comprehend and appreciate the paper, but it will infallibly create for you a high and sound reputation. Thetheory I quite assent to, and, you know, was conceived by me also, but Iprofess that I could not have propounded it with so much force andcompleteness. 

Many details I could supply, in fact a great deal remains to be done toillustrate and confirm the theory: a new method of investigating andpropounding zoology and botany inductively is necessitated, and newlibraries will have to be written; in part of this task I hope to be alabourer for many happy and profitable years. What a noble subject wouldbe that of a monograph of a group of beings peculiar to one region butoffering different species in each province of it--tracing the lawswhich connect together the modifications of forms and colour with the_local_ circumstances of a province or station--tracing as far aspossible the actual _affiliation_ of the species. 

Two of such groups occur to me at once, in entomology, in Heliconiidæand Erotylidæ of South America; the latter I think more interesting thanthe former for one reason--the species are more local, having feeblermeans of locomotion than the Heliconiidæ. .. . --Yours very truly, HENRY WALTER BATES. 

 * * * * *

TO H. W. BATES

_Amboyna. January 4, 1858. _

My dear Bates, --My delay of six months in answering your veryinteresting and most acceptable letter dated an ideal absurdity putforth when such a simple hypothesis will explain _all the facts_. 

I have been much gratified by a letter from Darwin, in which he saysthat he agrees with "almost every word" of my paper. He is now preparingfor publication his great work on species and varieties, for which hehas been collecting information twenty years. He may save me the troubleof writing the second part of my hypothesis by proving that there is nodifference in nature between the origin of species and varieties, or hemay give me trouble by arriving at another conclusion, but at all eventshis facts will be given for me to work upon. Your collections and my ownwill furnish most valuable material to illustrate and prove theuniversal applicability of the hypothesis. The connection between thesuccession of affinities and the geographical distribution of a group, worked out species by species, has never yet been shown as we shall beable to show it. In this Archipelago there are two distinct faunasrigidly circumscribed, which differ as much as those of South Americaand Africa, and more than those of Europe and North America: yet thereis nothing on the map or on the face of the islands to mark theirlimits. The boundary line often passes between islands closer thanothers in the same group. I believe the western part to be a separatedportion of continental Asia, the eastern the fragmentary prolongation ofa former Pacific continent. In mammalia and birds the distinction ismarked by genera, families, and even orders confined to one region; in_insects_ by a number of genera and little groups of peculiar species, the _families_ of insects having generally a universal distribution. 

 * * * * *

_Ternate, January 25, 1858. _

I have not done much here yet, having been much occupied in getting ahouse repaired and put in order. This island is a volcano with a slopingspur on which the town is situated. About ten miles to the east is thecoast of the large Island of Gilolo, perhaps the most perfectentomological _terra incognita_ now to be found. I am not aware that asingle insect has ever been collected there, and cannot find it given asthe locality of any insects in my catalogues or descriptions. In about aweek I go for a month collecting there, and then return to prepare for avoyage to New Guinea. I think I shall stay in this place two or threeyears, as it is the centre of a most interesting and almost unknownregion. Every house here was destroyed in 1840 by an earthquake duringan eruption of the volcano. .. . 

What great political events have passed since we left England together!And the most eventful for England, and perhaps the most glorious, is thepresent mutiny in India, which has proved British courage and pluck asmuch as did the famed battles of Balaclava and Inker-man. I believe thatboth India and England will gain in the end by the fearful ordeal. Whendo you mean returning for good? If you go to the Andes you will, Ithink, be disappointed, at least in the number of species, especially ofColeoptera. My experience here is that the low grounds are much the mostproductive, though the mountains generally produce a few striking andbrilliant species. .. . --Yours sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO F. BATES

_Ternate. March 2, 1858. _

My dear Mr. Bates, --When I received your very acceptable letter (a monthago) I had just written one to your brother, which I thought I could notdo better than send to you to forward to him, as I shall thereby be ableto confine myself solely to the group you are studying and to othermatters touched upon in your letter. I had heard from Mr. Stevens sometime ago that you had begun collecting exotic Geodephaga, but wereconfining yourself to one or two illustrations of each genus. I wassure, however, that you would soon find this unsatisfactory. Nature mustbe studied in detail, and it is the wonderful variety of the species ofa group, their complicated relations and their endless modification ofform, size and colours, which constitute the pre-eminent charm of theentomologist's study. It is with the greatest satisfaction, too, I hailyour accession to the very limited number of collectors and students ofexotic insects, and sincerely hope you may be sufficiently favoured byfortune to enable you to form an extensive collection and to devote thenecessary time to its study and ultimately to the preparation of acomplete and useful work. Though I cannot but be pleased that you areable to do so, I am certainly surprised to find that you indulge in theexpensive luxury of from three to seven specimens of a species. I shouldhave thought that in such a very extensive group you would have foundone or, at most, a pair quite sufficient. I fancy very few collectors ofexotic insects do more than this, except where they can obtainadditional specimens by gift or by exchange. Your remarks on mycollections are very interesting to me, especially as I have keptdescriptions with many outline figures of my Malacca and SarawakGeodephaga, so that with one or two exceptions I can recognise andperfectly remember every species you mention. .. . 

Now with regard to your request for notes of habits, etc. I shall bemost willing to comply with it to some extent, first informing you thatI look forward to undertaking on my return to England a "ColeopteraMalayana, " to contain descriptions of the known species of the wholeArchipelago, with an essay on their geographical distribution, and anaccount of the habits of the genera and species from my ownobservations. Of course, therefore, I do not wish any part of my notesto be published, as this will be a distinctive feature of the work, solittle being known of the habits, stations and modes of collectingexotic Coleoptera, . .. 

You appear to consider the state of entomological literature flourishingand satisfactory: to _me_ it seems quite the contrary. The number ofunfinished works and of others with false titles is disgraceful toscience. .. . 

I think . .. On the whole we may say that the Archipelago is _very rich_, and will bear a comparison even with the richest part of South America. In the country between Ega and Peru there is work for fifty collectorsfor fifty years. There are hundreds and thousands of Andean valleysevery one of which would bear exploring. Here it is the same withislands. I could spend twenty years here were life long enough, but feelI cannot stand it, away from home and books and collections andcomforts, more than four or five, and then I shall have work to do forthe rest of my life. What would be the use of accumulating materialswhich one could not have time to work up? I trust your brother may giveus a grand and complete work on the Coleoptera of the Amazon Valley, ifnot of all South America. .. . --Yours faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS MOTHER

_October 6, 1858. _

My dear Mother, -- . .. I have just returned from a short trip, and am nowabout to start on a longer one, but to a place where there are somesoldiers, a doctor and engineer who speak English, so if it is good forcollecting I shall stay there some months. It is Batchian, an island onthe south-west side of Gilolo, about three or four days' sail fromTernate. I am now quite recovered from my New Guinea voyage and am ingood health. 

I have received letters from Mr. Darwin and Dr. Hooker, two of the mosteminent naturalists in England, which has highly gratified me. I sentMr. Darwin an essay on a subject on which he is now writing a greatwork. He showed it to Dr. Hooker and Sir C. Lyell, who thought so highlyof it that they immediately read it before the Linnean Society. Thisassures me the acquaintance and assistance of these eminent men on myreturn home. 

Mr. Stevens also tells me of the great success of the Aru collection, ofwhich £1, 000 worth has actually been sold. This makes me hope I may soonrealise enough to live upon and carry out my long cherished plans of acountry life in old England. 

If I had sent the large and handsome shells from Aru, which are what youexpected to see, they would not have paid expenses, whereas the cigarbox of small ones has sold for £50. You must not think I shall always doso well as at Aru; perhaps never again, because no other collectionswill have the novelty, all the neighbouring countries producing birdsand insects very similar, and many even the very same. Still, if I havehealth I fear not to do very well. I feel little inclined now to go toCalifornia; as soon as I have finished my exploration of this region Ishall be glad to return home as quickly and cheaply as possible. Itwill certainly be by way of the Cape or by second class overland. May Imeet you, dear old Mother, and all my other relatives and friends, ingood health. Perhaps John and his trio will have had the start of me. .. . 

 * * * * *

TO H. W. BATES

_Ceram, November 25, 1859. _

Dear Bates, --Allow me to congratulate you on your safe arrival home withall your treasures; a good fortune which I trust is this time[14]reserved for me. I hope you will write to me and tell me your projects. Stevens hinted at your undertaking a "Fauna of the Amazon Valley. " Itwould be a noble work, but one requiring years of labour, as of courseyou would wish to incorporate all existing materials and would have tospend months in Berlin and Milan and Paris to study the collections ofSpix, Natterer, Oscolati, Castituan and others, as well as most of thechief private collections of Europe. I hope you may undertake it andbring it to a glorious conclusion. I have long been contemplating such awork for this Archipelago, but am convinced that the plan must be verylimited to be capable of completion. .. . --I remain, dear Bates, yoursvery sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO H. W. BATES

_Ternate. December 24, 1860. _

Dear Bates, --Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I havemyself suffered much in the same way as you describe, and I think moreseverely. The kind of _tædium vitæ_ you mention I also occasionallyexperience here. I impute it to a too monotonous existence. 

I know not how or to whom to express fully my admiration of Darwin'sbook. To him it would seem flattery, to others self-praise; but I dohonestly believe that with however much patience I had worked up andexperimented on the subject, I could never have _approached_ thecompleteness of his book--its vast accumulation of evidence, itsoverwhelming argument, and its admirable tone and spirit. I really feelthankful that it has not been left to me to give the theory to thepublic. Mr. Darwin has created a new science and a new philosophy, and Ibelieve that never has such a complete illustration of a new branch ofhuman knowledge been due to the labours and researches of a single man. Never have such vast masses of widely scattered and hitherto utterlydisconnected facts been combined into a system, and brought to bear uponthe establishment of such a grand and new and simple philosophy!. .. --Inhaste, yours faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW, THOMAS SIMS

_Delli, Timor. March 15, 1861_[15]

My dear Thomas, --I will now try and write you a few lines in reply toyour last three letters, which I have not before had time andinclination to do. First, about your _one-eyed_ and _two-eyed_ theory ofart, etc. Etc. I do not altogether agree with you. We do not see _allobjects_ wider with two eyes than with one. A spherical or curved objectwe do see so, because our right and left eye each see a portion of thesurface not seen by the other, but for that very reason the portion seenperfectly with both eyes is _less_ than with one. Thus [_see_ diagram onnext page] we only see from A to A with both our eyes, the two sideportions Ab Ab being seen with but one eye, and therefore (when we areusing both eyes) being seen obscurely. But if we look at a flat object, whether square or oblique to the line of vision, we see it of exactlythe same size with two eyes as with one because the one eye can see nopart of it that the other does not see also. But in painting I believethat this difference of proportion, where it does exist, is far toosmall to be _given_ by any artist and also too small to affect thepicture if given. 

[Illustration]

Again, I entirely deny that by _any means_ the exact effect of alandscape with objects at various distances from the eye can be given ona fiat surface; and moreover that the monocular clear outlined view isquite as true and good on the whole as the binocular hazy outlined view, and for this reason: we cannot and do not see clearly or look at twoobjects at once, if at different distances from us. In a real view oureyes are directed successively at every object, which we then seeclearly and with distinct outlines, everything else--nearer andfarther--being indistinct; but being able to change the focal angle ofour two eyes and their angle of direction with great rapidity, we areenabled to glance rapidly at each object in succession and thus obtain ageneral and detailed view of the whole. A house, a tree, a spire, theleaves of a shrub in the foreground, are each seen (while we direct oureyes to them) with perfect definition and sharpness of outline. Now amonocular photo gives the clearness of outline and accuracy ofdefinition, and thus represents every individual part of a landscapejust as we see it when looking at that part. Now I maintain that this is_right_, because no painting can represent an object both distinct andindistinct. The only question is, Shall a painting show us objects as wesee them when looking at them, or as we see them when looking at_something else_ near them? The only approach painters can make to thisvarying effect of binocular vision, and what they often do, is to givethe most important and main feature of their painting _distinct_ as weshould see it when looking at it in nature, while all around has asubdued tone and haziness of outline like that produced by seeing thereal objects when our vision is not absolutely directed to them. Butthen if, as in nature, when you turn your gaze to one of these objectsin order to see it clearly, you cannot do so, this is a defect. Again, Ibelieve that we actually see in a good photograph better than in nature, because the best camera lenses are more perfectly adjusted than oureyes, and give objects at varying distances with better definition. Thusin a picture we see at the same time near and distinct objects easilyand clearly, which in reality we cannot do. If we could do so, everyonemust acknowledge that our vision would be so much the more perfect andour appreciation of the beauties of nature more intense and complete;and in so far as a good landscape painting gives us this power it isbetter than nature itself; and I think this may account for thatexcessive and entrancing beauty of a good landscape or of a goodpanorama. You will think these ideas horribly heterodox, but if we allthought alike there would be nothing to write about and nothing tolearn. I quite agree with you, however, as to artists using both eyes topaint and to see their paintings, but I think you quite mistake thetheory of looking through the "catalogue"; it is not because the picturecan be seen better with one eye, but because its effect can be betterseen when all lateral objects are hidden--the catalogue does this. Adouble tube would be better, but that cannot be extemporised so easily. Have you ever tried a stereograph taken with the camera only thedistance apart of the eyes? That must give _nature_. When the angle isgreater the views in the stereoscope show us, not nature, but a perfectreduced model of nature seen nearer the eye. 

It is curious that you should put Turner and the Pre-Raphaelites as_opposed_ and representing _binocular_ and _monocular_ painting whenTurner himself praises up the Pre-Raphaelites and calls Holman Hunt thegreatest living painter!!. .. 

Now for Mr. Darwin's book. You quite misunderstand Mr. D. 's statement inthe preface and his sentiments. I have, of course, been incorrespondence with him since I first sent him my little essay. Hisconduct has been most liberal and disinterested. I think anyone whoreads the Linnean Society papers and his book will see it. I _do_ backhim up in his whole round of conclusions and look upon him as the_Newton of Natural History_. 

You begin by criticising the _title_. Now, though I consider the titleadmirable, I believe it is not Mr. Darwin's but the Publisher's, as youare no doubt aware that publishers _will_ have a taking title, andauthors must and do give way to them. Mr. D. Gave me a different titlebefore the book came out. Again, you misquote and misunderstand Huxley, who is a complete convert. Prof. Asa Gray and Dr. Hooker, the two firstbotanists of Europe and America, are converts. And Lyell, the firstgeologist living, who has all his life written against such conclusionsas Darwin arrives at, is a convert and is about to declare or alreadyhas declared his conversion--a noble and almost unique example of a manyielding to conviction on a subject which he has taught as a master allhis life, and confessing that he has all his life been wrong. 

It is clear that you have not yet sufficiently read the book to enableyou to criticise it. It is a book in which every page and almost everyline has a bearing on the main argument, and it is very difficult tobear in mind such a variety of facts, arguments and indications as arebrought forward. It was only on the _fifth_ perusal that I fullyappreciated the whole strength of the work, and as I had been longbefore familiar with the same subjects I cannot but think that personsless familiar with them cannot have any clear idea of the accumulatedargument by a single perusal. 

Your objections, so far as I can see anything definite in them, are sofully and clearly anticipated and answered in the book itself that it isperfectly useless my saying anything about them. It seems to me, however, as clear as daylight that the principle of Natural Selection_must_ act in nature. It is almost as necessary a truth as any ofmathematics. Next, the effects produced by this action _cannot belimited. _ It cannot be shown that there _is_ any limit to them innature. Again, the millions of facts in the numerical relations oforganic beings, their geographical distribution, their relations ofaffinity, the modification of their parts and organs, the phenomena ofintercrossing, embryology and morphology--all are in accordance with histheory, and almost all are necessary results from it; while on the othertheory they are all isolated facts having no connection with each otherand as utterly inexplicable and confusing as fossils are on the theorythat they are special creations and are not the remains of animals thathave once lived. It is the vast _chaos_ of facts, which are explicableand fall into beautiful order on the one theory, which are inexplicableand remain a chaos on the other, which I think must ultimately forceDarwin's views on any and every reflecting mind. Isolated difficultiesand objections are nothing against this vast cumulative argument. Thehuman mind cannot go on for ever accumulating facts which remainunconnected and without any mutual bearing and bound together by no law. The evidence for the production of the organic world by the simple lawsof inheritance is exactly of the same nature as that for the productionof the present surface of the earth--hills and valleys, plains, rocks, strata, volcanoes, and all their fossil remains--by the slow and naturalaction of natural causes now in operation. The mind that will ultimatelyreject Darwin must (to be consistent) reject Lyell also. The samearguments of apparent stability which are thought to disprove thatorganic species can change will also disprove any change in theinorganic world, and you must believe with your forefathers that eachhill and each river, each inland lake and continent, were created asthey stand, with their various strata and their various fossils--allappearances and arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. I can onlyrecommend you to read again Darwin's account of the horse family and itscomparison with pigeons; and if that does not convince and stagger you, then you are unconvertible. I do not expect Mr. Darwin's larger workwill add anything to the general strength of his argument. It willconsist chiefly of the details (often numerical) and experiments andcalculations of which he has already given the summaries and results. Itwill therefore be more confusing and less interesting to the generalreader. It will prove to scientific men the accuracy of his details, andpoint out the sources of his information, but as not one in a thousandreaders will ever test these details and references the smaller workwill remain for general purposes the best. .. . 

I see that the Great Exhibition for 1862 seems determined on. If so itwill be a great inducement to me to cut short the period of mybanishment and get home in time to see it. I assure you I now feel attimes very great longings for the peace and quiet of home--very muchweariness of this troublesome, wearisome, wandering life. I have lostsome of that elasticity and freshness which made the overcoming ofdifficulties a pleasure, and the country and people are now too familiarto me to retain any of the charms of novelty which gild over so muchthat is really monotonous and disagreeable. My health, too, gives way, and I cannot now put up so well with fatigue and privations as at first. All these causes will induce me to come home as soon as possible, and Ithink I may promise, if no accident happens, to come back to dear andbeautiful England in the summer of next year. C. Allen will stay a yearlonger and complete the work which I shall not be able to do. 

I have been pretty comfortable here, having for two months had thesociety of Mr. Geach, a Cornish mining engineer who has been looking forcopper here. He is a very intelligent and pleasant fellow, but has nowleft. Another Englishman, Capt. Hart, is a resident here. He has alittle house on the foot of the hills two miles out of town; I have acottage (which was Mr. Geach's) a quarter of a mile farther. He is whatyou may call a _speculative_ man: he reads a good deal, knows a littleand wants to know more, and is fond of speculating on the most abstruseand unattainable points of science and philosophy. You would beastonished at the number of men among the captains and traders of theseparts who have more than an average amount of literary and scientifictaste; whereas among the naval and military officers and variousGovernment officials very few have any such taste, but find their onlyamusements in card-playing and dissipation. Some of the mostintelligent and best informed Dutchmen I have met with are tradingcaptains and merchants. 

This country much resembles Australia in its physical features, and isvery barren compared with most of the other islands. .. . It is veryrugged and mountainous, having no true forests, but a scanty vegetationof gum trees with a few thickets in moist places. It is consequentlyvery poor in insects, and in fact will hardly pay my expenses; buthaving once come here I may as well give it a fair trial. Birds aretolerably abundant, but with few exceptions very dull coloured. I reallybelieve the whole series of birds of the tropical island of Timor areless beautiful and bright-coloured than those of Great Britain. In themountains potatoes, cabbages and wheat are grown in abundance, and so weget excellent pure bread made by Chinamen in Delli. Fowls, sheep, pigsand onions are also always to be had, so that it is the easiest countryto live in I have yet met with, as in most other places one is alwaysdoubtful whether a dinner can be obtained. I have been a trip to thehills and stayed ten days in the clouds, but it was very wet, being thewrong season. .. . 

Having now paid you off my literary debts, I trust you will give mecredit again for some long letters on things in general. Address now tocare of Hamilton, Gray and Co. , Singapore, and with love andremembrances to all friends, I remain, my dear Thomas, yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. -- . .. Will you, next time you visit my mother, make me a littleplan of her cottage, showing the rooms and their dimensions, so that Imay see if there will be room enough for me on my return? I shall want agood-sized room for my collections, and when I can decide exactly on myreturn it would be as well to get a little larger house beforehand ifnecessary. Please do not forget this. --Yours, A. R. W. 

P. S. --Write by next mail, as circumstances have occurred which make itpossible I may return home this year. --A. R. W. 

P. S. --You allude in your last letter to a subject I never touch uponbecause I know we cannot agree upon it. However, I will now say a fewwords, that you may know my opinions, and if you wish to convert me toyour way of thinking, take more vigorous measures to effect it. Youintimate that the happiness to be enjoyed in a future state will dependupon, and be a reward for, our belief in certain doctrines which youbelieve to constitute the essence of true religion. You must think, therefore, that belief is _voluntary_ and also that it is _meritorious_. But I think that a little consideration will show you that belief isquite independent of our will, and our common expressions show it. Wesay, "I wish I could believe him innocent, but the evidence is too clear"; or, "Whatever people may say, I can never believe he can do such amean action. " Now, suppose in any similar case the evidence on bothsides leads you to a certain belief or disbelief, and then a reward isoffered you for changing your opinion. Can you really change youropinion and belief, for the hope of reward or the fear of punishment?Will you not say, "As the matter stands I can't change my belief. Youmust give me proofs that I am wrong or show that the evidence I haveheard is false, and then I may change my belief "? It may be that you doget more and do change your belief. But this change is not voluntary onyour part. It depends upon the force of evidence upon your individualmind, and the evidence remaining the same and your mental facultiesremaining unimpaired--you cannot believe otherwise any more than you canfly. 

Belief, then, is not voluntary. How, then, can it be meritorious? Whena jury try a case, all hear the same evidence, but nine say "Guilty" andthree "Not guilty, " according to the honest belief of each. Are eitherof these more worthy of reward on that account than the others?Certainly you will say No! But suppose beforehand they all know orsuspect that those who say "Not guilty" will be punished and the restrewarded: what is likely to be the result? Why, perhaps six will say"Guilty" honestly believing it, and glad they can with a clearconscience escape punishment; three will say "Not guilty" boldly, andrather bear the punishment than be false or dishonest; the other three, fearful of being convinced against their will, will carefully stop theirears while the witnesses for the defence are being examined, and deludethemselves with the idea they give an honest verdict because they haveheard only one side of the evidence. If any out of the dozen deservepunishment, you will surely agree with me it is these. Belief ordisbelief is therefore not meritorious, and when founded on an unfairbalance of evidence is blameable. 

Now to apply the principles to my own case. In my early youth I heard, as ninety-nine-hundredths of the world do, only the evidence on oneside, and became impressed with a veneration for religion which has leftsome traces even to this day. I have since heard and read much on bothsides, and pondered much upon the matter in all its bearings. I spent, as you know, a year and a half in a clergyman's family and heard almostevery Tuesday the very best, most earnest and most impressive preacherit has ever been my fortune to meet with, but it produced no effectwhatever on my mind. I have since wandered among men of many races andmany religions. I have studied man, and nature in all its aspects, and Ihave sought after truth. In my solitude I have pondered much on theincomprehensible subjects of space, eternity, life and death. I think Ihave fairly heard and fairly weighed the evidence on both sides, and Iremain an _utter disbeliever_ in almost all that you consider the mostsacred truths. I will pass over as utterly contemptible the oft-repeatedaccusation that sceptics shut out evidence because they will not begoverned by the morality of Christianity. You I know will not believethat in my case, and _I_ know its falsehood as a general rule. I onlyask, Do you think I can change the self-formed convictions oftwenty-five years, and could you think such a change would have anythingin it to merit _reward_ from _justice_? I am thankful I can see much toadmire in all religions. To the mass of mankind religion of some kind isa necessity. But whether there be a God and whatever be His nature;whether we have an immortal soul or not, or whatever may be our stateafter death, I can have no fear of having to suffer for the study ofnature and the search for truth, or believe that those will be betteroff in a future state who have lived in the belief of doctrinesinculcated from childhood, and which are to them rather a matter ofblind faith than intelligent conviction. --A. R. W. 

This for yourself; show the _letter only_ to my mother. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS MOTHER

_Sourabaya, Java. July 20, 1861. _

My dear Mother, --I am, as you will see, now commencing my retreatwestwards, and have left the wild and savage Moluccas and New Guinea forJava, the Garden of the East, and probably without any exception thefinest island in the world. My plans are to visit the interior andcollect till November, and then work my way to Singapore so as to returnhome and arrive in the spring. Travelling here will be a much pleasanterbusiness than in any other country I have visited, as there are goodroads, regular posting stages, and regular inns or lodging-houses allover the interior, and I shall no more be obliged to carry about with methat miscellaneous lot of household furniture--bed, blankets, pots, kettles and frying pan, plates, dishes and wash-basin, coffee-pots andcoffee, tea, sugar and butter, salt, pickles, rice, bread and wine, pepper and curry powder, and half a hundred more odds and ends, theconstant looking after which, packing and repacking, calculating andcontriving, have been the standing plague of my life for the last sevenyears. You will better understand this when I tell you that I have madein that time about eighty movements, averaging one a month, at every oneof which all of these articles have had to be rearranged and repacked bymyself according to the length of the trip, besides a constant personalsupervision to prevent waste or destruction of stores in places where itis impossible to supply them. 

Fanny wrote me last month to know about how I should like to live on myreturn. Of course, my dear mother, I should not think of living anywherebut with you, after such a long absence, if you feel yourself equal tohousekeeping for us both; and I have always understood that your cottagewould be large enough. The accommodation I should require is, besides asmall bedroom, one large room, or a small one if there is, besides, akind of lumber room where I could keep my cases and do rough and dirtywork. I expect soon from Thomas a sketch-plan of your cottage, by whichI can at once tell if it will do. If not, I must leave you and Fanny toarrange as you like about a new residence. I should prefer being alittle way out of town in a quiet neighbourhood and with a garden, butnear an omnibus route, and if necessary I could lodge at any time for aweek in London. This, I think, will be better and much cheaper thanliving close to town, and rents anywhere in the West End are sure now torise owing to the approaching Great Exhibition. I must of course studyeconomy, as the little money I have made will not be all got in for ayear or two after my return. .. . 

You must remember to write to me by the middle of November mail, as thatis probably the last letter I can receive from you. 

I send the letter to Fanny, who will most likely call on you and talkover matters. I am a little confused arriving in a new place with agreat deal to do and living in a noisy hotel, so different to my usualsolitary life, so that I cannot well collect my ideas to write any more, but must remain, my dear mother, your ever affectionate son, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS

_In the Mountains of Java. October 10, 1861. _

My dear Fanny, --I have just received your second letter in praise ofyour new house. As I have said my say about it in my last, I shall nowsend you a few lines on other subjects. 

I have been staying here a fortnight 4, 000 feet above the sea in a finecool climate, but it is unfortunately dreadfully wet and cloudy. I havejust returned from a three days' excursion to one of the great Javavolcanoes 10, 000 feet high. I slept two nights in a house 7, 500 feetabove the sea. It was bitterly cold at night, as the hut was merely ofplaited bamboo, like a sieve, so that the wind came in on all sides. Ihad flannel jackets and blankets and still was cold, and my poor men, with nothing but their usual thin cotton clothes, passed miserablenights lying on a mat on the ground round the fire which could only warmone side at a time. The highest peak is an extinct volcano with thecrater nearly filled up, forming merely a saucer on the top, in whichis a good house built by the Government for the old Dutch naturalistswho surveyed and explored the mountain. There are a lot of strawberriesplanted there, which do very well, but there were not many ripe. Thecommon weeds and plants of the top were very like English ones, such asbuttercups, sow-thistle, plantain, wormwood, chickweed, charlock, St. John's wort, violets and many others, all closely allied to our commonplants of those names, but of distinct species. There was also ahoney-suckle, and a tall and very pretty kind of cowslip. None of theseare found in the low tropical lands, and most of them only on the topsof these high mountains. Mr. Darwin supposed them to have come thereduring a glacial or very cold period, when they could have spread overthe tropics and, as the heat increased, gradually rose up the mountains. They were, as you may imagine, most interesting to me, and I am veryglad that I have ascended _one_ lofty mountain in the tropics, though Ihad miserable wet weather and had no view, owing to constant clouds andmist. 

I also visited a semi-active volcano close by continually sending outsteam with a noise like a blast-furnace--quite enough to give me aconception of all other descriptions of volcanoes. 

The lower parts of the mountains of Java, from 3, 000 to 6, 000 feet, havethe most beautiful tropical vegetation I have ever seen. Abundance ofsplendid tree ferns, some 50 ft. High, and some hundreds of varieties ofother ferns, beautiful-leaved plants as begonias, melastomas, and manyothers, and more flowers than are generally seen in the tropics. Infact, this region exhibits all the beauty the tropics can produce, butstill I consider and will always maintain that our own meadows and woodsand mountains are more beautiful. Our own weeds and wayside flowers arefar prettier and more varied than those of the tropics. It is only thegreat leaves and the curious-looking plants, and the deep gloom of theforests and the mass of tangled vegetation that astonish and delightEuropeans, and it is certainly grand and interesting and in a certainsense beautiful, but not the calm, sweet, warm beauty of our own fields, and there is none of the brightness of our own flowers; a field ofbuttercups, a hill of gorse or of heather, a bank of foxgloves and ahedge of wild roses and purple vetches surpass in _beauty_ anything Ihave ever seen in the tropics. This is a favourite subject with me, butI cannot go into it now. 

Send the accompanying note to Mr. Stevens immediately. You will see whatI say to him about my collections here. Java is the richest of all theislands in birds, but they are as well known as those of Europe, and itis almost impossible to get a new one. However, I am adding finespecimens to my collection, which will be altogether the finest known ofthe birds of the Archipelago, except perhaps that of the Leyden Museum, who have had naturalists collecting for them in all the chief islandsfor many years with unlimited means. 

Give my kind love to mother, to whom I will write next time. --Youraffectionate brother, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO G. SILK[16]

_Singapore. January 20, 1862. _

My dear George, -- . .. On the question of marriage we probably differmuch. I believe a good wife to be the greatest blessing a man can enjoy, and the only road to happiness, but the qualifications I should look forare probably not such as would satisfy you. My opinions have changedmuch on this point: I now look at intellectual companionship as quite asecondary matter, and should my good stars ever send me an affectionate, good-tempered and domestic wife, I shall care not one iota foraccomplishments or even for education. 

I cannot write more now. I do not yet know how long I shall be here, perhaps a month. Then ho! for England!--In haste, yours mostaffectionately, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

PART II

I. --The Discovery of Natural Selection

 "There are not many joys in human life equal to the joy of the sudden birth of a generalisation, illuminating the mind after a long period of patient research. What has seemed for years so chaotic, so contradictory, and so problematic takes at once its proper position within an harmonious whole. Out of the wild confusion of facts and from behind the fog of guesses--contradicted almost as soon as they are born--a stately picture makes its appearance, like an Alpine chain suddenly emerging in all its grandeur from the mists which concealed it the moment before, glittering under the rays of the sun in all its simplicity and variety, in all its mightiness and beauty. And when the generalisation is put to a test, by applying it to hundreds of separate facts which seemed to be hopelessly contradictory the moment before, each of them assumes its due position, increasing the impressiveness of the picture, accentuating some characteristic outline, or adding an unsuspected detail full of meaning. The generalisation gains in strength and extent; its foundations grow in width and solidity; while in the distance, through the far-off mist on the horizon, the eye detects the outlines of new and still wider generalisations. He who has once in his life experienced this joy of scientific creation will never forget it; he will be longing to renew it; and he cannot but feel with pain that this sort of happiness is the lot of so few of us, while so many could also live through it--on a small or on a grand scale--if scientific methods and leisure were not limited to a handful of men. "--PRINCE KROPOTKIN, "Memoirs of a Revolutionist. "

The social and scientific atmosphere in which Wallace found himself onhis return from his eight years' exile in the Malay Archipelago wasconsiderably more genial than that which he had enjoyed during hisprevious stay in London following his exploration of the Amazon. Hisposition as one of the leading scientists of the day was alreadyrecognised, dating from the memorable 1st of July, 1858, when the twoPapers, his own and Darwin's, on the theory of Natural Selection hadbeen read before the Linnean Society. 

During the four years which had elapsed since that date the storm ofcriticism had waxed and waned; subsiding for a time only to burst outafresh from some new quarter where the theory bade fair to jeopardisesome ancient belief in which scientist or theologian had rested withcomparative satisfaction until so rudely disturbed. 

During this period Wallace had been quietly pursuing his researches inthe Malay Archipelago, though not without a keen interest in all thatwas taking place at home in so far as this reached him by means ofcorrespondence and newspaper reports--his only means of keeping in touchwith the world beyond the boundaries of the semi-civilised countries inwhich he was then living. 

In order to follow the story of how the conception of the theory ofNatural Selection grew and eventually took definite form in Wallace'smind, independently of the same development in the mind of Darwin, wemust go back to a much earlier period in his life, and as nearly aspossible link up, the scattered remarks which here and there act assignposts pointing towards the supreme solution which has made his namefamous for all time. 

In Part I. , Section I. , many passages occur which clearly reveal hisawakening to the study of nature. A chance remark overheard inconversation in the quiet street of Hertford touched the hidden springof interest in a subject which was to become the one great purpose ofhis life. Then his enthusiastic yielding to the simple and naturalattraction which flowers and trees have always exerted upon thesympathetic observer led step by step to the study of groups andfamilies, until, on his second sojourn at Neath, and about a year beforehis journey to South America with H. W. Bates, we find him deliberatelypondering over the problem which many years later he described by sayingthat he "had in fact been bitten by the passion for species and theirdescription. "

In a letter to Bates dated November 9th, 1847, he concludes by asking, "Have you read 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, ' or is itout of your line?" and in the next (dated December 28th), in reply toone from his friend, he continues, "I have a rather more favourableopinion of the 'Vestiges' than you appear to have, I do not consider ita hasty generalisation, but rather an ingenious hypothesis stronglysupported by some striking facts and analogies, but which remains to beproved by more facts and the additional light which more research maythrow upon the problem. .. . It furnishes a subject for every observer ofnature to attend to; every fact, " he observes, "will make either for oragainst it, and it thus serves both as an incitement to the collectionof facts, and an object to which they can be applied when collected. Many eminent writers support the theory of the progressive developmentof animals and plants. There is a very philosophical work bearingdirectly on the question--Lawrence's 'Lectures on Man'. .. . The greatobject of these 'Lectures' is to illustrate the different races ofmankind, and the manner in which they probably originated, and hearrives at the conclusion (as also does Prichard in his work on the'Physical History of Man') that the varieties of the human race have notbeen produced by any external causes, but are due to the development ofcertain distinctive peculiarities in some individuals which havethereafter become propagated through an entire race. Now, I should saythat a permanent peculiarity not produced by external causes is acharacteristic of 'species' and not of mere 'variety, ' and thus, if thetheory of the 'Vestiges' is accepted, the Negro, the Red Indian, and theEuropean are distinct species of the genus Homo. 

"An animal which differs from another by some decided and permanentcharacter, however slight, which difference is undiminished bypropagation and unchanged by climate and external circumstances, isuniversally held to be a distinct _species_; while one which is notregularly transmitted so as to form a distinct race, but is occasionallyreproduced from the parent stock (like albinoes), is generally, if thedifference is not very considerable, classed as a _variety_. But I wouldclass both these as distinct _species_, and I would only consider thoseto be _varieties_ whose differences are produced by external causes, andwhich, therefore, are not propagated as distinct races. "

Again, writing about the same period, he adds: "I begin to feel ratherdissatisfied with a mere local collection; little is to be learnt by it. I should like to take some one family to study thoroughly, principallywith a view to the theory of the origin of species. By that means I amstrongly of opinion that some definite results might be arrived at. " Andhe further alludes to "my favourite subject--the variations, arrangements, distribution, etc. , of species. "[17]

It is evident that in Bates Wallace found his first real friend andcompanion in matters scientific; for in another letter he says: "I quiteenvy you, who have friends near you attracted to the same pursuits. Iknow not a single person in this little town who studies any one branchof natural history, so that I am quite alone in this respect. " In fact, except for a little friendly help now and then, as in the case of Mr. Hayward lending him a copy of Loudon's Encyclopedia of Plants, he hadalways pondered over his nature studies without any assistance up to thetime of his meeting Bates at Leicester. 

From the date of the above letter (1847) on to the early part of1855--nearly eight years later--no reference is found either in his Lifeor correspondence to the one absorbing idea towards which all hisreflective powers were being directed. Then, during a quiet time atSarawak, the accumulation of thought and observation found expression inan essay entitled "The Law which has regulated the Introduction ofSpecies, " which appeared in the _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_in the following September (1855). 

From November, 1854, the year of his arrival in the East, until Januaryor February, 1856, Sarawak was the centre from which Wallace made hisexplorations inland, including some adventurous excursions on the SadongRiver. During the wet season--or spring--of 1855, while living in asmall house at the foot of the Santubong Mountains (with one Malay boywho acted as cook and general companion), he tells us how he occupiedhis time in looking over his books and pondering "over the problem whichwas rarely absent from [his] thoughts. " In addition to the knowledge hehad acquired from reading such books as those by Swainson and Humboldt, also Lucien Bonaparte's "Conspectus, " and several catalogues of insectsand reptiles in the British Museum "giving a mass of facts" as to thedistribution of animals over the whole world, and having by his ownefforts accumulated a vast store of information and facts direct fromnature while in South America and since coming out East, he arrived atthe conclusion that this "mass of facts" had never been properlyutilised as an indication of the way in which species had come intoexistence. Having no fellow-traveller to whom he could confide theseconclusions, he was almost driven to put his thoughts and ideas onpaper--weighing each argument with studious care and open-eyedconsideration as to its bearing on the whole theory. As the "resultseemed to be of some importance, " it was sent, as already mentioned, tothe _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_ as one of the leadingscientific journals in England. 

In the light of future events it is not surprising that Huxley (manyyears later), in referring to this "powerful essay, " adds: "On readingit afresh I have been astonished to recollect how small was theimpression it made. "

As this earliest contribution by Wallace to the doctrine of Evolution[18]is of peculiar historical value, and has not been so fully recognised asit undoubtedly deserves, and is now almost inaccessible, it will beuseful to indicate in his own words the clear line of argument put forthby him two years before his second essay with which many readers aremore familiar. He begins:

 Every naturalist who has directed his attention to the subject of the geographical distribution of animals and plants must have been interested in the singular facts which it presents. Many of these facts are quite different from what would have been anticipated, and have hitherto been considered as highly curious but quite inexplicable. None of the explanations attempted from the time of Linnæus are now considered at all satisfactory; none of them have given a cause sufficient to account for the facts known at the time, or comprehensive enough to include all the new facts which have since been and are daily being added. Of late years, however, a great light has been thrown upon the subject by geological investigations, which have shown that the present state of the earth, and the organisms now inhabiting it, are but the last stage of a long and uninterrupted series of changes which it has undergone, and consequently, that to endeavour to explain and account for its present condition without any reference to those changes (as has frequently been done) must lead to very imperfect and erroneous conclusions. .. . The following propositions in Organic Geography and Geology give the main facts on which the hypothesis [_see_ p. 96] is founded. 

 GEOGRAPHY

 (1) Large groups, such as classes and orders, are generally spread over the whole earth, while smaller ones, such as families and genera, are frequently confined to one portion, often to a very limited district. 

 (2) In widely distributed families the genera are often limited in range; in widely distributed genera, well-marked groups of species are peculiar to each geographical district. 

 (3) When a group is confined to one district and is rich in species, it is almost invariably the case that the most closely allied species are found in the same locality or in closely adjoining localities, and that therefore the natural sequence of the species by affinity is also geographical. 

 (4) In countries of a similar climate, but separated by a wide sea or lofty mountains, the families, genera and species of the one are often represented by closely allied families, genera and species peculiar to the other. 

 GEOLOGY

 (5) The distribution of the organic world in time is very similar to its present distribution in space. 

 (6) Most of the larger and some of the smaller groups extend through several geological periods. 

 (7) In each period, however, there are peculiar groups, found nowhere else, and extending through one or several formations. 

 (8) Species of one genus, or genera of one family, occurring in the same geological time are more closely allied than those separated in time. 

 (9) As generally in geography no species or genus occurs in two very distant localities without being also found in intermediate places, so in geology the life of a species or genus has not been interrupted. In other words, no group or species has come into existence twice. 

 (10) The following law may be deduced from these facts: _Every species has come into existence coincident both in time and space with a pre-existing closely allied species_. 

 This law agrees with, explains and illustrates all the facts connected with the following branches of the subject: 1st, the system of natural affinities; 2nd, the distribution of animals and plants in space; 3rd, the same in time, including all the phenomena of representative groups, and those which Prof. Forbes supposed to manifest polarity; 4th, the phenomena of rudimentary organs. We will briefly endeavour to show its bearing upon each of these. 

 If [this] law be true, it follows that the natural series of affinities will also represent the order in which the several species came into existence, each one having had for its immediate antetype a clearly allied species existing at the time of its origin. .. . If two or more species have been independently formed on the plan of a common antetype, then the series of affinities will be compound, and can only be represented by a forked or many-branched line. .. . Sometimes the series of affinities can be well represented for a space by a direct progression from species to species or from group to group, but it is generally found impossible so to continue. There constantly occur two or more modifications of an organ or modifications of two distinct organs, leading us on to two distinct series of species, which at length differ so much from each other as to form distinct genera or families. These are the parallel series or representative groups of naturalists, and they often occur in different countries, or are found fossil in different formations. .. . We thus see how difficult it is to determine in every case whether a given relation is an analogy or an affinity, for it is evident that as we go back along the parallel or divergent series, towards the common antetype, the analogy which existed between the two groups becomes an affinity. .. . Again, if we consider that we have only the fragments of this vast system, the stems and main branches being represented by extinct species of which we have no knowledge, while a vast mass of limbs and boughs and minute twigs and scattered leaves is what we have to place in order, and determine the true position each originally occupied with regard to the others, the whole difficulty of the true Natural System of classification becomes apparent to us. 

 We shall thus find ourselves obliged to reject all those systems of classification which arrange species or groups in circles, as well as those which fix a definite number for the division of each group. .. . We have . .. Never been able to find a case in which the circle has been closed by a direct affinity. In most cases a palpable analogy has been substituted, in others the affinity is very obscure or altogether doubtful. .. . 

 If we now consider the geographical distribution of animals and plants upon the earth, we shall find all the facts beautifully in accordance with, and readily explained by, the present hypothesis. A country having species, genera, and whole families peculiar to it will be the necessary result of its having been isolated for a long period, sufficient for many series of species to have been created on the type of pre-existing ones, which, as well as many of the earlier-formed species, have become extinct, and made the groups appear isolated. .. . 

 Such phenomena as are exhibited by the Galapagos Islands, which contain little groups of plants and animals peculiar to themselves, but most nearly allied to those of South America, have not hitherto received any, even a conjectural explanation. The Galapagos are a volcanic group of high antiquity and have probably never been more closely connected with the continent than they are at present. 

He then proceeds at some length to explain how the Galapagos must havebeen at first "peopled . .. By the action of winds and currents, " andthat the modified prototypes remaining are the "new species" which havebeen "created in each on the plan of the pre-existing ones. " This isfollowed by a graphic sketch of the general effect of volcanic andother action as affecting the distribution of species, and the exactform in which they are found, even fishes giving "evidence of a similarkind: each great river [having] its peculiar genera, and in moreextensive genera its groups of closely allied species. "

After stating a number of practical examples he continues:

 The question forces itself upon every thinking mind--Why are these things so? They could not be as they are, had no law regulated their creation and dispersion. The law here enunciated not merely explains, but necessitates the facts we see to exist, while the vast and long-continued geological changes of the earth readily account for the exceptions and apparent discrepancies that here and there occur. The writer's object in putting forward his views in the present imperfect manner is to submit them to the tests of other minds, and to be made aware of all the facts supposed to be inconsistent with them. As his hypothesis is one which claims acceptance solely as explaining and connecting facts which exist in nature, he expects facts alone to be brought forward to disprove it, not _a priori_ arguments against its probability. 

He then refers to some of the geological "principles" expounded by SirCharles Lyell on the "extinction of species, " and follows this up bysaying:

 To discover how the extinct species have from time to time been replaced by new ones down to the very latest geological period, is the most difficult, and at the same time the most interesting, problem in the natural history of the earth. The present inquiry, which seeks to eliminate from known facts a law which has determined, to a certain degree, what species could and did appear at a given epoch, may, it is hoped, be considered as one step in the right direction towards a complete solution of it. .. . Admitted facts seem to show . .. A general, but not a detailed progression. .. . It is, however, by no means difficult to show that a real progression in the scale of organisation is perfectly consistent with all the appearances, and even with apparent retrogression should such occur. 

Using once more the analogy of a branching tree to illustrate thenatural arrangement of species and their successive creation, he clearlyshows how "apparent retrogression may be in reality a progress, thoughan interrupted one"; as "when some monarch of the forest loses a limb, it may be replaced by a feeble and sickly substitute. " As an instance hementions the Mollusca, which at an early period had reached a high stateof development of forms and species, while in each succeeding agemodified species and genera replaced the former ones which had becomeextinct, and "as we approach the present era but few and smallrepresentatives of the group remain, while the Gasteropods and Bivalveshave acquired an immense preponderance. " In the long series of changesthe earth had undergone, the process of peopling it with organic beingshad been continually going on, and whenever any of the higher groups hadbecome nearly or quite extinct, the lower forms which better resistedthe modified physical conditions served as the antetype on which tofound new races. In this manner alone, it was believed, could therepresentative groups of successive periods, and the risings andfallings in the scale of organisations, be in every case explained. 

Again, attending to a recent article by Prof. Forbes, he points outcertain inaccuracies and how they may be proved to be so; and continues:

 We have no reason for believing that the number of species on the earth at any former period was much less than at present; at all events the aquatic portion, with which the geologists have most acquaintance, was probably often as great or greater. Now we know that there have been many complete changes of species, new sets of organisms have many times been introduced in place of old ones which have become extinct, so that the total amount which have existed on the earth from the earliest geological period must have borne about the same proportion to those now living as the whole human race who have lived and died upon the earth to the population at the present time. .. . Records of vast geological periods are entirely buried beneath the ocean . .. Beyond our reach. Most of the gaps in the geological series may thus be filled up, and vast numbers of unknown and unimaginable animals which might help to elucidate the affinities of the numerous isolated groups which are a perpetual puzzle to the zoologist may be buried there, till future revolutions may raise them in turn above the water, to afford materials for the study of whatever race of intelligent beings may then have succeeded us. These considerations must lead us to the conclusion that our knowledge of the whole series of the former inhabitants of the earth is necessarily most imperfect and fragmentary--as much as our knowledge of the present organic world would be, were we forced to make our collections and observations only in spots equally limited in area and in number with those actually laid open for the collection of fossils. .. . The hypothesis of Prof. Forbes is essentially one that assumes to a great extent the _completeness_ of our knowledge of the _whole series_ of organic beings which have existed on earth. .. . The hypothesis put forward in this paper depends in no degree upon the completeness of our knowledge of the former condition of the organic world, but takes what facts we have as fragments of a vast whole, and deduces from them something of the nature and proportion of that whole which we can never know in detail. .. . 

 Another important series of facts, quite in accordance with, and even necessary deductions from, the law now developed, are those of _rudimentary organs_. That these really do exist, and in most cases have no special function in the animal economy, is admitted by the first authorities in comparative anatomy. The minute limbs hidden beneath the skin in many of the snake-like lizards, the anal hooks of the boa constrictor, the complete series of jointed finger-bones in the paddle of the manatee and the whale, are a few of the most familiar instances. In botany a similar class of facts has been long recognised. Abortive stamens, rudimentary floral envelope and undeveloped carpels are of the most frequent occurrence. To every thoughtful naturalist the question must arise, What are these for? What have they to do with the great laws of creation? Do they not teach us something of the system of nature? If each species has been created independently, and without any necessary relation with pre-existing species, what do these rudiments, these apparent imperfections, mean? There must be a cause for them; they must be the necessary result of some great natural law. Now, if . .. The great law which has regulated the peopling of the earth with animal and vegetable life is, that every change shall be gradual; that no new creature shall be formed widely different from anything before existing; that in this, as in everything else in nature, there shall be gradation and harmony--then these rudimentary organs are necessary and are an essential part of the system of nature. Ere the higher vertebrates were formed, for instance, many steps were required, and many organs had to undergo modifications from the rudimental condition in which only they had as yet existed. .. . Many more of these modifications should we behold, and more complete series of them, had we a view of all the forms which have ceased to live. The great gaps that exist . .. Would be softened down by intermediate groups, and the whole organic world would be seen to be an unbroken and harmonious system. 

The article, in which we can see a great generalisation struggling to beborn, ends thus:

 It has now been shown, though most briefly and imperfectly, how the law that "every species has come into existence coincident both in time and space with a pre-existing closely allied species, " connects together and renders intelligible a vast number of independent and hitherto unexplained facts. The natural system of arrangement of organic beings, their geographical distribution, their geological sequence, the phenomena of representative and substituted groups in all their modifications, and the most singular peculiarities of anatomical structure, are all explained and illustrated by it, in perfect accordance with the vast mass of facts which the researches of modern naturalists have brought together, and, it is believed, not materially opposed to any of them. It also claims a superiority over previous hypotheses, on the ground that it not merely explains but necessitates what exists. Granted the law, and many of the most important facts in nature could not have been otherwise, but are almost as necessary deductions from it as are the elliptic orbits of the planets from the law of gravitation. 

Some time after the appearance of this article, Wallace was informed byhis friend and agent, Mr. Stevens, that several naturalists hadexpressed regret that he was "theorising, " when what "was wanted was tocollect more facts. " Apart from this the only recognition which reachedhim in his remote solitude was a remark in an approving letter fromDarwin (_see_ p. 129). 

As Wallace wrote nothing further of importance until the second essaywhich more fully disclosed his view of the origin of species, we willnow briefly trace the growth of the theory of Natural Selection up to1858, as it came to Darwin. 

It is well known that during Darwin's voyage in the _Beagle_ he wasdeeply impressed by discovering extinct armadillo-like fossil forms inSouth America, the home of armadilloes, and by observing therelationship of the plants and animals of each island in the Galapagosgroup to those of the other islands and of South America, the nearestcontinent. These facts suggested evolution, and without evolutionappeared to be meaningless. 

Evolution and its motive cause were the problems which "haunted" him forthe next twenty years. The first step towards a possible solution wasthe "opening of a notebook for facts in relation to the origin ofspecies" in 1837, two years before the publication of his Journal. Fromthe very commencement of his literary and scientific work, a rulerigidly adhered to was that of interspersing his main line of thoughtand research by reading books touching on widely diverging subjects; andit was thus, no doubt, that during October, 1838, he read "foramusement" Malthus's "Essay on Population"; not, as he himself affirms, with any definite idea as to its intimate bearing on the subject so nearhis heart. But the immediate result was that the idea of NaturalSelection at once arose in his mind, and, in his own words, he "had atheory by which to work. "

In May and June, 1842, during a visit to Maer and Shrewsbury, he wrotehis first "pencil sketch of Species theory, " but not until two yearslater (1844) did he venture to enlarge this to one of 230 folio pages, "a wonderfully complete presentation of the arguments familiar to us inthe 'Origin. '"[19]

Already, in addition to the mass of facts collected, Darwin was busywith some of the experiments which he described in a letter to SirJoseph Hooker (in 1855) as affording the latter a "good right to sneer, for they are so _absurd_, even in _my_ opinion, that I dare not tellyou. " While a sentence in another letter (dated 1849) throws a sidelighton all this preparatory work: "In your letter you wonder what'ornamental poultry' has to do with barnacles; but do not flatteryourself that I shall not yet live to finish the barnacles, and thenmake a fool of myself on the subject of species, under which headornamental poultry are very interesting. "

Somewhere about this time (1842-44), Darwin, referring to the idea ofNatural Selection which arose in his mind after reading Malthus on"Population" four years earlier, continues: "But at that time Ioverlooked one problem of great importance . .. The tendency in organicbeings descended from the same stock to diverge in character as theybecome modified . .. And I can remember the very spot in the road, whilstin my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me. .. . Thesolution, as I believe, is that the modified offspring of all dominantand increasing forms tend to become adapted to many and highlydiversified places in the economy of nature. "[20]

So convinced was he of the truth of his ideas as expressed in the 1844MS. , that immediately after its completion he wrote the memorable letterto Mrs. Darwin telling her what he would wish done regarding itspublication in the event of his death. 

It was probably about two years later (1846) that he first confided hiscompleted work--up to that date--to Sir Joseph Hooker, and later to SirCharles Lyell; refraining, however, except in general conversation withother scientists, from informing anyone of the progress he was makingtowards a positive solution of the problem. His attitude of mind andmanner at this period is happily illustrated by Huxley, who, speaking ofhis early acquaintance with Darwin, says: "I remember in the course ofmy first interview with Darwin expressing my belief in the sharpness ofthe line of demarcation between natural groups and in the absence oftransitional forms, with all the confidence of youth and imperfectknowledge. I was not aware, at that time, that he had then been manyyears brooding over the Species question; and the humorous smile whichaccompanied his gentle answer, that such was not altogether his view, long haunted and puzzled me. "

Little did Charles Darwin dream that, only three years after this firstMS. Was written (in 1844), a youthful naturalist--known only as asurveyor at Neath--was deliberately pondering over the same issue, andwriting to his only scientific friend on the subject. As, however, thedifferent methods of thought by which they arrived at the sameconclusion is so aptly related by Wallace himself, we will leave it forhim to tell the story in its appointed place. [21]

In 1856, the year following the appearance of Wallace's essay in the_Annals and Magazine of Natural History_, both Hooker and Lyell urgedDarwin to publish the result of his long and patient research. But hewas still reluctant to do so, not having as yet satisfied himself withregard to certain conclusions which, he felt, must be stoutly maintainedin face of the enormous amount of criticism which would ariseimmediately his theory was launched on the scientific world. And thusthe event was postponed until the memorable year 1858. 

Up to the year 1856 no correspondence had passed between Wallace andDarwin, so far, at least, as the former could remember, for he says, ina letter dated Frith Hill, Godalming, December 3, 1887 (written to Mr. A. Newton): "I had hardly heard of Darwin before going to the East, except as connected with the voyage of the _Beagle_. .. . I saw him _once_for a few minutes in the British Museum before I sailed. ThroughStevens, my agent, I heard that he wanted curious _varieties_ which hewas studying. I _think_ I wrote about some varieties of ducks I hadsent, and he must have written once to me. .. . But at that time I hadnot the remotest notion that he had already arrived at a definitetheory--still less that it was the same as occurred to me, suddenly, inTernate in 1858. " It is clear, therefore, that the essay written atSarawak formed the first real link with Darwin, although not fullyrecognised at the time. In May, 1857, Darwin wrote to Wallace: "I ammuch obliged for your letter . .. And even still more by your paper inthe _Annals_, a year or more ago. I can plainly see that we have thoughtmuch alike and to a certain extent have come to similar conclusions. .. . I agree to almost every word of your paper; and I dare say that you willagree with me that it is very rare to find oneself agreeing prettyclosely with any theoretical paper. " He concludes: "You have my verysincere and cordial good wishes for success of all kinds, and may allyour theories succeed, except that on Oceanic Islands, on which subjectI will do battle to the death. "

The three years from 1855 to 1858 were for Wallace crowded with hardwork, and perilous voyages by sea and hardships by land. January, 1858, found him at Amboyna, where, in all probability, he found a pile oflong-delayed correspondence awaiting him, and among this a letter fromBates referring to the article which had appeared in print September, 1855. In reply he says: "To persons who have not thought much on thesubject I fear my paper on the 'Succession of Species' will not appearso clear as it does to you. That paper is, of course, merely theannouncement of the theory, not its development. I have prepared theplan and written portions of a work embracing the whole subject, andhave endeavoured to prove in detail what I have as yet onlyindicated. .. . I have been much gratified by a letter from Darwin, inwhich he says that he agrees with 'almost every word' of my paper. Heis now preparing his great work on 'Species and Varieties, ' for which hehas been preparing materials for twenty years. He may save me thetrouble of writing more on my hypothesis, by proving that there is nodifference in nature between the origin of species and of varieties; orhe may give me trouble by arriving at another conclusion; but, at allevents, his facts will be given for me to work upon. Your collectionsand my own will furnish most valuable material to illustrate and provethe universal application of the hypothesis. The connection between thesuccession of affinities and the geographical distribution of a group, worked out species by species, has never yet been shown as we shall beable to show it. "

"This letter proves, " writes Wallace, [22] "that at this time I had notthe least idea of the nature of Darwin's proposed work nor of thedefinite conclusions he had arrived at, nor had I myself anyexpectations of a complete solution of the great problem to which mypaper was merely the prelude. Yet less than two months later thatsolution flashed upon me, and to a large extent marked out a differentline of work from that which I had up to this time anticipated. .. . Inother parts of this letter I refer to the work I hoped to do myself indescribing, cataloguing, and working out the distribution of my insects. I had in fact been bitten by the passion for species and theirdescription, and if neither Darwin nor myself had hit upon 'NaturalSelection, ' I might have spent the best years of my life in thiscomparatively profitless work. But the new ideas swept all this away. "

This letter was finished after his arrival at Ternate, and a few weekslater he was prostrated by a sharp attack of intermittent fever whichobliged him to take a prolonged rest each day, owing to the exhaustinghot and cold fits which rapidly succeeded one another. 

The little bungalow at Ternate had now come to be regarded as "home" forit was here that he stored all his treasured collections, besides makingit the goal of all his wanderings in the Archipelago. One canunderstand, therefore, that, in spite of the fever, there was a sense ofsatisfaction in the feeling that he was surrounded with the trophies ofhis arduous labours as a naturalist, and this passion for species andtheir descriptions being an ever-present speculation in his mind, hisvery surroundings would unconsciously conduce towards the line ofthought which brought to memory the argument of "positive checks" setforth by Malthus in his "Principles of Population" (read twelve yearsearlier) as applied to savage and civilised races. "It then, " he says, "occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continuallyacting in the case of animals also; and as animals usually breed muchmore rapidly than does mankind, the destruction every year from thesecauses must be enormous in order to keep down the numbers of eachspecies, since they evidently do not increase regularly from year toyear, as otherwise the world would have been densely crowded with thosethat breed most quickly. .. . Then it suddenly flashed upon me that thisself-acting process would necessarily _improve the race_, because inevery generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and thesuperior would remain--that is, the _fittest would survive_. Then atonce I seemed to see the whole effect of this, that when changes of landand sea, or of climate, or of food-supply, or of enemies occurred--andwe know that such changes have always been taking place--and consideringthe amount of individual variation that my experience as a collector hadshown me to exist, then it followed that all the changes necessary forthe adaptation of the species to the changing conditions would bebrought about; and as great changes in the environment are always slow, there would be ample time for the change to be effected by the survivalof the best fitted in every generation. In this way every part of ananimal's organism could be modified as required, and in the very processof this modification the unmodified would die out, and thus the_definite_ characters and the clear _isolation_ of each new specieswould be explained. The more I thought over it the more I becameconvinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of naturethat solved the problem of the origin of species. For the next hour Ithought over the deficiencies in the theories of Lamarck and of theauthor of the 'Vestiges, ' and I saw that my new theory supplementedthese views and obviated every important difficulty. I waited anxiouslyfor the termination of my fit (of fever) so that I might at once makenotes for a paper on the subject. The same evening I did this prettyfully, and on the two succeeding evenings wrote it out carefully inorder to send it to Darwin by the next post, which would leave in a dayor two. "[23]

The story of the arrival of this letter at Down, and of the swiftpassage of events between the date on which Darwin received it and thereading of the "joint communications" before the Linnean Society, hasbeen often told. But few, perhaps, have enjoyed the privilege of readingthe account of this memorable proceeding as related by Sir Joseph Hookerat the celebration of the event held by the Linnean Society in 1908. 

As, therefore, the correspondence (pp. 127-320) between Wallace andDarwin during a long series of years conveys many expressions of theirmutual appreciation of each other's work in connection with the originof species, it will avoid a possible repetition of these if we take along leap forward and give the notable speeches made by Wallace, SirJoseph Hooker, Sir E. Ray Lankester, and others at this historicalceremony, which have not been published except in the _Proceedings_ ofthe Society, now out of print. 

The gathering was held on July 1, 1908, at the Institute of CivilEngineers, Great George Street, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary ofthe joint communication made by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallaceto the Linnean Society, "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties;and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means ofSelection. " The large gathering included the President, Dr. DukinfieldH. Scott, distinguished representatives of many scientific Societies andUniversities, the Danish and Swedish Ministers, and a representativefrom the German Embassy. Most of the members of Dr. Wallace's and Mr. Darwin's family were also present. [24] The President opened with someexplanatory observations, and then invited Wallace to come forward inorder to receive the first Darwin-Wallace Medal. In presenting it hesaid:

 Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, --We rejoice that we are so happy as to have with us to-day the survivor of the two great naturalists whose crowning work we are here to commemorate. 

 Your brilliant work in natural history and geography, and as one of the founders of the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, is universally honoured and has often received public recognition, as in the awards of the Darwin and Royal Medals of the Royal Society, and of our Medal in 1892. 

 To-day, in asking you to accept the first Darwin-Wallace Medal, we are offering you of your own, for it is you, equally with your great colleague, who created the occasion we celebrate. 

 There is nothing in the history of science more delightful or more noble than the story of the relations between yourself and Mr. Darwin, as told in the correspondence now so fully published--the story of a generous rivalry in which each discoverer strives to exalt the claims of the other. We know that Mr. Darwin wrote (April 6th, 1859): "You cannot tell how much I admire your spirit in the manner in which you have taken all that was done about publishing our papers. I had actually written a letter to you stating that I would not publish anything before you had published. " Then came the letters of Hooker and Lyell, leading to the publication of the joint papers which they communicated. 

 You, on your side, always gave the credit to him, and underestimated your own position as the co-discoverer. I need only refer to your calling your great exposition of the joint theory "Darwinism, " as the typical example of your generous emphasising of the claims of your illustrious fellow-worker. 

 It was a remarkable and momentous coincidence that both you and he should have independently arrived at the idea of Natural Selection after reading Malthus's book, and a most happy inspiration that you should have selected Mr. Darwin as the naturalist to whom to communicate your discovery. That theory, in spite of changes in the scientific fashion of the moment, you have always unflinchingly maintained, and still uphold as unshaken by all attacks. 

 Like Mr. Darwin, you, if I may say so, are above all a naturalist, a student and lover of living animals and plants, as shown in later years by your enthusiasm and success in gardening. It is to such men, those who have learnt the ways of Nature, as Nature really is in the open, to whom your doctrine of Natural Selection specially appeals, and therein lies its great and lasting strength. 

 Finally, you must allow me to allude to the generous interest you have always shown, and continue to show, in the careers of younger men who are endeavouring to follow in your steps. 

 I ask you, Dr. Wallace, to accept this Medal, struck in your honour and in that of the great work inaugurated fifty years ago by Mr. Darwin and yourself. 

Wallace began his reply by thanking the Council of the Society for theHonour they had done him, and then proceeded:

 Since the death of Darwin, in 1882, I have found myself in the somewhat unusual position of receiving credit and praise from popular writers under a complete misapprehension of what my share in Darwin's work really amounted to. It has been stated (not unfrequently) in the daily and weekly press, that Darwin and myself discovered "Natural Selection" simultaneously, while a more daring few have declared that I was _the first_ to discover it, and I gave way to Darwin!

 In order to avoid further errors of this kind (which this Celebration may possibly encourage), I think it will be well to give the actual facts as simply and clearly as possible. 

 The _one fact_ that connects me with Darwin, and which, I am happy to say, has never been doubted, is that the idea of what is now termed "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest, " together with its far-reaching consequences, occurred to us _independently_, and was first jointly announced before this Society fifty years ago. 

 But, what is often forgotten by the Press and the public is, that the idea occurred to Darwin in 1838, nearly twenty years earlier than to myself (in February, 1858); and that during the whole of that twenty years he had been laboriously collecting evidence from the vast mass of literature of biology, of horticulture, and of agriculture; as well as himself carrying out ingenious experiments and original observations, the extent of which is indicated by the range of subjects discussed in his "Origin of Species, " and especially in that wonderful storehouse of knowledge, his "Animals and Plants under Domestication, " almost the whole materials for which work had been collected, and to a large extent systematised, during that twenty years. 

 So far back as 1844, at a time when I had hardly thought of any serious study of nature, Darwin had written an outline of his views, which he communicated to his friends Sir Charles Lyell and Dr. (now Sir Joseph) Hooker. The former strongly urged him to publish an abstract of his theory as soon as possible, lest some other person might precede him; but he always refused till he had got together the whole of the materials for his intended great work. Then, at last, Lyell's prediction was fulfilled, and, without any apparent warning, my letter, with the enclosed essay, came upon him, like a thunderbolt from a cloudless sky! This forced him to what he considered a premature publicity, and his two friends undertook to have our two papers read before this Society. 

 How different from this long study and preparation--this philosophical caution--this determination not to make known his fruitful conception till he could back it up by overwhelming proofs--was my own conduct. 

 The idea came to me as it had come to Darwin, in a sudden flash of insight; it was thought out in a few hours--was written down with such a sketch of its various applications and developments as occurred to me at the moment--then copied on thin letter paper and sent off to Darwin--all within one week. _I_ was then (as often since) the "young man in a hurry": _he_, the painstaking and patient student seeking ever the full demonstration of the truth that he had discovered, rather than to achieve immediate personal fame. 

 Such being the actual facts of the case, I should have had no cause for complaint if the respective shares of Darwin and myself in regard to the elucidation of Nature's method of organic development had been henceforth estimated as being, roughly, proportional to the time we had each bestowed upon it when it was thus first given to the world--that is to say, as twenty years is to one week. For, he had already made it his own. If the persuasion of his friends had prevailed with him, and he had published his theory after ten years'--fifteen years'--or even eighteen years' elaboration of it--_I_ should have had no part in it whatever, and _he_ would have been at once recognised as the sole and undisputed discoverer and patient investigator of this great law of "Natural Selection" in all its far-reaching consequences. 

 It was really a singular piece of good luck that gave to me any share whatever in the discovery. During the first half of the nineteenth century (and even earlier) many great biological thinkers and workers had been pondering over the problem and had even suggested ingenious but inadequate solutions. Some of these men were among the greatest intellects of our time, yet, till Darwin, all had failed; and it was only Darwin's extreme desire to perfect his work that allowed me to come in, as a very bad second, in the truly Olympian race in which all philosophical biologists, from Buffon and Erasmus Darwin to Richard Owen and Robert Chambers, were more or less actively engaged. 

 And this brings me to the very interesting question: Why did so many of the greatest intellects fail, while Darwin and myself hit upon the solution of this problem--a solution which this Celebration proves to have been (and still to be) a satisfying one to a large number of those best able to form a judgment on its merits? As I have found what seems to me a good and precise answer to this question, and one which is of some psychological interest, I will, with your permission, briefly state what it is. 

 On a careful consideration, we find a curious series of correspondences, both in mind and in environment, which led Darwin and myself, alone among our contemporaries, to reach identically the same theory. 

 First (and most important, as I believe), in early life both Darwin and myself became ardent beetle-hunters. Now there is certainly no group of organisms that so impresses the collector by the almost infinite number of its specific forms, the endless modifications of structure, shape, colour, and surface-markings that distinguish them from each other, and their innumerable adaptations to diverse environments. These interesting features are exhibited almost as strikingly in temperate as in tropical regions, our own comparatively limited island-fauna possessing more than 3, 000 species of this one order of insects. 

 Again, both Darwin and myself had what he terms "the mere passion for collecting, " not that of studying the minutiæ of structure, either internal or external. I should describe it rather as an intense interest in the variety of living things--the variety that catches the eye of the observer even among those which are very much alike, but which are soon found to differ in several distinct characters. 

 Now it is this superficial and almost child-like interest in the outward forms of living things which, though often despised as unscientific, happened to be _the only one_ which would lead us towards a solution of the problem of species. For Nature herself distinguishes her species by just such characters--often exclusively so, always in some degree--very small changes in outline, or in the proportions of appendages--as give a quite distinct and recognisable facies to each, often aided by slight peculiarities in motion or habit; while in a larger number of cases differences of surface-texture, of colour, or in the details of the same general scheme of colour-pattern or of shading, give an unmistakable individuality to closely allied species. 

 It is the constant search for and detection of these often unexpected differences between very similar creatures that gives such an intellectual charm and fascination to the mere collection of these insects; and when, as in the case of Darwin and myself, the collectors were of a speculative turn of mind, they were constantly led to think upon the "why" and the "how" of all this wonderful variety in nature--this overwhelming and, at first sight, purposeless wealth of specific forms among the very humblest forms of life. 

 Then, a little later (and with both of us almost accidentally) we became travellers, collectors, and observers, in some of the richest and most interesting portions of the earth; and we thus had forced upon our attention all the strange phenomena of local and geographical distribution, with the numerous problems to which they give rise. Thenceforward our interest in the great mystery of _how_ species came into existence was intensified, and--again to use Darwin's expression--"haunted" us. 

 Finally, both Darwin and myself, at the critical period when our minds were freshly stored with a considerable body of personal observation and reflection bearing upon the problem to be solved, had our attention directed to the system of _positive checks_ as expounded by Malthus in his "Principles of Population. " The effect of that was analogous to that of friction upon the specially prepared match, producing that flash of insight which led us immediately to the simple but universal law of the "survival of the fittest, " as the long-sought _effective_ cause of the continuous modification and adaptations of living things. 

 It is an unimportant detail that Darwin read this book two years _after_ his return from his voyage, while I read it _before_ I went abroad, and it was a sudden recollection of its teachings that caused the solution to flash upon me. I attach much importance, however, to the large amount of solitude we both enjoyed during our travels, which, at the most impressionable period of our lives, gave us ample time for reflection on the phenomena we were daily observing. 

 This view, of the combination of certain mental faculties and external conditions that led Darwin and myself to an identical conception, also serves to explain why none of our precursors or contemporaries hit upon what is really so very simple a solution of the great problem. Such evolutionists as Robert Chambers, Herbert Spencer, and Huxley, though of great intellect, wide knowledge, and immense power of work, had none of them the special turn of mind that makes the collector and the species-man; while they all--as well as the equally great thinker on similar lines, Sir Charles Lyell--became in early life immersed in different lines of research which engaged their chief attention. 

 Neither did the actual precursors of Darwin in the statement of the principle--Wells, Matthews and Prichard--possess any adequate knowledge of the class of facts above referred to, or sufficient antecedent interest in the problem itself, which were both needed in order to perceive the application of the principle to the mode of development of the varied forms of life. 

 And now, to recur to my own position, I may be allowed to make a final remark. I have long since come to see that no one deserves either praise or blame for the _ideas_ that come to him, but only for the actions resulting therefrom. Ideas and beliefs are certainly not voluntary acts. They come to us--we hardly know _how_ or _whence_, and once they have got possession of us we cannot reject or change them at will. It is for the common good that the promulgation of ideas should be free--uninfluenced either by praise or blame, reward or punishment. 

 But the _actions_ which result from our ideas may properly be so treated, because it is only by patient thought and work that new ideas, if good and true, become adapted and utilised; while if untrue, or if not adequately presented to the world, they are rejected or forgotten. 

 I therefore accept the crowning honour you have conferred on me to-day, not for the happy chance through which I became an independent originator of the doctrine of "survival of the fittest, " but as a too liberal recognition by you of the moderate amount of time and work I have given to explain and elucidate the theory, to point out some novel applications of it, and (I hope I may add) for my attempts to extend those applications, even in directions which somewhat diverged from those accepted by my honoured friend and teacher Charles Darwin. 

Sir Joseph Hooker was now called upon by the President to receive theDarwin-Wallace Medal. In acknowledging the honour that had been paidhim, he said:

 No thesis or subject was vouchsafed to me by the Council, but, having gratefully accepted the honour, I was bound to find one for myself. It soon dawned upon me that the object sought by my selection might have been that, considering the intimate terms upon which Mr. Darwin extended to me his friendship, I could from my memory contribute to the knowledge of some important events in his career. It having been intimated to me that this was in a measure true, I have selected as such an event one germane to this Celebration and also engraven on my memory, namely, the considerations which determined Mr. Darwin to assent to the course which Sir Charles Lyell and myself had suggested to him, that of presenting to the Society, in one communication, his own and Mr. Wallace's theories on the effect of variation and the struggle for existence on the evolution of species. 

 You have all read Francis Darwin's fascinating work as editor of his father's "Life and Letters, " where you will find (Vol. II. , p. 116) a letter addressed, on the 18th of June, 1858, to Sir Charles Lyell by Mr. Darwin, who states that he had on that day received a communication from Mr. Wallace written from the Celebes Islands requesting that it might be sent to him (Sir Charles). 

 In a covering letter Mr. Darwin pointed out that the enclosure contained a sketch of a theory of Natural Selection as depending on the struggle for existence so identical with one he himself entertained and fully described in MS. In 1842 that he never saw a more striking coincidence: had Mr. Wallace seen his sketch he could not have made a better short abstract, even his terms standing "as heads of chapters. " He goes on to say that he would at once write to Mr. Wallace offering to send his MS. To any journal; and concludes: "So my originality is smashed, though my book [the forthcoming 'Origin of Species'], if it will have any value will not be deteriorated, as all know the labour consists in the application of the theory. "

 After writing to Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Darwin informed me of Mr. Wallace's letter and its enclosure, in a similar strain, only more explicitly announcing his resolve to abandon all claim to priority for his own sketch. I could not but protest against such a course, no doubt reminding him that I had read it and that Sir Charles knew its contents some years before the arrival of Mr. Wallace's letter; and that our withholding our knowledge of its priority would be unjustifiable. I further suggested the simultaneous publication of the two, and offered--should he agree to such a compromise--to write to Mr. Wallace fully informing him of the motives of the course adopted. 

 In answer Mr. Darwin thanked me warmly for my offer to explain all to Mr. Wallace, and in a later letter he informed me that he was disposed to look favourably on my suggested compromise, but that before making up his mind he desired a second opinion as to whether he could honourably claim priority, and that he proposed applying to Sir Charles Lyell for this. I need not say that this was a relief to me, knowing as I did what Sir Charles's answer must be. 

 In Vol. II. , pp. 117-18, of the "Life and Letters, " Mr. Darwin's application to Sir Charles Lyell is given, dated June 26th, with a postscript dated June 27th. In it he requests that the answer shall be sent to me to be forwarded to himself. I have no recollection of reading the answer, which is not to be found either in Darwin's or my own correspondence; it was no doubt satisfactory. 

 Further action was now left in the hands of Sir Charles and myself, we all agreeing that, whatever action was taken, the result should be offered for publication to the Linnean Society. 

 On June 29th Mr. Darwin wrote to me in acute distress, being himself very ill, and scarlet fever raging in the family, to which one infant son had succumbed on the previous day, and a daughter was ill with diphtheria. He acknowledged the receipt of the letter from me, adding, "I cannot think now of the subject, but soon will: you shall hear as soon as I can think"; and on the night of the same day he writes again, telling me that he is quite prostrated and can do nothing but send certain papers for which I had asked as essential for completing the prefatory statement to the communication to the Linnean Society of Mr. Wallace's essay. .. . 

 The communications were read, as was the custom in those days, by the Secretary to the Society. Mr. Darwin himself, owing to his illness and distress, could not be present. Sir Charles Lyell and myself said a few words to emphasise the importance of the subject, but, as recorded in the "Life and Letters" (Vol. II. , p. 126), although intense interest was excited, no discussion took place: "the subject was too novel, too ominous, for the old school to enter the lists before armouring. " . .. 

 It must also be noticed that for the detailed history given above there is no documentary evidence beyond what Francis Darwin has produced in the "Life and Letters. " There are no letters from Lyell relating to it, not even answers to Mr. Darwin's of the 18th, 25th, and 26th of June; and Sir Leonard Lyell has at my request very kindly but vainly searched his uncle's correspondence for any relating to this subject beyond the two above mentioned. There are none of my letters to either Lyell or Darwin, nor other evidence of their having existed beyond the latter's acknowledgment of the receipt of some of them; and, most surprising of all, Mr. Wallace's letter and its enclosure have disappeared. Such is my recollection of this day, the fiftieth anniversary of which we are now celebrating, and of the fortnight that immediately preceded it. 

 It remains for me to ask your forgiveness for intruding upon your time and attention with the half-century-old real or fancied memories of a nonagenarian as contributions to the history of the most notable event in the annals of Biology that had followed the appearance in 1735 of the "Systema Naturæ" of Linnæus. 

Following Sir J. Hooker, the President, referring to Prof. Haeckel, whowas unable to be present, said that he was "the great apostle of theDarwin-Wallace theory in Germany . .. His enthusiastic and gallantadvocacy [having] chiefly contributed to its success in that country. .. . A man of world-wide reputation, the leader on the Continent of the 'OldGuard' of evolutionary biologists, Prof. Haeckel was one whom theLinnean Society delighted to honour. " Two more German scientists werehonoured with the Medal, namely Prof. August Weismann (who was alsoabsent), and Prof. Eduard Strasburger, the latter paying a specialtribute to Wallace in saying: "When I was young the investigations andthe thought of Alfred Russel Wallace brought me a great stimulus. Through his 'Malay Archipelago' a new world of scientific knowledge wasunfolded before me. On this occasion I feel it my duty to proclaim itwith gratitude. " The Medal was then presented to Sir Francis Galton, whodelivered a notable speech in responding. The last on this occasion toreceive the Medal was Sir E. Ray Lankester, who, in replying to thePresident's graceful speech, referred to the happy relationships whichhad existed between the contemporary men of science of his own time, butwith special reference to Darwin and Wallace he said:

 Never was there a more beautiful example of modesty, of unselfish admiration for another's work, of loyal determination that the other should receive the full merit of his independent labours and thoughts, than was shown by Charles Darwin on that occasion. .. . 

 Subsequently, throughout all their arduous work and varied publications upon the great doctrine which they on that day unfolded to humanity . .. The same complete absence of rivalry characterised these high-minded Englishmen, even when in some outcomes of their doctrine they were not in perfect agreement. .. . I think I am able to say that great as was the interest excited by the new doctrine in the scientific world, and wild and angry as was the opposition to it in some quarters, few, if any, who took part in the scenes attending the birth and earlier reception of Darwin's "Origin of Species" had a prevision of the enormous and all-important influence which that doctrine was destined to exercise upon every line of human thought. .. . It is in its application to the problems of human society that there still remains an enormous field of work and discovery for the Darwin-Wallace doctrine. 

 In the special branch of study which Wallace himself set going--the inquiry into the local variations, races, and species of insects as evidence of descent with modification, and of the mechanism by which that modification is brought about--there is still great work in progress, still an abundant field to be reaped. .. . Several able observers and experimenters have set themselves the task of improving, if possible, the theoretical structure raised by Darwin and Wallace. .. . But I venture to express the opinion that they have none of them resulted in any serious modification of the great doctrine submitted to the Linnean Society on July 1st, 1858, by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Not only do the main lines of the theory of Darwin and Wallace remain unchanged, but the more it is challenged by new suggestions and new hypotheses the more brilliantly do the novelty, the importance, and the permanent value of the work by those great men, to-day commemorated by us, shine forth as the one great epoch-making effort of human thought on this subject. 

Sir Francis Darwin and Sir William Thiselton-Dyer spoke on behalf ofSchools which had sent representatives to the meeting; Prof. Lönnbergand Sir Archibald Geikie on behalf of the Academies and Societies; whileLord Avebury delivered the concluding address. 

Any summary of this period in the lives of Darwin and Wallace would beincomplete without some distinct reference to one other name, namely, that of Herbert Spencer, whom I have linked with them in theIntroduction. 

While we owe to Darwin and Wallace a definite theory of organicdevelopment, it must be remembered that Spencer included this in thegeneral scheme of Evolution which grew as slowly but surely in hismind--and as independently as did that of the origin of species in theminds of Darwin and Wallace. Huxley recalls: "Within the ranks ofbiologists, at that time, I met with nobody except Dr. Grant, ofUniversity College, who had a word to say for Evolution--and hisadvocacy was not calculated to advance the cause. Outside these ranks, the only person known to me whose knowledge and capacity compelledrespect, and who was, at the same time, a thorough-going evolutionist, was Mr. Herbert Spencer. .. . Many and prolonged were the battles wefought on this topic. .. . I took my stand upon two grounds: first, thatup to that time the evidence in favour of transmutation was whollyinsufficient; and, secondly, that no suggestions respecting the causesof the transmutations assumed . .. Were in any war adequate to explainthe phenomena. Looking back at the state of knowledge at that time, Ireally do not see that any other conclusion was justifiable. "[25]

And Prof. Raphael Meldola, in a lecture on Evolution wherein he comparesthe impression left by each of these great founders of that school uponthe current of modern thought, says: "Through all . .. His [Spencer's]writings the underlying idea of development can be traced withincreasing depth and breadth, expanding in 1850 in his 'Social Statics'to a foreshadowing of the general doctrine of Evolution. In 1852 hisviews on organic evolution had become so definite that he gave publicexpression to them in that well-known and powerful essay on 'TheDevelopment Hypothesis. ' . .. In the 'Principles of Psychology, ' thefirst edition of which was published in 1855, the evolutionary principlewas dominant. By 1858--the year of the announcement of Natural Selectionby Darwin and Wallace--he had conceived the great general scheme and hadsketched out the first draft of the prospectus of the SyntheticPhilosophy, the final and amended syllabus [being] issued in 1860. Thework of Darwin and Spencer from that period, although moving alongindependent lines, was directed towards the same end, notwithstandingthe diversity of materials which they made use of and the differences intheir methods of attack; that end was the establishment of Evolution asa great natural principle or law. "[26]

In this connection it is especially interesting to note how near Spencerhad come to the conception of Natural Selection without grasping itsfull significance. In an article on a "Theory of Population" (publishedin the _Westminster Review_ for April, 1852) he wrote: "And here, indeed, without further illustration, it will be seen that prematuredeath, under all its forms and from all its causes, cannot fail to workin the same direction. For as those prematurely carried off must, in theaverage of cases, be those in whom the power of self-preservation is theleast, it unavoidably follows that those left behind to continue therace must be those in whom the power of self-preservation is thegreatest--must be the select of their generation. So that whether thedangers of existence be of the kind produced by excess of fertility, orof any other kind, it is clear that by the ceaseless exercise of thefaculties needed to contend with them, and by the death of all men whofail to contend with them successfully, there is ensured a constantprogress towards a higher degree of skill, intelligence, self-regulation--a better co-ordinance of actions--a more completelife. "

Up to the period of the publication of the "Origin of Species" and thefirst conception of the scheme of the Synthetic Philosophy there hadbeen no communication between Darwin and Spencer beyond the presentationby Spencer of a copy of his Essays to Darwin in 1858, which was dulyacknowledged. But by the time the "Origin of Species" had been beforethe public for eight years, the Darwinian principle of selection hadbecome an integral part of the Spencerian mechanism of organicevolution. Indeed the term "survival of the fittest, " approved by bothDarwin and Wallace as an alternative for "natural selection, " was, as iswell known, introduced by Spencer. 

Wallace's relations with Spencer, though somewhat controversial attimes, were nevertheless cordial and sympathetic. In "My Life" he tellsof his first visit, and the impression left upon his mind by theirconversation. It occurred somewhere about 1862-3, shortly after he andBates had read, and been greatly impressed by, Spencer's "FirstPrinciples. " "Our thoughts, " he says, "were full of the great unsolvedproblem of the origin of life--a problem which Darwin's 'Origin ofSpecies' left in as much obscurity as ever--and we looked to Spencer asthe one man living who could give us some clue to it. His wonderfulexposition of the fundamental laws and conditions, actions andinteractions of the material universe seemed to penetrate so deeply intothat 'nature of things' after which the early philosophers searched invain . .. That we hoped he would throw some light on that great problemof problems. .. . He was very pleasant, spoke appreciatively of what wehad both done for the practical exposition of evolution, and hoped wewould continue to work at the subject. But when we touched upon thegreat problem, and whether he had arrived at even one of the first stepstowards its solution, our hopes were dashed at once. That, he said, wastoo fundamental a problem to even think of solving at present. We didnot yet know enough of matter in its essential constitution nor of thevarious forces of nature; and all he could say was that everythingpointed to its having been a development out of matter--a phase of thatcontinuous process of evolution by which the whole universe had beenbrought to its present condition. And so we had to wait and workcontentedly at minor problems. And now, after forty years, thoughSpencer and Darwin and Weismann have thrown floods of light on thephenomena of life, its essential nature and its origin remain as great amystery as ever. Whatever light we do possess is from a source whichSpencer and Darwin neglected or ignored. "[27]

In his presidential address to the Entomological Society in 1872 Wallacemade some special allusion to Spencer's theory of the origin ofinstincts, and on receiving a copy of the address Spencer wrote: "It isgratifying to me to find that your extended knowledge does not lead youto scepticism respecting the speculation of mine which you quote, butrather enables you to cite further facts in justification of it. Possibly your exposition will lead some of those, in whose lines ofinvestigation the question lies, to give deliberate attention to it. " Afurther proof of his confidence was shown by asking Wallace (in 1874) tolook over the proofs of the first six chapters of his "Principles ofSociology" in order that he might have the benefit of his criticismsalike as naturalist, anthropologist, and traveller. 

This brief reference to the illustrious group of men to whom we owe thefoundations of this new epoch of evolutionary thought--and not thefoundations only, but also the patient building up of the structure uponwhich each one continued to perform his allotted task--and the prefatorynotes and the footnotes attached to the letters will serve to elucidatethe historical correspondence between Darwin and Wallace which follows. 

PART II (_Continued_)

II. --The Complete Extant Correspondence between Wallace and Darwin

[1857--81]

 "I hope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect--and very few things in my life have been more satisfactory to me--that we have never felt any jealousy towards each other, though in some senses rivals. I believe I can say this of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that it is true of you. "--DARWIN to Wallace. 

 "To have thus inspired and retained this friendly feeling, notwithstanding our many differences of opinion, I feel to be one of the greatest honours of my life. "--WALLACE to Darwin. 

 "I think the way he [Wallace] carries on controversy is perfectly beautiful, and in future histories of science the Wallace-Darwin episode will form one of the few bright points among rival claimants. "--ERASMUS DARWIN to his niece, Henrietta Darwin, 1871. 

The first eight letters from Darwin to Wallace were found amongst thelatter's papers, carefully preserved in an envelope on the outside ofwhich he had written the words reproduced on the next page. NeitherWallace's part of this correspondence, nor the original MS. Of his essay"On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the OriginalType, " which he sent to Darwin from Ternate, has been discovered. Butthese eight letters from Darwin explain themselves and reveal the innerstory of the independent discovery of the theory of Natural Selection. 

With respect to the letters which follow the first eight, both sides ofthe correspondence, with few exceptions, have been brought together. Some of the letters have already appeared in "The Life and Letters ofCharles Darwin" and "More Letters, " others in "My Life, " by A. R. Wallace, whilst many have not before been published. 

Some of these letters, in themselves, have little more than ephemeralinterest, and parts of other letters could have been eliminated, fromthe point of view of lightening this volume and of economising thereader's attention. But I decided, with the fullest approval of theWallace and Darwin families, that the letters of these illustriouscorrespondents should be here presented as a whole, without mutilation. 

[Illustration: FACSIMILE OF INSCRIPTION BY WALLACE ON THE ENVELOPE INWHICH HE KEPT THE FIRST EIGHT LETTERS HE RECEIVED FROM DARWIN. ]

Many of the notes of explanation to the Wallace letters have beengathered from his own writings, and are mainly in his own words, and insuch cases the reader has the advantage of perusing letters annotated bytheir author, while most of the notes to the Darwin letters are by SirF. Darwin. 

 * * * * *

LETTER I

C. DARWIN to A. R. WALLACE

_Down, Bromley, Kent, May 1, 1857. _

My dear Sir, --I am much obliged for your letter of Oct. 10th fromCelebes, received a few days ago: in a laborious undertaking, sympathyis a valuable and real encouragement. By your letter, and even stillmore by your paper in the _Annals_, [28] a year or more ago, I can plainlysee that we have thought much alike and to a certain extent have come tosimilar conclusions. In regard to the paper in the _Annals_, I agree tothe truth of almost every word of your paper; and I daresay that youwill agree with me that it is very rare to find oneself agreeing prettyclosely with any theoretical paper; for it is lamentable how each mandraws his own different conclusions from the very same fact. This summerwill make the twentieth year (!) since I opened my first note-book onthe question how and in what way do species and varieties differ fromeach other. I am now preparing my work for publication, but I find thesubject so very large, that though I have written many chapters, I donot suppose I shall go to press for two years. 

I have never heard how long you intend staying in the Malay Archipelago;I wish I might profit by the publication of your Travels there before mywork appears, for no doubt you will reap a large harvest of facts. 

I have acted already in accordance with your advice of keeping domesticvarieties, and those appearing in a state of nature, distinct; but Ihave sometimes doubted of the wisdom of this, and therefore I am glad tobe backed by your opinion. I must confess, however, I rather doubt thetruth of the now very prevalent doctrine of all our domestic animalshaving descended from several wild stocks; though I do not doubt that itis so in some cases. I think there is rather better evidence on thesterility of hybrid animals than you seem to admit: and in regard toplants, the collection of carefully recorded facts by Kölreuter andGaertner (and Herbert) is _enormous_. I most entirely agree with you onthe little effect of "climatic conditions" which one sees referred to_ad nauseam_ in all books: I suppose some very little effect must beattributed to such influences, but I fully believe that they are veryslight. It is really _impossible_ to explain my views in the compass ofa letter as to causes and means of variation in a state of nature; but Ihave slowly adopted a distinct and tangible idea--whether true or falseothers must judge; for the firmest conviction of the truth of a doctrineby its author seems, alas, not to be the slightest guarantee of truth. 

I have been rather disappointed at my results in the poultry line; butif you should, after receiving this, stumble on any curious domesticbreed, I should be very glad to have it; but I can plainly see that theresult will not be at all worth the trouble which I have taken. The caseis different with the domestic pigeons; from its study I have learnedmuch. The Rajah has sent me some of his pigeons and fowls and _cats'_skins from the interior of Borneo and from Singapore. Can you tell mepositively that black jaguars or leopards are believed generally oralways to pair with black? I do not think colour of offspring goodevidence. Is the case of parrots fed on fat of fish turning colourmentioned in your Travels? I remember a case of parrots with (I think)poison from some toad put into hollow whence primaries had been removed. 

One of the subjects on which I have been experimenting, and which costme much trouble, is the means of distribution of all organic beingsfound on oceanic islands; and any facts on this subject would be mostgratefully received. 

Land-molluscs are a great perplexity to me. This is a very dull letter, but I am a good deal out of health, and am writing this, not from myhome, as dated, but from a water-cure establishment. 

With most sincere good wishes for your success in every way, I remain, my dear Sir, yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

LETTER II

C. DARWIN TO A. R. WALLACE

_Down, Bromley, Kent. December 22, 1867. _

My dear Sir, --I thank you for your letter of Sept. 27th. I am extremelyglad to hear that you are attending to distribution in accordance withtheoretical ideas. I am a firm believer that without speculation thereis no good and original observation. Few travellers have attended tosuch points as you are now at work on; and indeed the whole subject ofdistribution of animals is dreadfully behind that of plants. You saythat you have been somewhat surprised at no notice having been taken ofyour paper in the _Annals_. I cannot say that I am; for so very fewnaturalists care for anything beyond the mere description of species. But you must not suppose that your paper has not been attended to: twovery good men, Sir C. Lyell, and Mr. E. Blyth at Calcutta, speciallycalled my attention to it. Though agreeing with you on your conclusionsin the paper, I believe I go much further than you; but it is too long asubject to enter on my speculative notions. I have not yet seen yourpaper on distribution of animals in the Aru Islands: I shall read itwith the _utmost_ interest; for I think that the most interestingquarter of the whole globe in respect to distribution; and I have longbeen very imperfectly trying to collect data from the Malay Archipelago. I shall be quite prepared to subscribe to your doctrine of subsidence:indeed from the quite independent evidence of the coral reefs I colouredmy original map in my Coral volumes colours [_sic_] of the Aru Islandsas one of subsidence, but got frightened and left it uncoloured. But Ican see that you are inclined to go _much_ further than I am in regardto the former connection of oceanic islands with continents. Ever sincepoor E. Forbes propounded this doctrine, it has been eagerly followed;and Hooker elaborately discusses the former connection of all theAntarctic islands and New Zealand and South America. About a year ago Idiscussed the subject much with Lyell and Hooker (for I shall have totreat of it) and wrote out my arguments in opposition; but you will beglad to hear that neither Lyell nor Hooker thought much of my arguments;nevertheless, for once in my life I dare withstand the almostpreternatural sagacity of Lyell. You ask about land-shells on islandsfar distant from continents: Madeira has a few identical with those ofEurope, and here the evidence is really good, as some of them aresub-fossil. In the Pacific islands there are cases of identity, which Icannot at present persuade myself to account for by introduction throughman's agency; although Dr. Aug. Gould has conclusively shown that manyland-shells have thus been distributed over the Pacific by man's agency. These cases of introduction are most plaguing. Have you not found it soin the Malay Archipelago? It has seemed to me, in the lists of mammalsof Timor and other islands, that _several_ in all probability have beennaturalised. 

Since writing before, I have experimented a little on someland-molluscs, and have found sea-water not quite so deadly as Ianticipated. You ask whether I shall discuss Man: I think I shall avoidthe whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices, though I fullyadmit that it is the highest and most interesting problem for thenaturalist. My work, on which I have now been at work more or less fortwenty years, will _not_ fix or settle anything; but I hope it will aidby giving a large collection of facts with one definite end. I get onvery slowly, partly from ill-health, partly from being a very slowworker. I have got about half written; but I do not suppose I shallpublish under a couple of years. I have now been three whole months onone chapter on hybridism!

I am astonished to see that you expect to remain out three or four yearsmore: what a wonderful deal you will have seen; and what an interestingarea, the grand Malay Archipelago and the richest parts of SouthAmerica! I infinitely admire and honour your zeal and courage in thegood cause of natural science; and you have my very sincere and cordialgood wishes for success of all kinds; and may all your theories succeed, except that on oceanic islands, on which subject I will do battle to thedeath. --Pray believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

LETTER III

C. DARWIN TO A. R. WALLACE

_Down, Bromley, Kent. January 25, 1859. _

My dear Sir, --I was extremely much pleased at receiving three days agoyour letter to me and that to Dr. Hooker. Permit me to say how heartilyI admire the spirit in which they are written. Though I had absolutelynothing whatever to do in leading Lyell and Hooker to what they thoughta fair course of action, yet I naturally could not but feel anxious tohear what your impression would be. I owe indirectly much to you andthem; for I almost think that Lyell would have proved right and I shouldnever have completed my larger work, for I have found my abstract[29]hard enough with my poor health; but now, thank God, I am in my lastchapter but one. My abstract will make a small volume of 400 or 500pages. Whenever published, I will of course send you a copy, and thenyou will see what I mean about the part which I believe selection hasplayed with domestic productions. It is a very different part, as yousuppose, from that played by "natural selection. "

I sent off, by same address as this note, a copy of the _Journal of theLinnean Society_, and subsequently I have sent some half-dozen copies ofthe Paper. I have many other copies at your disposal; and I sent two toyour friend Dr. Davies (?), author of works on men's skulls. 

I am glad to hear that you have been attending to birds' nests; I havedone so, though almost exclusively under one point of view, viz. To showthat instincts vary, so that selection could work on and improve them. Few other instincts, so to speak, can be preserved in a museum. 

Many thanks for your offer to look after horses' stripes; if there areany donkeys', pray add them. 

I am delighted to hear that you have collected bees' combs; when next inLondon I will inquire of F. Smith and Mr. Saunders. This is an especialhobby of mine, and I think I can throw light on the subject. If you cancollect duplicates at no very great expense, I should be glad ofspecimens for myself, with some bees of each kind. Young growing andirregular combs, and those which have not had pupæ, are most valuablefor measurements and examination; their edges should be well protectedagainst abrasion. 

Everyone whom I have seen has thought your paper very well written andinteresting. It puts my extracts (written in 1839, now just twenty yearsago!), which I must say in apology were never for an instant intendedfor publication, in the shade. 

You ask about Lyell's frame of mind. I think he is somewhat staggered, but does not give in, and speaks with horror often to me of what a thingit would be and what a job it would be for the next edition of thePrinciples if he were "perverted. " But he is most candid and honest, andI think will end by being perverted. Dr. Hooker has become almost asheterodox as you or I--and I look at Hooker as _by far_ the most capablejudge in Europe. 

Most cordially do I wish you health and entire success in all yourpursuits; and God knows, if admirable zeal and energy deserve success, most amply do you deserve it. I look at my own career as nearly run out;if I can publish my abstract, and perhaps my greater work on the samesubject, I shall look at my course as done. --Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

LETTER IV

C. DARWIN TO A. R. WALLACE

_Down, Bromley, Kent. April 6, 1859. _

My dear Mr. Wallace, --I this morning received your pleasant and friendlynote of Nov. 30th. The first part of my MS. [30] is in Murray's hands, tosee if he likes to publish it. There is no Preface, but a shortIntroduction, which must be read by everyone who reads my book. Thesecond paragraph in the Introduction[31] I have had copied _verbatim_from my foul copy, and you will, I hope, think that I have fairlynoticed your papers in the _Linnean Transactions_. [32] You must rememberthat I am now publishing only an Abstract, and I give no references. Ishall of course allude to your paper on Distribution;[33] and I haveadded that I know from correspondence that your explanation of your lawis the same as that which I offer. You are right, that I came to theconclusion that Selection was the principle of change from study ofdomesticated productions; and then reading Malthus I saw at once how toapply this principle. Geographical distribution and geographicalrelations of extinct to recent inhabitants of South America first led meto the subject. Especially the case of the Galapagos Islands. 

I hope to go to press in early part of next month. It will be a smallvolume of about 500 pages or so. I will, of course, send you a copy. 

I forget whether I told you that Hooker, who is our best Britishbotanist, and perhaps the best in the world, is a _full_ convert, and isnow going immediately to publish his confession of faith; and I expectdaily to see the proof-sheets. Huxley is changed and believes inmutation of species: whether a _convert_ to us, I do not quite know. Weshall live to see all the _younger_ men converts. My neighbour andexcellent naturalist, J. Lubbock, is an enthusiastic convert. I see byNatural History notices that you are doing great work in theArchipelago; and most heartily do I sympathise with you. For God's saketake care of your health. There have been few such noble labourers inthe cause of natural science as you are. Farewell, with every goodwish. --Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

P. S. --You cannot tell how I admire your spirit, in the manner in whichyou have taken all that was done about publishing our papers. I hadactually written a letter to you, stating that I would _not_ publishanything before you had published. I had not sent that letter to thepost when I received one from Lyell and Hooker, _urging_ me to send someMS. To them, and allow them to act as they thought fair and honourablyto both of us. I did so. 

 * * * * *

LETTER V

C. DARWIN TO A. R. WALLACE

_Down, Bromley, Kent. August 9, 1859. _

My dear Mr. Wallace, --I received your letter and memoir[34] on the 7th, and will forward it to-morrow to the Linnean Society. But you will beaware that there is no meeting till beginning of November. Your paperseems to me _admirable_ in matter, style and reasoning; and I thank youfor allowing me to read it. Had I read it some months ago I should haveprofited by it for my forthcoming volume. But my two chapters on thissubject are in type; and though not yet corrected, I am so wearied outand weak in health that I am fully resolved not to add one word, andmerely improve style. So you will see that my views are nearly the samewith yours, and you may rely on it that not one word shall be alteredowing to my having read your ideas. Are you aware that Mr. W. Earlpublished several years ago the view of distribution of animals in theMalay Archipelago in relation to the depth of the sea between theislands? I was much struck with this, and have been in habit of notingall facts on distribution in the Archipelago and elsewhere in thisrelation. I have been led to conclude that there has been a good deal ofnaturalisation in the different Malay islands, and which I have thoughtto certain extent would account for anomalies. Timor has been mygreatest puzzle. What do you say to the peculiar _Felis_ there? I wishthat you had visited Timor: it has been asserted that a fossil mastodonor elephant's tooth (I forget which) had been found there, which wouldbe a grand fact. I was aware that Celebes was very peculiar; but therelation to Africa is quite new to me and marvellous, and almost passesbelief. It is as anomalous as the relation of plants in South-WestAustralia to the Cape of Good Hope. 

I differ _wholly_ from you on colonisation of _oceanic_ islands, but youwill have _everyone_ else on your side. I quite agree with respect toall islands not situated far in ocean. I quite agree on littleoccasional internavigation between lands when once pretty well stockedwith inhabitants, but think this does not apply to rising andill-stocked islands. 

Are you aware that _annually_ birds are blown to Madeira, to Azores (andto Bermuda from America). I wish I had given fuller abstract of myreasons for not believing in Forbes's great continental extensions; butit is too late, for I will alter nothing. I am worn out, and must haverest. 

Owen, I do not doubt, will bitterly oppose us; but I regard that verylittle, as he is a poor reasoner and deeply considers the good opinionof the world, especially the aristocratic world. 

Hooker is publishing a grand Introduction to the Flora of Australia, andgoes the whole length. I have seen proofs of about half. --With everygood wish, believe me yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

Excuse this brief note, but I am far from well. 

 * * * * *

LETTER VI

C. DARWIN TO A. R. WALLACE

_Ilkley. November 13, 1859. _

My dear Sir, --I have told Murray to send you by post (if possible) acopy of my book, and I hope that you will receive it at nearly the sametime with this note. (N. B. --I have got a bad finger, which makes mewrite extra badly. ) If you are so inclined, I should very much like tohear your general impression of the book, as you have thought soprofoundly on the subject and in so nearly the same channel with myself. I hope there will be some little new to you, but I fear not much. Remember, it is only an abstract, and very much condensed. God knowswhat the public will think. No one has read it, except Lyell, with whomI have had much correspondence. Hooker thinks him a complete convert, but he does not seem so in his letters to me. But he is evidently deeplyinterested in the subject. I do not think your share in the theory willbe overlooked by the real judges, as Hooker, Lyell, Asa Gray, etc. 

I have heard from Mr. Sclater that your paper on the Malay Archipelagohas been read at the Linnean Society, and that he was _extremely_ muchinterested by it. 

I have not seen one naturalist for six or nine months owing to the stateof my health, and therefore I really have no news to tell you. I amwriting this at Ilkley Wells, where I have been with my family for thelast six weeks, and shall stay for some few weeks longer. As yet I haveprofited very little. God knows when I shall have strength for my biggerbook. 

I sincerely hope that you keep your health: I suppose that you will bethinking of returning soon with your magnificent collection and stillgrander mental materials. You will be puzzled how to publish. The RoyalSociety Fund will be worth your consideration. --With every good wish, pray believe me yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. 

I think that I told you before that Hooker is a complete convert. If Ican convert Huxley I shall be content. 

 * * * * *

LETTER VII

C. DARWIN TO A. R. WALLACE

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. March 7, 1860. _

My dear Wallace, --The addresses which you have sent me are capital, especially that to the Rajah; and I have dispatched two sets of queries. I now enclose a copy to you, and should be very glad of any answers; youmust not suppose the P. S. About memory has lately been inserted; pleasereturn these queries, as it is my standard copy. The subject is acurious one; I fancy I shall make a rather interesting appendix to myEssay on Man. 

I fully admit the probability of "protective adaptation" having comeinto play with female butterflies as well as with female birds. I have agood many facts which make me believe in sexual selection as applied toman, but whether I shall convince anyone else is very doubtful. --DearWallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

LETTER VIII

C. DARWIN TO A. R. WALLACE

_Down, Bromley, Kent. May 18, 1860. _

My dear Mr. Wallace, --I received this morning your letter from Amboynadated Feb. 16th, containing some remarks and your too high approbationof my book. Your letter has pleased me very much, and I most completelyagree with you on the parts which are strongest and which are weakest. The imperfection of the geological record is, as you say, the weakest ofall; but yet I am pleased to find that there are almost more geologicalconverts than of pursuers of other branches of natural science. I maymention Lyell, Ramsay, Jukes, Rogers, Keyerling, all good men and true. Pictet of Geneva is not a convert, but is evidently staggered (as Ithink is Bronn of Heidelberg), and he has written a perfectly fairreview in the _Bib. Universelle_ of Geneva. Old Bronn has translated mybook, well done also into German, and his well-known name will give itcirculation. I think geologists are more converted than simplenaturalists because more accustomed to reasoning. 

Before telling you about the progress of opinion on the subject, youmust let me say how I admire the generous manner in which you speak ofmy book: most persons would in your position have felt bitter envy andjealousy. How nobly free you seem to be of this common failing ofmankind. But you speak far too modestly of yourself; you would, if youhad had my leisure, have done the work just as well, perhaps better, than I have done it. Talking of envy, you never read anything moreenvious and spiteful (with numerous misrepresentations) than Owen is inthe _Edinburgh Review_. I must give one instance; he throws doubts andsneers at my saying that the ovigerous frena of cirripedes have beenconverted into branchiæ, because I have not found them to be branchiæ;whereas _he himself_ admits, before I wrote on cirripedes, without theleast hesitation, that their organs are branchiæ. The attacks have beenheavy and incessant of late. Sedgwick and Prof. Clarke attacked mesavagely at the Cambridge Philosophical Society, but Henslow defended mewell, though not a convert. Phillips has since attacked me in a lectureat Cambridge; Sir W. Jardine in the _Edinburgh New PhilosophicalJournal_, Wollaston in the _Annals of Nat. History_, A. Murray beforethe Royal Soc. Of Edinburgh, Haughton at the Geological Society ofDublin, Dawson in the _Canadian Nat. Magazine_, and _many others_. But Iam getting case-hardened, and all these attacks will make me only moredeterminedly fight. Agassiz sends me personal civil messages, butincessantly attacks me; but Asa Gray fights like a hero in defence. Lyell keeps as firm as a tower, and this autumn will publish on theGeological History of Man, and will then declare his conversion, whichnow is universally known. I hope that you have received Hooker'ssplendid essay. So far is bigotry carried that I can name threebotanists who will not even read Hooker's essay!! Here is a curiousthing: a Mr. Pat. Matthews, a Scotchman, published in 1830 a work onNaval Timber and Arboriculture, and in the appendix to this he gives_most clearly_ but very briefly in half-dozen paragraphs our view ofNatural Selection. It is a most complete case of anticipation. Hepublished extracts in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_. I got the book, andhave since published a letter acknowledging that I am fairlyforestalled. Yesterday I heard from Lyell that a German, Dr. Schaffhausen, has sent him a pamphlet published some years ago, inwhich the same view is nearly anticipated, but I have not yet seen thispamphlet. My brother, who is a very sagacious man, always said, "Youwill find that someone will have been before you. " I am at work at mylarger work, which I shall publish in separate volumes. But forill-health and swarms of letters I get on very, very slowly. I hope thatI shall not have wearied you with these details. 

[Illustration: A. R. WALLACE SOON AFTER HIS RETURN FROM THE EAST]

With sincere thanks for your letter, and with most deeply-felt wishesfor your success in science and in every way, believe me your sincerewell-wisher, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

Of the letters from Wallace to Darwin which have been preserved, theearliest is the following:

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. April 7, 1862. _

My dear Mr. Darwin, --I was much pleased to receive your note thismorning. I have not yet begun work, but hope to be soon busy. As I ambeing doctored a little I do not think I shall be able to accept yourkind invitation at present, but trust to be able to do so during thesummer. 

I beg you to accept a wild honeycomb from the island of Timor, not quiteperfect but the best I could get. It is of a small size, but ofcharacteristic form, and I think will be interesting to you. I was quiteunable to get the honey out of it, so fear you will find it somewhat ina mess; but no doubt you will know how to clean it. I have told Stevensto send it to you. 

Hoping your health is now quite restored and with best wishes, I remain, my dear Mr. Darwin, yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. May 23, 1862. _

My dear Mr. Darwin, --Many thanks for your most interesting book on theOrchids. I have read it through most attentively, and have really beenquite as much staggered by the wonderful adaptations you show to existin them as by the _Eye_ in animals or any other complicated organs. Ilong to get into the country and have a look at some orchids guided byyour new lights, but I have been now for ten days confined to my roomwith what is disagreeable though far from dangerous--boils. 

I have been reading several of the Reviews on the "Origin, " and it seemsto me that you have assisted those who want to criticise you by youroverstating the difficulties and objections. Several of them quote yourown words as the strongest arguments against you. 

I think you told me Owen wrote the article in the _Quarterly_. Thisseems to me hardly credible, as he speaks so much of Owen, quotes him assuch a great authority, and I believe even calls him a profoundphilosopher, etc. Etc. Would Owen thus speak of himself?

Trusting your health is good, I remain, my dear Mr. Darwin, yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. May 24, 1862. _

My dear Mr. Wallace, --I write one line to thank you for your note and tosay that the Bishop of Oxford[35] wrote the _Quarterly Review_ (paid£60), aided by Owen. In the _Edinburgh_ Owen no doubt praised himself. Mr. Maw's Review in the _Zoologist_ is one of the best, and staggered mein parts, for I did not see the sophistry of parts. I could lend you anywhich you might wish to see; but you would soon be tired. Hopkins andPictet in France are two of the best. 

I am glad you approve of my little Orchid book; but it has not beenworth, I fear, the ten months it has cost me: it was a hobby-horse, andso beguiled me. 

I am sorry to hear that you are suffering from boils; I have often hadfearful crops: I hope that the doctors are right in saying that they areserviceable. 

How puzzled you must be to know what to begin at. You will do grandwork, I do not doubt. 

My health is, and always will be, very poor: I am that miserable animala regular valetudinarian. --Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. August 8, 1862. _

My dear Mr. Darwin, --I sincerely trust that your little boy is by thistime convalescent, and that you are therefore enabled to follow yourfavourite investigations with a more tranquil mind. 

I heard a remark the other day which may not perhaps be new to you, butseemed to me a fact, if true, in your favour. Mr. Ward (I think it was), a member of the Microscopical Society, mentioned as a fact noticed byhimself with much surprise that "the muscular fibres of the whale wereno larger than those of the bee!"--an excellent indication of communityof origin. 

While looking at the ostriches the other day at the Gardens, it occurredto me that they were a case of special difficulty, as, inhabiting anancient continent, surrounded by numerous enemies, how did their wingsever become abortive, and if they did so before the birds had attainedtheir present gigantic size, strength and speed, how could they in thetransition have maintained their existence? I see Westwood in the_Annals_ brings forward the same case, arguing that the ostriches shouldhave acquired better wings within the historic period; but as they arenow the swiftest of animals they evidently do not want their wings, which in their present state may serve some other trifling purpose intheir economy such as fans, or balancers, which may have prevented theirbeing reduced to such rudiments as in the cassowaries. The difficultyto me seems to be, how, if they once had flight, could they have lostit, surrounded by swift and powerful carnivora against whom it must havebeen the only defence?

This probably is all clear to you, but I think it is a point you mighttouch upon, as I think the objection will seem a strong one to mostpeople. 

In a day or two I go to Devonshire for a few weeks and hope to lay in astock of health to enable me to stick to work at my collections duringthe winter. I begin to find that large collections involve a heavyamount of manual labour which is not very agreeable. 

Present my compliments to Mrs. And Miss Darwin, and believe me yoursvery faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_1 Carlton Terrace, Southampton. August 20, 1862. _

My dear Mr. Wallace, --You will not be surprised that I have been slow inanswering when I tell you that my poor boy[36] became frightfully worseafter you were at Down; and that during our journey to Bournemouth hehad a slight relapse here and my wife took the scarlet fever ratherseverely. She is over the crisis. I have had a horrid time of it, andGod only knows when we shall be all safe at home again--half my familyare at Bournemouth. 

I have given a piece of the comb from Timor to a Mr. Woodbury (who isworking at the subject), and he is _extremely_ interested by it (I wassure the specimen would be valuable) and has requested me to ascertainwhether the bee (_A. Testacea_) is domesticated when it makes its combs. Will you kindly inform me?

Your remarks on ostriches have interested me, and I have alluded to thecase in the Third Edition. The difficulty does not seem to me so greatas to you. Think of bustards, which inhabit wide open plains, and whichso seldom take flight: a very little increase in size of body would makethem incapable of flight. The idea of ostriches acquiring flight isworthy of Westwood; think of the food required in these inhabitants ofthe desert to work the pectoral muscles! In the rhea the wings seem ofconsiderable service in the first start and in turning. [37] . .. 

 * * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. September 30, 1862. _

My dear Mr. Darwin, --Many thanks for the third edition of the "Origin, "which I found here on my return from Devonshire on Saturday. I have nothad time yet to read more than the Historical Sketch, which is veryinteresting, and shows that the time had quite come for your book. 

I am now reading Herbert Spencer's "First Principles, " which seems to mea truly great work, which goes to the root of everything. 

I hope you will be well enough to come to Cambridge. 

I remain, my dear Mr. Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. January 14 [1863?]. _

My dear Mr. Darwin, --I am very sorry indeed to hear you are still inweak health. Have you ever tried mountain air? A residence at 2, 000 or3, 000 ft. Elevation is very invigorating. 

I trust your family are now all in good health, and that you may bespared any anxiety on that score for some time. If you come to town Ishall hope to have the pleasure of seeing you. 

I am now in much better health, but find sudden changes of weatheraffect me very much, bringing on ague and fever fits. I am now working alittle, but having fresh collections still arriving from correspondentsin the East, it is principally the drudgery of cleaning, packing, andarrangement. 

On the opposite page I give all the information I can about the Timorfossils, so that you can send it entire to Dr. Falconer. 

With best wishes for the speedy recovery of your health, I remain, mydear Mr. Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. January 1, 1864. _

Dear Wallace, --I am still unable to write otherwise than by dictation. In a letter received two or three weeks ago from Asa Gray he writes: "Iread lately with gusto Wallace's exposé of the Dublin man on Bee cells, etc. "[38]

Now though I cannot read at present, I much want to know where this ispublished, that I may procure a copy. Further on Asa Gray says (afterspeaking of Agassiz's paper on Glaciers in the _Atlantic Magazine_ andhis recent book entitled "Method of Study"): "Pray set Wallace uponthese articles. " So Asa Gray seems to think much of your powers ofreviewing, and I mention this as it assuredly is _laudari a laudato_. 

I hope you are hard at work, and if you are inclined to tell me I shouldmuch like to know what you are doing. 

It will be many months, I fear, before I shall do anything. 

Pray believe me yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. January 2, 1864. _

My dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your kind letter. I was afraid to writebecause I heard such sad accounts of your health, but I am glad to findthat you can write, and I presume read, by deputy. My little article onHaughton's paper was published in the _Annals of Natural History_ aboutAugust or September last, I think, but I have not a copy to refer to. Iam sure it does not deserve Asa Gray's praises, for though the mattermay be true enough, the manner I know is very inferior. It was writtenhastily, and when I read it in the _Annals_ I was rather ashamed of it, as I knew so many could have done it so much better. 

I will try and see Agassiz's paper and book. What I have hitherto seenof his on Glacial subjects seems very good, but in all his NaturalHistory _theories_, he seems so utterly wrong and so totally blind tothe plainest deduction from facts, and at the same time so vague andobscure in his language, that it would be a very long and wearisome taskto answer him. 

With regard to work, I am doing but little--I am afraid I have no goodhabit of systematic work. I have been gradually getting parts of mycollections in order, but the obscurities of synonymy and descriptions, the difficulty of examining specimens, and my very limited library, makeit wearisome work. 

I have been lately getting the first groups of my butterflies in order, and they offer some most interesting facts in variation anddistribution--in variation some very puzzling ones. Though I have veryfine series of specimens, I find in many cases I want more; in fact if Icould have afforded to have all my collections kept till my return Ishould, I think, have found it necessary to retain twice as many as Inow have. 

I am at last making a beginning of a small book on my Eastern journey, which, if I can persevere, I hope to have ready by next Christmas. I ama very bad hand at writing anything like narrative. I want something toargue on, and then I find it much easier to go ahead. I rather despair, therefore, of making so good a book as Bates's, though I think mysubject is better. Like every other traveller, I suppose, I feeldreadfully the want of copious notes on common everyday objects, sightsand sounds and incidents, which I imagined I could never forget butwhich I now find it impossible to recall with any accuracy. 

I have just had a long and most interesting letter from my old companionSpruce. He says he has had a letter from you about Melastoma, but hasnot, he says, for three years seen a single melastomaceous plant! Theyare totally absent from the Pacific plains of tropical America, thoughso abundant on the Eastern plains. Poor fellow, he seems to be in aworse state than you are. Life has been a burden to him for three yearsowing to lung and heart disease, and rheumatism, brought on by exposurein high, hot, and cold damp valleys of the Andes. He went down to thedry climate of the Pacific coast to die more at ease, but the changeimproved him, and he thinks to come home, though he is sure he will notsurvive the first winter in England. He had never been able to get acopy of your book, though I am sure no one would have enjoyed orappreciated it more. 

If you are able to bear reading, will you allow me to take the libertyof recommending you a book? The fact is I have been so astonished anddelighted with the perusal of Spencer's works that I think it a duty tosociety to recommend them to all my friends who I think can appreciatethem. The one I particularly refer to now is "Social Statics, " a bookwhich is by no means hard to read; it is even amusing, and owing to thewonderful clearness of its style may be read and understood by anyone. Ithink, therefore, as it is quite distinct from your special studies atpresent, you might consider it as "light literature, " and I am prettysure it would interest you more than a great deal of what is nowconsidered very good. I am utterly astonished that so few people seem toread Spencer, and the utter ignorance there seems to be amongpoliticians and political economists of the grand views and logicalstability of his works. He appears to me as far ahead of John StuartMill as J. S. M. Is of the rest of the world, and, I may add, as Darwin isof Agassiz. The range of his knowledge is no less than its accuracy. Hisnebular hypothesis in the last volume of his essays is the most masterlyastronomical paper I have ever read, and in his forthcoming volume onBiology he is I understand going to show that there is something elsebesides Natural Selection at work in nature. So you must look out for a"foeman worthy of your steel"! But perhaps all this time you have readhis books. If so, excuse me, and pray give me your opinion of him, as Ihave hitherto only met with one man (Huxley) who has read andappreciated him. 

Allow me to say in conclusion how much I regret that unavoidablecircumstances have caused me to see so little of you since my returnhome, and how earnestly I pray for the speedy restoration of yourhealth. --Yours most sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Malvern Wells. Tuesday, March, 1864. _

My dear Mr. Wallace, --Your kindness is neverfailing. I got worse andworse at home and was sick every day for two months; so came here, whenI suddenly broke down and could do nothing; but I hope I am now veryslowly recovering, but am very weak. 

Sincere thanks about Melastoma: these flowers have baffled me, and Ihave caused several friends much useless labour; though, Heaven knows, Ihave thrown away time enough on them myself. 

The gorse case is very valuable, and I will quote it, as I presume Imay. 

I was very glad to see in the _Reader_ that you have been giving agrand paper (as I infer from remarks in discussion) on GeographicalDistribution. 

I am very weak, so will say no more. --Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

In Vol. I. , p. 93, of the "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, " Darwinstates the circumstances which led to his writing the "Descent of Man. "He says that his collection of facts, begun in 1837 or 1838, wascontinued for many years without any definite idea of publishing on thesubject. The letter to Wallace of May 28, 1864, in reply to the latter'sof May 10, shows that in the period of ill-health and depression about1864 he despaired of ever being able to do so. 

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. May 10, 1864. _

My dear Darwin, --I was very much gratified to hear by your letter of amonth back that you were a little better, and I have since heardoccasionally through Huxley and Lubbock that you are not worse. Isincerely hope the summer weather and repose may do you real good. 

The Borneo Cave exploration is to go on at present without asubscription. The new British consul who is going out to Sarawak thismonth will undertake to explore some of the caves nearest the town, andif anything of interest is obtained a good large sum can no doubt beraised for a thorough exploration of the whole country. Sir J. Brookewill give every assistance, and will supply men for the preliminarywork. 

I send you now my little contribution to the _theory_ of the origin ofman. I hope you will be able to agree with me. If you are able, I shallbe glad to have your criticisms. 

I was led to the subject by the necessity of explaining the vast mentaland cranial differences between man and the apes combined with suchsmall structural differences in other parts of the body, and also by anendeavour to account for the diversity of human races combined withman's almost perfect stability of form during all historical epochs. 

It has given me a settled opinion on these subjects, if nobody can showa fallacy in the argument. 

The Anthropologicals did not seem to appreciate it much, but we had along discussion which appears almost verbatim in the _AnthropologicalReview_. [39]

As the _Linnean Transactions_ will not be out till the end of the year Isent a pretty full abstract of the more interesting parts of myPapilionidæ paper[40] to the _Reader_, which, as you say, is a splendidpaper. 

Trusting Mrs. Darwin and all your family are well, and that you areimproving, believe me yours most sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent. May 28, 1864. _

Dear Wallace, --I am so much better that I have just finished a paper forthe Linnean Society; but as I am not yet at all strong I felt muchdisinclination to write, and therefore you must forgive me for nothaving sooner thanked you for your paper on Man received on the 11th. But first let me say that I have hardly ever in my life been more struckby any paper than that on variation, etc. Etc. , in the _Reader_. I feelsure that such papers will do more for the spreading of our views on themodification of species than any separate treatises on the singlesubject itself. It is really admirable; but you ought not in the Manpaper to speak of the theory as mine; it is just as much yours as mine. One correspondent has already noticed to me your "high-minded" conducton this head. 

But now for your Man paper, about which I should like to write more thanI can. The great leading idea is quite new to me, viz. That during lateages the mind will have been modified more than the body; yet I had gotas far as to see with you that the struggle between the races of mandepended entirely on intellectual and _moral_ qualities. The latter partof the paper I can designate only as grand and most eloquently done. Ihave shown your paper to two or three persons who have been here, andthey have been equally struck with it. 

I am not sure that I go with you on all minor points. When reading SirG. Grey's account of the constant battles of Australian savages, Iremember thinking that Natural Selection would come in, and likewisewith the Esquimaux, with whom the art of fishing and managing canoes issaid to be hereditary. I rather differ on the rank under theclassificatory point of view which you assign to Man: I do not think anycharacter simply in excess ought ever to be used for the higherdivision. Ants would not be separated from other hymenopterous insects, however high the instinct of the one and however low the instincts ofthe other. 

With respect to the differences of race, a conjecture has occurred to methat much may be due to the correlation of complexion (and consequentlyhair) with constitution. Assume that a dusky individual best escapedmiasma and you will readily see what I mean. I persuaded theDirector-General of the Medical Department of the Army to send printedforms to the surgeons of all regiments in tropical countries toascertain this point, but I daresay I shall never get any returns. Secondly, I suspect that a sort of sexual selection has been the mostpowerful means of changing the races of man. I can show that thedifferent races have a widely different standard of beauty. Amongsavages the most powerful men will have the pick of the women, and theywill generally leave the most descendants. 

I have collected a few notes on Man, but I do not suppose I shall everuse them. Do you intend to follow out your views, and if so would youlike at some future time to have my few references and notes?

I am sure I hardly know whether they are of any value, and they are atpresent in a state of chaos. 

There is much more that I should like to write but I have notstrength. --Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

Our aristocracy is handsomer? (more hideous according to a Chinese ornegro) than the middle classes, from pick of women; but oh what a schemeis primogeniture for destroying Natural Selection! I fear my letter willbe barely intelligible to you. 

 * * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. May 29 [1864]. _

My dear Darwin, --You are always so ready to appreciate what others do, and especially to overestimate my desultory efforts, that I cannot besurprised at your very kind and flattering remarks on my papers. I amglad, however, that you have made a few critical observations, and amonly sorry you were not well enough to make more, as that enables me tosay a few words in explanation. 

My great fault is haste. An idea strikes me, I think over it for a fewdays, and then write away with such illustrations as occur to me whilegoing on. I therefore look at the subject almost solely from one pointof view. Thus in my paper on Man[41] I aim solely at showing that brutesare modified in a _great variety_ of ways by Natural Selection, but thatin _none of these particular_ ways can man be modified, because of thesuperiority of his intellect. I therefore no doubt overlook a fewsmaller points in which Natural Selection may still act on men andbrutes alike. Colour is one of them, and I have alluded to this incorrelation to constitution in an abstract I have made at Sclater'srequest for the _Natural History Review_. [42] At the same time, there isso much evidence of migrations and displacements of races of man, and somany cases of peoples of distinct physical characters inhabiting thesame or similar regions, and also of races of uniform physicalcharacters inhabiting widely dissimilar regions, that the externalcharacteristics of the chief races of man must I think be older than hispresent geographical distribution, and the modifications produced bycorrelation to favourable variations of constitution be only a secondarycause of external modification. 

I hope you may get the returns from the Army. They would be veryinteresting, but I do not expect the results would be favourable to yourview. 

With regard to the constant battles of savages leading to selection ofphysical superiority, I think it would be very imperfect, and subject toso many exceptions and irregularities that it could produce no_definite_ result. For instance, the strongest and bravest men wouldlead, and expose themselves most, and would therefore be most subject towounds and death. And the physical energy which led to any one tribedelighting in war might lead to its extermination by inducing quarrelswith all surrounding tribes and leading them to combine against it. Again, superior cunning, stealth and swiftness of foot, or even betterweapons, would often lead to victory as well as mere physical strength. Moreover this kind of more or less perpetual war goes on among allsavage peoples. It could lead therefore to no differential characters, but merely to the keeping up of a certain average standard of bodily andmental health and vigour. So with selection of variations adapted tospecial habits of life, as fishing, paddling, riding, climbing, etc. Etc. , in different races: no doubt it must act to some extent, but willit be ever so rigid as to induce a definite physical modification, andcan we imagine it to have had any part in producing the distinct racesthat now exist?

The sexual selection you allude to will also, I think, have been equallyuncertain in its results. In the very lowest tribes there is rarely muchpolygamy, and women are more or less a matter of purchase. There is alsolittle difference of social condition, and I think it rarely happensthat any healthy and undeformed man remains without wife and children. Ivery much doubt the often-repeated assertion that our aristocracy aremore beautiful than the middle classes. I allow that they present_specimens_ of the highest kind of beauty, but I doubt the average. Ihave noticed in country places a greater average amount of good looksamong the middle classes, and besides, we unavoidably combine in ouridea of beauty, intellectual expression and refinement of _manner_, which often make the less appear the more beautiful. Mere physicalbeauty--that is, a healthy and regular development of the body andfeatures approaching to the _mean_ or _type_ of European man--I believeis quite as frequent in one class of society as the other, and much morefrequent in rural districts than in cities. 

With regard to the rank of man in zoological classification, I fear Ihave not made myself intelligible. I never meant to adopt Owen's or anyother such views, but only to point out that from _one_ point of view hewas right. I hold that a distinct _family_ for man, as Huxley allows, isall that can possibly be given him zoologically. But at the same time, if my theory is true--that while the animals which surrounded him havebeen undergoing modification in _all_ parts of their bodies to a_generic_ or even _family_ degree of difference, he has been changingalmost wholly in the brain and head--then, in geological antiquity the_species_ of man may be as old as many mammalian _families_, and theorigin of the _family_ man may date back to a period when some of theorders first originated. 

As to the theory of Natural Selection itself, I shall always maintain itto be actually yours and yours only. You had worked it out in details Ihad never thought of, years before I had a ray of light on the subject, and my paper would never have convinced anybody or been noticed as morethan an ingenious speculation, whereas your book has revolutionised thestudy of natural history, and carried away captive the best men of thepresent age. All the merit I claim is the having been the means ofinducing _you_ to write and publish at once. 

I may possibly some day go a little more into this subject (of Man), and, if I do, will accept the kind offer of your notes. I am now, however, beginning to write the "Narrative of my Travels" which willoccupy me a long time, as I hate writing narrative, and after Bates'sbrilliant success rather fear to fail. I shall introduce a few chapterson geographical distribution and other such topics. 

Sir C. Lyell, while agreeing with my main argument on Man, thinks I amwrong in wanting to put him back into Miocene times, and thinks I do notappreciate the immense interval even to the later Pliocene. But I stillmaintain my view, which in fact is a logical result of my theory, for ifman originated in later Pliocene times, when almost all mammalia were ofclosely allied species to those now living, and many even identical, then man has _not_ been stationary in bodily structure while animalshave been varying, and my theory will be proved to be all wrong. 

In Murchison's address to the Geographical Society just delivered hepoints out Africa, as being the _oldest_ existing land. He says there is_no_ evidence of its having been ever submerged during the tertiaryepoch. Here, then, is evidently the place to find _early man_. I hopesomething good may be found in Borneo, and that then means may be foundto explore the still more promising regions of tropical Africa, for wecan expect nothing of man _very_ early in Europe. 

It has given me great pleasure to find that there are symptoms ofimprovement in your health. I hope you will not exert yourself too soonor write more than is quite agreeable to you. I think I made out everyword of your letter though it was not always easy. --Believe me, my dearDarwin, yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. June 15, 1864. _

Dear Wallace, --You must not suppose from my delay that I have not beenmuch interested by your long letter. I write now merely to thank you, and just to say that probably you are right on all the points you touchon except, as I think, about sexual selection, which I will not give up. 

My belief in it, however, is contingent on my general beliefs in sexualselection. It is an awful stretcher to believe that a peacock's tail wasthus formed; but believing it, I believe in the same principle somewhatmodified applied to man. 

I doubt whether my notes would be of any use to you, and as far as Iremember they are chiefly on sexual selection. 

I am very glad to hear that you are on your Travels. I believe you willfind it a very convenient vehicle for miscellaneous discussion. Withyour admirable powers of writing, I cannot doubt that you will make anexcellent book. --Believe me, dear Wallace, yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

P. S. --A great gun, Flourens, has written a little dull book against me;which pleases me much, for it is plain that our good work is spreadingin France. He speaks of the _engouement_ about this book, "so full ofempty and presumptuous thoughts. "

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. January 29, 1865. _

My dear Wallace, --I must ease my mind by saying how much I admire thetwo papers you have sent me. 

That on parrots[43] contained most new matter to me, and interested me_extremely_; that in the _Geographical Journal_[44] strikes me as anepitome of the whole theory of geographical distribution: the comparisonof Borneo and New Guinea, the relation of the volcanic outbursts and therequired subsidence, and the comparison of the supposed conversion ofthe Atlantic into a great archipelago, seemed to me the three best hits. They are both indeed excellent papers. --Believe me yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. 

Do try what hard work will do to banish painful thoughts. [45]

P. S. --During one of the later French voyages, a _wild_ pig was killedand brought from the Aru Islands to Paris. Am I not right in inferringthat this must have been introduced and run wild? If you have a clearopinion on this head, may I quote you?

 * * * * *

_5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. January 31, [1865?]. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your kind letter. I send you now a fewmore papers. One on Man is not much in your line. The other three arebird lists, but in the introductory remarks are a few facts ofdistribution that may be of use to you, and as you have them already inthe _Zoological Proceedings_, you can cut these up if you want"extracts. "

I hope you do not very much want the Aru pig to be a domestic animal runwild, because I have no doubt myself it was the species peculiar to theNew Guinea fauna (_Sus papuensis_, Less. ), a very distinct form. I haveno doubt it is this species, though I did not get it myself there, because I was told that on a small island near, called there Pulo babi(Pig Island), was a race of pigs (different from and larger than thoseof the large islands) which had originated from the wreck of a largeship near a century ago. The productions of the Aru Islands closelyresemble those of New Guinea, more than half the species of birds beingidentical, as well as about half of the few known mammals. 

I am beginning to work at some semi-mechanical work, drawing upcatalogues of parts of my collection for publication. 

I enclose my "carte. " Have you a photograph of yourself of any kind youcan send me? When you come to town next, may I beg the honour of asitting for my brother-in-law, Mr. Sims, 73 Westbourne Grove?--Yoursvery sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --Your paper on _Lythrum salicaria_[46] is most beautiful. What awonderful plant it is! I long to hear your paper on Tendrils and hearwhat you have got out of them. My old friend Spruce, a good botanist andclose observer, could probably supply you with some facts on that orother botanical subjects if you would write to him. He is now at Kew, but almost as ill as yourself. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. February 1, 1865. _

My dear Wallace, --I am much obliged for your photograph, for I havelately set up a scientific album; and for the papers, which I will readbefore long. I enclose my own photo, taken by my son, and I have noother. 

I fear it will be a long time before I shall be able to sit to aphotographer, otherwise I should be happy to sit to Mr. Sims. 

Thanks for information about the Aru pig, which will make me verycautious. 

It is a perplexing case, for Nathusius says the skull of the Aruresembles that of the Chinese breed, and he thinks that _Sus papuensis_has been founded on a young skull; D. Blainville stating that an oldskull from New Guinea resembles that of the wild pigs of Malabar, andthese belong to the _S. Scrofa_ type, which is different from theChinese domestic breed. The latter has not been found in a wildcondition. --Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, Regent's Park, N. W. Sept. 18, 1865. _

Dear Darwin, --I should have written before to thank you for the copy ofyour paper on climbing plants, which I read with great interest; I canimagine how much pleasure the working out must have given you. I wasafraid you were too ill to make it advisable that you should be botheredwith letters. 

I write now, in hopes you are better, to communicate a curious case of_variation_ becoming at once _hereditary_, which was brought forward atthe British Association. I send a note of it on the other side, but ifyou would like more exact particulars, with names and dates and adrawing of the bird, I am sure Mr. O'Callaghan would send them to you. 

I hope to hear that you are better, and that your new book is really tocome out next winter. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

NOTE. --Last spring Mr. O'Callaghan was told by a country boy that he hadseen a blackbird with a topknot; on which Mr. O'C. Very judiciously toldhim to watch it and communicate further with him. After a time the boytold him he had found a blackbird's nest, and had seen this crested birdnear it and believed he belonged to it. He continued watching the nesttill the young were hatched. After a time he told Mr. O'C. That two ofthe young birds seemed as if they would have topknots. He was told toget one of them as soon as it was fledged. However, he was too late, andthey left the nest, but luckily he found them near and knocked one downwith a stone, which Mr. O'C. Had stuffed and exhibited. It has a finecrest, something like that of a Polish fowl, but _larger_ in proportionto the bird, and very regular and well formed. The male must have beenalmost like the Umbrella bird in miniature, the crest is so large andexpanded. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. September 22, 1865. _

Dear Wallace, --I am much obliged for your extract; I never heard of sucha case, though such a variation is perhaps the most likely of any tooccur in a state of nature and be inherited, inasmuch as alldomesticated birds present races with a tuft or with reversed featherson their heads. I have sometimes thought that the progenitor of thewhole class must have been a crested animal. 

Do you make any progress with your Journal of travels? I am the moreanxious that you should do so as I have lately read with much interestsome papers by you on the ouran-outang, etc. , in the _Annals_, of whichI have lately been reading the latter volumes, I have always thoughtthat Journals of this nature do considerable good by advancing the tastefor natural history; I know in my own case that nothing ever stimulatedmy zeal so much as reading Humboldt's Personal Narrative. I have not yetreceived the last part of _Linnean Transactions_, but your paper[47] atpresent will be rather beyond my strength, for though somewhat better Ican as yet do hardly anything but lie on the sofa and be read aloud to. By the way, have you read Tylor and Lecky?[48] Both these books haveinterested me much. I suppose you have read Lubbock?[49] In the lastchapter there is a note about you in which I most cordially concur. [50] Isee you were at the British Association, but I have heard nothing of itexcept what I have picked up in the _Reader_. I have heard a rumour thatthe _Reader_ is sold to the Anthropological Society. If you do notbegrudge the trouble of another note (for my sole channel of newsthrough Hooker is closed by his illness), I should much like to hearwhether the _Reader_ is thus sold. I should be very sorry for it, as thepaper would thus become sectional in its tendency. If you write, tell mewhat you are doing yourself. 

The only news which I have about the "Origin" is that Fritz Müllerpublished a few months ago a remarkable book[51] in its favour, andsecondly that a second French edition is just coming out. --Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, Regents Park. October 2, 1865. _

Dear Darwin, --I was just leaving town for a few days when I receivedyour letter, or should have replied at once. 

The _Reader_ has no doubt changed hands, and I am inclined to think forthe better. It is purchased, I believe, by a gentleman who is a Fellowof the Anthropological Society, but I see no signs of its being made aspecial organ of that Society. The Editor (and, I believe, proprietor)is a Mr. Bendyshe, the most talented man in the Society, and, judgingfrom his speaking, which I have often heard, I should say the articleson "Simeon and Simony, " "Metropolitan Sewage, " and "France and Mexico, "are his, and these are in my opinion superior to anything that has beenin the _Reader_ for a long time; they have the point and brilliancywhich are wanted to make leading articles readable and popular. Thearticles on Mill's Political Economy and on Mazzini are also first-rate. He has introduced also the plan of having two, and now three, importantarticles in each number--one political or social, one literary, and onescientific. Under the old regime they never had an editor abovemediocrity, except Masson (? Musson); there was a want of unity amongthe proprietors as to the aims and objects of the journal; and there wasa want of capital to secure the services of good writers. This seems tome to be now all changed for the better, and I only hope the rumour ofthat _bête noire_, the Anthropological Society, having anything to dowith it may not cause our best men of science to withdraw their supportand contributions. 

I have read Tylor, and am reading Lecky. I found the former somewhatdisconnected and unsatisfactory from the absence of any definite resultor any decided opinion on most of the matters treated of. 

Lecky I like much, though he is rather tedious and obscure at times. Most of what he says has been said so much more forcibly by Buckle, whose work I have read for the second time with increased admiration, although with a clear view of some of his errors. Nevertheless, his is Ithink unapproachably the grandest work of the present century, and theone most likely to liberalise opinion. Lubbock's book is very good, buthis concluding chapter very weak. Why are men of science so dreadfullyafraid to say what they think and believe?

In reply to your kind inquiries about myself, I can only say that I amashamed of my laziness. I have done nothing lately but write a paper onPigeons for the _Ibis_, and am drawing up a Catalogue of my Collectionof Birds. 

As to my "Travels, " I cannot bring myself to undertake them yet, andperhaps never shall, unless I should be fortunate enough to get a wifewho would incite me thereto and assist me therein--which is not likely. 

I am glad to hear that the "Origin" is still working its revolutionaryway on the Continent. Will Müller's book on it be translated?

I am glad to hear you are a little better. My poor friend Spruce isstill worse than you are, and I fear now will not recover. He wants towrite a book if he gets well enough. --With best wishes, believe me yoursvery faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. January 22, 1866. _

My dear Wallace, --I thank you for your paper on Pigeons, [52] whichinterested me, as everything that you write does. Who would ever havedreamed that monkeys influenced the distribution of pigeons and parrots!But I have had a still higher satisfaction; for I finished yesterdayyour paper in the _Linnean Transactions_. [53] It is admirably done. Icannot conceive that the most firm believer in Species could read itwithout being staggered. Such papers will make many more converts amongnaturalists than long-winded books such as I shall write if I havestrength. 

I have been particularly struck with your remarks on dimorphism; but Icannot quite understand one point (p. 22), and should be grateful for anexplanation, for I want fully to understand you. [54] How can one femaleform be selected and the intermediate forms die out, without also theother extreme form also dying out from not having the advantages of thefirst selected form? for, as I understand, both female forms occur onthe same island. I quite agree with your distinction between dimorphicforms and varieties; but I doubt whether your criterion of dimorphicforms not producing intermediate offspring will suffice; for I know ofa good many varieties, which must be so called, that will not blend orintermix, but produce offspring quite like either parent. 

I have been particularly struck with your remarks on geologicaldistribution in Celebes. It is impossible that anything could be betterput, and [it] would give a cold shudder to the immutable naturalists. 

And now I am going to ask a question which you will not like. How doesyour Journal get on? It will be a shame if you do not popularise yourresearches. 

My health is so far improved that I am able to work one or two hours aday. --Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, Regent's Park, N. W. February 4, 1866. _

My dear Darwin, --I am very glad to hear you are a little better, andhope we shall soon have the pleasure of seeing your volume on "Variationunder Domestication. " I do not see the difficulty you seem to feel abouttwo or more female forms of one species. The _most common_ or _typical_female form must have certain characters or qualities which aresufficiently advantageous to it to enable it to maintain its existence;in general, such as vary much from it die out. But occasionally avariation may occur which has special advantageous characters of its own(such as mimicking a protected species), and then this variation willmaintain itself by selection. In no less than three of my _polymorphic_species of Papilio, one of the female forms mimics the _Polydorus_group, which, like the _Æneas_ group in America, seems to have somespecial protection. In two or three other cases one of the female formsis confined to a restricted locality, to the conditions of which it isprobably specially adapted. In other cases one of the female formsresembles the male, and perhaps receives a protection from theabundance of the males, in the crowd of which it is passed over. I thinkthese considerations render the production of two or three forms offemale very conceivable. The physiological difficulty is to me greater, of how each of two forms of female produces offspring like the otherfemale as well as like itself, but no intermediates?

If you "know varieties that will not blend or intermix, but produceoffspring quite like either parents, " is not that the very physiologicaltest of a species which is wanting for the _complete proof_ of theorigin of species?

I have by no means given up the idea of writing my Travels, but I thinkI shall be able to do it better for the delay, as I can introducechapters giving popular sketches of the subjects treated of in myvarious papers. 

I hope, if things go as I wish this summer, to begin work at it nextwinter. But I feel myself incorrigibly lazy, and have no such system ofcollecting and arranging facts or of making the most of my materials asyou and many of our hard-working naturalists possess inperfection. --With best wishes, believe me, dear Darwin, yours mostsincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, S. E. Tuesday, February, 1866. _

My dear Wallace, --After I had dispatched my last note, the simpleexplanation which you give had occurred to me, and seems satisfactory. Ido not think you understand what I mean by the non-blending of certainvarieties. It does not refer to fertility. An instance will explain. Icrossed the Painted Lady and Purple sweet peas, which are verydifferently coloured varieties, and got, even out of the same pod, bothvarieties perfect, but none intermediate. Something of this kind, Ishould think, must occur at first with your butterflies and the threeforms of Lythrum; though these cases are in appearance so wonderful, Ido not know that they are really more so than every female in the worldproducing distinct male and female offspring. 

I am heartily glad that you mean to go on preparing yourJournal. --Believe me yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Hurstpierpoint, Sussex. July 2, 1866. _

My dear Darwin, --I have been so repeatedly struck by the utter inabilityof numbers of intelligent persons to see clearly, or at all, theself-acting and necessary effects of Natural Selection, that I am led toconclude that the term itself, and your mode of illustrating it, howeverclear and beautiful to many of us, are yet not the best adapted toimpress it on the general naturalist public. The two last cases of thismisunderstanding are (1) the article on "Darwin and his Teachings" inthe last _Quarterly Journal of Science_, which, though very well writtenand on the whole appreciative, yet concludes with a charge of somethinglike blindness, in your not seeing that Natural Selection requires theconstant watching of an intelligent "chooser, " like man's selection towhich you so often compare it; and (2) in Janet's recent work on the"Materialism of the Present Day, " reviewed in last Saturday's _Reader_, by an extract from which I see that he considers your weak point to bethat you do not see that "thought and direction are essential to theaction of Natural Selection. " The same objection has been made a scoreof times by your chief opponents, and I have heard it as often statedmyself in conversation. Now, I think this arises almost entirely fromyour choice of the term Natural Selection, and so constantly comparingit in its effects to man's selection, and also to your so frequentlypersonifying nature as "selecting, " as "preferring, " as "seeking onlythe good of the species, " etc. , etc. To the few this is as clear asdaylight, and beautifully suggestive, but to many it is evidently astumbling-block. I wish, therefore, to suggest to you the possibility ofentirely avoiding this source of misconception in your great work (ifnot now too late), and also in any future editions of the "Origin, " andI think it may be done without difficulty and very effectually byadopting Spencer's term (which he generally uses in preference toNatural Selection), viz. "Survival of the Fittest. " This term is theplain expression of the _fact_; "Natural Selection" is a metaphoricalexpression of it, and to a certain degree _indirect_ and _incorrect_, since, even personifying Nature, she does not so much select specialvariations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones. 

Combined with the enormous multiplying powers of all organisms, and the"struggle for existence, " leading to the constant destruction of by farthe largest proportion--facts which no one of your opponents, as far asI am aware, has denied or misunderstood--"the survival of the fittest, "rather than of those which were less fit, could not possibly be deniedor misunderstood. Neither would it be possible to say that to ensure the"survival of the fittest" any _intelligent chooser_ was necessary, whereas when you say "Natural Selection" acts so as to choose those thatare fittest it _is_ misunderstood, and apparently always will be. Referring to your book, I find such expressions as "Man selects only forhis own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends. " This, it seems, will always be misunderstood; but if you had said, "Manselects only for his own good; Nature, by the inevitable survival of thefittest, only for that of the being she tends, " it would have been lessliable to be so. 

I find you use the term Natural Selection in two senses--(1) for thesimple preservation of favourable and rejection of unfavourablevariations, in which case it is equivalent to "survival of the fittest";(2) for the _effect or change_ produced by this preservation, as whenyou say, "To sum up the circumstances favourable or unfavourable tonatural selection, " and, again, "Isolation, also, is an importantelement in the process of natural selection": here it is not merely"survival of the fittest, " but _change_ produced by survival of thefittest, that is meant. On looking over your fourth chapter, I find thatthese alterations of terms can be in most cases easily made, while insome cases the addition of "or survival of the fittest" after "naturalselection" would be best; and in others, less likely to bemisunderstood, the original term might stand alone. 

I could not venture to propose to any other person so great analteration of terms, but you, I am sure, will give it an impartialconsideration, and, if you really think the change will produce a betterunderstanding of your work, will not hesitate to adopt it. It isevidently also necessary not to personify "nature" too much, though I amvery apt to do it myself, since people will not understand that all suchphrases are metaphors. Natural Selection is, when understood, sonecessary and self-evident a principle that it is a pity it should be inany way obscured; and it therefore occurs to me that the free use of"survival of the fittest", which is a compact and accurate definition ofit, would tend much to its being more widely accepted and prevent itsbeing so much misrepresented and misunderstood. 

There is another objection made by Janet which is also a very commonone. It is that the chances are almost infinite against the particularkind of variation required being coincident with each change of externalconditions, to enable an animal to become modified by Natural Selectionin harmony with such changed conditions; especially when we considerthat, to have produced the almost infinite modifications of organicbeings, this coincidence must have taken place an almost infinite numberof times. 

Now it seems to me that you have yourself led to this objection beingmade by so often stating the case too strongly against yourself. Forexample, at the commencement of Chapter IV. You ask if it is "improbablethat useful variations should sometimes occur in the course of thousandsof generations"; and a little further on you say, "unless profitablevariations do occur, natural selection can do nothing. " Now, suchexpressions have given your opponents the advantage of assuming that_favourable_ variations are _rare accidents_, or may even for longperiods never occur at all, and thus Janet's argument would appear tomany to have great force. I think it would be better to do away with allsuch qualifying expressions, and constantly maintain (what I certainlybelieve to be the fact) that _variations of every kind_ are _alwaysoccurring_ in _every part_ of _every species_, and therefore thatfavourable variations are _always ready_ when wanted. You have, I amsure, abundant materials to prove this, and it is, I believe, the grandfact that renders modification and adaptation to conditions almostalways possible. I would put the burthen of proof on my opponents toshow that any one organ, structure, or faculty does _not vary_, evenduring one generation, among all the individuals of a species; and alsoto show any _mode or way_ in which any such organ, etc. , does not vary. I would ask them to give any reason for supposing that any organ, etc. , is ever _absolutely identical_ at any _one time in all the individuals_of a species, and if not, then it is always varying, and there arealways materials which, from the simple fact that the "fittest survive, "will tend to the modification of the race into harmony with changedconditions. 

I hope these remarks may be intelligible to you, and that you will be sokind as to let me know what you think of them. 

I have not heard for some time how you are getting on. I hope you arestill improving in health, and that you will be able now to get on withyour great work, for which so many thousands are looking withinterest. --With best wishes, believe me, my dear Darwin, yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. July 5, [1866]. _

My dear Wallace, --I have been much interested by your letter, which isas clear as daylight. I fully agree with all that you say on theadvantages of H. Spencer's excellent expression of "the survival of thefittest. " This, however, had not occurred to me till reading yourletter. It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot beused as a substantive governing a verb; and that this is a realobjection I infer from H. Spencer continually using the words "NaturalSelection. "

I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated degree, that it was agreat advantage to bring into connection natural and artificialselection; this indeed led me to use a term in common, and I still thinkit some advantage. I wish I had received your letter two months ago, forI would have worked in "the survival, " etc. , often in the new edition ofthe "Origin, " which is now almost printed off, and of which I will, ofcourse, send you a copy. I will use the term in my next book on DomesticAnimals, etc. , from which, by the way, I plainly see that you expect_much_ too much. The term Natural Selection has now been so largely usedabroad and at home that I doubt whether it could be given up, and withall its faults I should be sorry to see the attempt made. Whether itwill be rejected must now depend on the "survival of the fittest. "

As in time the term must grow intelligible, the objections to its usewill grow weaker and weaker. I doubt whether the use of any term wouldhave made the subject intelligible to some minds, clear as it is toothers; for do we not see, even to the present day, Malthus onPopulation absurdly misunderstood? This reflection about Malthus hasoften comforted me when I have been vexed at the misstatement of myviews. 

As for M. Janet, [55] he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen are soacute that I think they often misunderstand common folk. Your criticismon the double sense in which I have used Natural Selection is new to meand unanswerable; but my blunder has done no harm, for I do not believethat anyone excepting you has ever observed it. Again, I agree that Ihave said too much about "favourable variations, " but I am inclined tothink you put the opposite side too strongly; if every part of everybeing varied, I do not think we should see the same end or object gainedby such wonderfully diversified means. 

I hope you are enjoying the country and are in good health, and areworking hard at your Malay Archipelago book, for I will always put thiswish in every note I write to you, like some good people always put in atext. My health keeps much the same, or rather improves, and I am ableto work some hours daily. --With many thanks for your interesting letter, believe me, my dear Wallace, yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

P. S. --I suppose you have read the last number of H. Spencer; I have beenstruck with astonishment at the prodigality of original thought in it. But how unfortunate it is that it seems scarcely ever possible todiscriminate between the direct effect of external influences and the"survival of the fittest. "

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, Regent's Park, N. W. Nov. 19, 1866. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for the fourth edition of the "Origin, " whichI am glad to see grows so vigorously at each moult, although itundergoes no metamorphosis. How curious it is that Dr. Wells should soclearly have seen the principle of Natural Selection fifty years ago, and that it should have struck no one that it was a great principle ofuniversal application in nature!

We are going to have a discussion on "Mimicry, as producing AbnormalSexual Characters, " at the Entomological to-night. I have a butterfly(Diadema) of which the female is metallic blue, the male dusky brown, contrary to the rule in all other species of the genus, and in almostall insects; but the explanation is easy--it mimics a metallic_Euploea_, and so gets a protection perhaps more efficient than itsallies derive from their sombre colours, and which females require muchmore than males. I read a paper on this at the British Association. Haveyou the report published at Nottingham in a volume by Dr. Robertson? Ifso, you can tell me if my paper is printed in full. 

I suppose you have read Agassiz's marvellous theory of the GreatAmazonian glacier, 2, 000 miles long! I presume that will be a _little_too much, even for you. I have been writing a little popular paper on"Glacial Theories" for the _Quarterly Journal of Science_ of Januarynext, in which I stick up for glaciers in North America and icebergs inthe Amazon!

I was very glad to hear from Lubbock that your health is permanentlyimproved. I hope therefore you will be able to give us a volume perannum of your _magnum opus_, with all the facts as you now have them, leaving additions to come in new editions. 

I am working a little at another family of my butterflies, and find theusual interesting and puzzling cases of variation, but no such phenomenaas in the Papilionidæ. --With best wishes, believe me, my dear Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_6 Queen Anne Street, W. Monday, January, 1867. _

My dear Wallace, --I return by this post the _Journal_. [56] Your résumé ofglacier action seems to me very good, and has interested my brothermuch, and as the subject is new to him he is a better judge. That isquite a new and perplexing point which you specify about the freshwaterfishes during the glacial period. 

I have also been very glad to see the article on Lyell, which seems tome to be done by some good man. 

I forgot to say when with you--but I then indeed did not know so much asI do now--that the sexual, i. E. _ornamental_, differences in fishes, which differences are sometimes very great, offer a difficulty in thewide extension of the view that the female is not brightly coloured onaccount of the danger which she would incur in the propagation of thespecies. 

I very much enjoyed my long conversation with you; and to-day we returnhome, and I to my horrid dull work of correcting proof-sheets. --Believeme, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. 

P. S. --I had arranged to go and see your collection on Saturday evening, but my head suddenly failed after luncheon, and I was forced to lie downall the rest of the day. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. February 23, 1867. _

Dear Wallace, --I much regretted that I was unable to call on you, butafter Monday I was unable even to leave the house. On Monday evening Icalled on Bates and put a difficulty before him, which he could notanswer, and, as on some former similar occasion, his first suggestionwas, "You had better ask Wallace. " My difficulty is, why arecaterpillars sometimes so beautifully and artistically coloured? Seeingthat many are coloured to escape danger, I can hardly attribute theirbright colour in other cases to mere physical conditions. Bates says themost gaudy caterpillar he ever saw in Amazonia (of a Sphinx) wasconspicuous at the distance of yards from its black and red colouringwhilst feeding on large green leaves. If anyone objected to malebutterflies having been made beautiful by sexual selection, and askedwhy should they not have been made beautiful as well as theircaterpillars, what would you answer? I could not answer, but shouldmaintain my ground. Will you think over this, and some time, either byletter or when we meet, tell me what you think? Also, I want to knowwhether your _female_ mimetic butterfly is more beautiful and brighterthan the male?

When next in London I must get you to show me your Kingfishers. 

My health is a dreadful evil; I failed in half my engagements duringthis last visit to London. --Believe me, yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

The answer to this letter is missing, but in Vol. II. Of "My Life, " p. 3, Wallace writes:

 "On reading this letter I almost at once saw what seemed to be a very easy and probable explanation of the facts. I had then just been preparing for publication (in the _Westminster Review_) my rather elaborate paper on 'Mimicry and Protective Colouring, ' and the numerous cases in which specially showy and slow-flying butterflies were known to have a peculiar odour and taste which protected them from the attacks of insect-eating birds and other animals led me at once to suppose that the gaudily coloured caterpillars must have a similar protection. I had just ascertained from Mr. Jenner Weir that one of our common white moths (_Spilosoma menthastri_) would not be eaten by most of the small birds in his aviary, nor by young turkeys. Now, as a _white_ moth is as conspicuous in the dusk as a coloured caterpillar in the daylight, this case seemed to me so much on a par with the other that I felt almost sure my explanation would turn out correct. I at once wrote to Mr. Darwin to this effect. "

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. February 26, 1867. _

My dear Wallace, --Bates was quite right, you are the man to apply to ina difficulty. I never heard anything more ingenious than yoursuggestion, and I hope you may be able to prove it true. That is asplendid fact about the white moths; it warms one's very blood to see atheory thus almost proved to be true. [57] With respect to the beauty ofmale butterflies, I must as yet think that it is due to sexualselection; there is some evidence that dragonflies are attracted bybright colours; but what leads me to the above belief is so many maleOrthoptera and Cicadas having musical instruments. This being the case, the analogy of birds makes me believe in sexual selection with respectto colour in insects. I wish I had strength and time to make some of theexperiments suggested by you; but I thought butterflies would not pairin confinement; I am sure I have heard of some such difficulty. Manyyears ago I had a dragonfly painted with gorgeous colours, but I neverhad an opportunity of fairly trying it. 

The reason of my being so much interested just at present about sexualselection is that I have almost resolved to publish a little essay onthe Origin of Mankind, and I still strongly think (though I failed toconvince you, and this to me is the heaviest blow possible) that sexualselection has been the main agent in forming the races of man. 

By the way, there is another subject which I shall introduce in myessay, viz. Expression of countenance. Now, do you happen to know by anyodd chance a very good-natured and acute observer in the MalayArchipelago who, you think, would make a few easy observations for me onthe expression of the Malays when excited by various emotions. For inthis case I would send to such person a list of queries. --I thank youfor your most interesting letters, and remain yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. March 11, 1867. _

Dear Darwin, --I return your queries, but cannot answer them with anycertainty. For the Malays I should say Yes to 1, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 17, andNo to 12, 13 and 16; but I cannot be _certain_ in any one. But do youthink these things are of much importance? I am inclined to think thatif you could get good direct observations you would find some of themoften differ from tribe to tribe, from island to island, and sometimesfrom village to village. Some no doubt may be deep-seated, and wouldimply organic differences; but can you tell beforehand which these are?I presume the Frenchman shrugs his shoulders whether he is of theNorman, Breton, or Gaulish stock. Would it not be a good thing to sendyour List of Queries to some of the Bombay and Calcutta papers? as theremust be numbers of Indian judges and other officers who would beinterested and would send you hosts of replies. The Australian papersand New Zealand might also publish them, and then you would have a finebasis to go on. 

Is your essay on Variation in Man to be a supplement to your volume onDomesticated Animals and Cultivated Plants? I would rather see yoursecond volume on "The Struggle for Existence, etc. , " for I doubt if wehave a sufficiency of fair and accurate facts to do anything with man. Huxley, I believe, is at work upon it. 

I have been reading Murray's volume on the Geographical Distribution ofMammals. He has some good ideas here and there, but is quite unable tounderstand Natural Selection, and makes a most absurd mess of hiscriticism of your views on oceanic islands. 

By the bye, what an interesting volume the whole of your materials onthat subject would, I am sure, make. --Yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. March, 1867. _

My dear Wallace, --I thank you much for your two notes. The case of JuliaPastrana[58] is a splendid addition to my other cases of correlated teethand hair, and I will add it in correcting the proof of my presentvolume. Pray let me hear in course of the summer if you get any evidenceabout the gaudy caterpillars. I should much like to give (or quote ifpublished) this idea of yours, if in any way supported, as suggested byyou. It will, however, be a long time hence, for I can see that sexualselection is growing into quite a large subject, which I shall introduceinto my essay on Man, supposing that I ever publish it. 

I had intended giving a chapter on Man, inasmuch as many call him (not_quite_ truly) an eminently _domesticated_ animal; but I found thesubject too large for a chapter. Nor shall I be capable of treating thesubject well, and my sole reason for taking it up is that I am prettywell convinced that sexual selection has played an important part in theformation of races, and sexual selection has always been a subject whichhas interested me much. 

I have been very glad to see your impression from memory on theexpressions of Malays. I fully agree with you that the subject is in noway an important one: it is simply a "hobby-horse" with me abouttwenty-seven years old; and after thinking that I would write an essayon Man, it flashed on me that I could work in some "supplemental remarkson expression. " After the horrid, tedious, dull work of my present hugeand, I fear, unreadable book, I thought I would amuse myself with myhobby-horse. The subject is, I think, more curious and more amenable toscientific treatment than you seem willing to allow. I want, anyhow, toupset Sir C. Bell's view, given in his most interesting work, "TheAnatomy of Expression, " that certain muscles have been given to mansolely that he may reveal to other men his feelings. I want to try andshow how expressions have arisen. 

That is a good suggestion about newspapers; but my experience tells methat private applications are generally most fruitful. I will, however, see if I can get the queries inserted in some Indian paper. I do notknow names or addresses of any other papers. 

I have just ordered, but not yet received, Murray's book: Lindley usedto call him a blunder-headed man. It is very doubtful whether I shallever have strength to publish the latter part of my materials. 

My two female amanuenses are busy with friends, and I fear this scrawlwill give you much trouble to read. --With many thanks, yours verysincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. April 29, 1867. _

Dear Wallace, --I have been greatly interested by your letter;[59] butyour view is not new to me. If you will look at p. 240 of the fourthedition of the "Origin, " you will find it very briefly given with twoextremes of the peacock and black grouse. A more general statement isgiven at p. 101, or at p. 89 of the first edition, for I have longentertained this view, though I have never had space to develop it. ButI had not sufficient knowledge to generalise as far as you do aboutcolouring and nesting. In your paper, perhaps you will just allude to myscanty remark in the fourth edition, because in my essay upon Man Iintend to discuss the whole subject of sexual selection, explaining, asI believe it does, much with respect to man. I have collected all my oldnotes and partly written my discussion, and it would be flat work for meto give the leading idea as exclusively from you. But as I am sure fromyour greater knowledge of ornithology and entomology that you will writea much better discussion than I could, your paper will be of great useto me. Nevertheless, I must discuss the subject fully in my essay onMan. When we met at the Zoological Society and I asked you about thesexual differences in kingfishers, I had this subject in view; as I hadwhen I suggested to Bates the difficulty about gaudy caterpillars whichyou have so admirably (as I believe it will prove) explained. I have gotone capital case (genus forgotten) of an [Australian] bird in which thefemale has long-tailed plumes and which consequently builds a differentnest from all her allies. [60] With respect to certain female birds beingmore brightly coloured than the males, and the latter incubating, I havegone a little into the subject and cannot say that I am fully satisfied. I remember mentioning to you the case of Rhynchæa, but its nesting seemsunknown. In some other cases the difference in brightness seemed to mehardly sufficiently accounted for by the principle of protection. At theFalkland Islands there is a carrion hawk in which the female (as Iascertained by dissection) is the brightest coloured, and I doubtwhether protection will here apply; but I wrote several months ago tothe Falklands to make inquiries. The conclusion to which I have beenleaning is that in some of these abnormal cases the colour happened tovary in the female alone, and was transmitted to females alone, and thather variations have been selected through the admiration of the male. 

It is a very interesting subject, but I shall not be able to go on withit for the next five or six months, as I am fully employed in correctingdull proof-sheets; when I return to the work I shall find it much betterdone by you than I could have succeeded in doing. 

With many thanks for your very interesting note, believe me, dearWallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

It is curious how we hit on the same ideas. I have endeavoured to showin my MS. Discussion that nearly the same principles account for youngbirds _not_ being gaily coloured in many cases--but this is too complexa point for a note. 

_Postscript. Down. April 29. _

My dear Wallace, --On reading over your letter again, and on furtherreflection, I do not think (as far as I remember my words) that Iexpressed myself _nearly strongly_ enough as to the value and beauty ofyour generalisation, viz. That all birds in which the female isconspicuously or brightly coloured build in holes or under domes. Ithought that this was the explanation in many, perhaps most cases, butdo not think I should ever have extended my view to your generalisation. Forgive me troubling you with this P. S. --Yours, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. May 5, 1867. _

My dear Wallace, --The offer of your valuable notes is _most_ generous, but it would vex me to take so much from you, as it is certain that youcould work up the subject very much better than I could. Therefore Iearnestly and without any reservation hope that you will proceed withyour paper, so that I return your notes. 

You seem already to have well investigated the subject. I confess onreceiving your note that I felt rather flat at my recent work beingalmost thrown away, but I did not intend to show this feeling. As aproof how little advance I had made on the subject, I may mention thatthough I had been collecting facts on the colouring and other sexualdifferences in mammals, your explanation with respect to the females hadnot occurred to me. I am surprised at my own stupidity, but I have longrecognised how much clearer and deeper your insight into matters is thanmine. 

I do not know how far you have attended to the laws of inheritance, sowhat follows may be obvious to you. I have begun my discussion on sexualselection by showing that new characters often appear in one sex and aretransmitted to that sex alone, and that from some unknown cause suchcharacters apparently appear oftener in the male than in the female. Secondly, characters may be developed and be confined to the male, andlong afterwards be transferred to the female. Thirdly, characters may, again, arise in either sex and be transmitted to both sexes, either inan equal or unequal degree. In this latter case I have supposed that thesurvival of the fittest has come into play with female birds and keptthe female dull-coloured. With respect to the absence of spurs in femalegallinaceous birds, I presume that they would be in the way duringincubation; at least, I have got the case of a German breed of fowls inwhich the hens were spurred, and were found to disturb and break theireggs much. 

With respect to the females of deer not having horns, I presume it is tosave the loss of organised matter. 

In your note you speak of sexual selection and protection as sufficientto account for the colouring of all animals; but it seems to me doubtfulhow far this will come into play with some of the lower animals, such assea anemones, some corals, etc. Etc. 

On the other hand, Haeckel has recently well shown that the transparencyand absence of colour in the lower oceanic animals, belonging to themost different classes, may be well accounted for on the principle ofprotection. 

Some time or other I should like much to know where your paper on thenests of birds has appeared, and I shall be extremely anxious to readyour paper in the _Westminster Review_. 

Your paper on the sexual colouring of birds will, I have no doubt, bevery striking. 

Forgive me, if you can, for a touch of illiberality about your paper, and believe me yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. July 6, 1867. _

My dear Wallace, --I am very much obliged for your article on Mimicry, [61]the whole of which I have read with the greatest interest. You certainlyhave the art of putting your ideas with remarkable force and clearness;now that I am slaving over proof-sheets it makes me almost envious. 

I have been particularly glad to read about the birds' nests, and I mustprocure the _Intellectual Observer_; but the point which I think struckme most was about its being of no use to the Heliconias to acquire in aslight degree a disagreeable taste. What a curious case is that aboutthe coral snakes. The summary, and indeed the whole, is excellent, and Ihave enjoyed it much. --With many thanks, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. Wednesday, [August or September, 1867]. _

Dear Darwin, --I am very sorry I was out when you called yesterday. I hadjust gone to the Zoological Gardens, and I met Sir C. Lyell, who told meyou were in town. 

If you should have time to go to Bayswater, I think you would be pleasedto see the collections which I have displayed there in the form of an_exhibition_ (though the public will not go to see it). 

If you can go, with any friends, I should like to meet you there if youcan appoint a time. 

I am glad to find you continue in tolerable health. --Believe me yoursvery faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

What do you think of the Duke of Argyll's criticisms, and the morepretentious one in the last number of the _North British Review_?

I have written a little article answering them both, but I do not yetknow where to get it published. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_76-1/2 Westbourne Grove, Bayswater, W. October 1, 1867. _

Dear Darwin, --I am sorry I was not in town when your note came. I took ashort trip to Scotland after the British Association Meeting, and wentup Ben Lawers. It was very cold and wet, and I could not find acompanion or I should have gone as far as Glen Roy. 

My article on "Creation by Law, " in reply to the Duke of Argyll and the_North British_ reviewer, is in the present month's number of the_Quarterly Journal of Science_. I cannot send you a copy because they donot allow separate copies to be printed. 

There is a nice illustration of the _predicted_ Madagascar moth and_Angræcum sesquipedale_. 

I shall be glad to know whether I have done it satisfactorily to you, and hope you will not be so very sparing of criticism as you usuallyare. 

I hope you are getting on well with your great book. I hear a rumourthat we are to have _one_ vol. Of it about Christmas. 

I quite forget whether I told you that I have a little boy, now threemonths old, and have named him Herbert Spencer (having had a brotherHerbert). I am now staying chiefly in the country, at Hurstpierpoint, but come up to town once a month at least. You may address simply, "Hurstpierpoint, Sussex. "

Hoping your health is tolerable and that all your family are well, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. October 12 and 13, 1867. _

My dear Wallace, --I ordered the journal a long time ago, but by someoversight received it only yesterday and read it. You will think mypraise not worth having from being so indiscriminate, but if I am tospeak the truth, I must say I admire every word. 

You have just touched on the points which I particularly wished to seenoticed. I am glad you had the courage to take up _Angræcum_[62] afterthe Duke's attack; for I believe the principle in this case may bewidely applied. I like the figure, but I wish the artist had drawn abetter sphinx. 

With respect to beauty, your remarks on hideous objects and on flowersnot being made beautiful except when of practical use to them strike meas very good. 

On this one point of beauty, I can hardly think that the Duke was quitecandid. I have used in the concluding paragraph of my present bookprecisely the same argument as you have, even bringing in thebulldog, [63] with respect to variations not having been speciallyordained. Your metaphor of the river[64] is new to me, and admirable;but your other metaphor, in which you compare classification and complexmachines, does not seem to me quite appropriate, though I cannot pointout what seems deficient. The point which seems to me strong is that allnaturalists admit that there is a _natural_ classification, and it isthis which descent explains. I wish you had insisted a little moreagainst the _North British_[65] reviewer assuming that each variationwhich appears is a strongly marked one; though by implication you havemade this _very_, plain. Nothing in your whole article has struck memore than your view with respect to the limit of fleetness in theracehorse and other such cases; I shall try and quote you on this headin the proof of my concluding chapter. I quite missed this explanation, though in the case of wheat I hit upon something analogous. I am gladyou praise the Duke's book, for I was much struck with it. The partabout flight seemed to me at first very good, but as the wing isarticulated by a ball-and-socket joint, I suspect the Duke would find itvery difficult to give any reason against the belief that the wingstrikes the air more or less obliquely. I have been very glad to seeyour article and the drawing of the butterfly in _Science Gossip_. Bythe way, I cannot but think that you push protection too far in somecases, as with the stripes on the tiger. I have also this morning readan excellent abstract in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_ of your paper onnests;[66] I was not by any means fully converted by your letter, but Ithink now I am so; and I hope it will be published somewhere _inextenso_. It strikes me as a capital generalisation, and appears to meeven more original than it did at first. 

I have had an excellent and cautious letter from Mr. Geach of Singaporewith some valuable answers on expression, which I owe to you. 

I heartily congratulate you on the birth of "Herbert Spencer, " and mayhe deserve his name, but I hope he will copy his father's style and nothis namesake's. Pray observe, though I fear I am a month too late, whentears are first secreted enough to overflow; and write down date. 

I have finished Vol. I. Of my book, and I hope the whole will be out bythe end of November; if you have the patience to read it through, whichis very doubtful, you will find, I think, a large accumulation of factswhich will be of service to you in your future papers, and they couldnot be put to better use, for you certainly are a master in the nobleart of reasoning. 

Have you changed your house to Westbourne Grove?

Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

This letter is so badly expressed that it is barely intelligible, but Iam tired with proofs. 

P. S. --Mr. Warington has lately read an excellent and spirited abstractof the "Origin" before the Victoria Institute, and as this is a mostorthodox body he has gained the name of the devil's advocate. Thediscussion which followed during three consecutive meetings is very richfrom the nonsense talked. If you would care to see the number I couldlend it you. 

I forgot to remark how capitally you turn the table on the Duke, whenyou make him create the _Angræcum_ and moth by special creation. 

 * * * * *

_Hurstpierpoint. October 22, 1867. _

Dear Darwin, --I am very glad you approve of my article on "Creation byLaw" as a whole. 

The "machine metaphor" is not mine, but the _North British_ reviewer's. I merely accept it and show that it is on our side and not against us, but I do not think it at all a good metaphor to be used as an _argument_either way. I did not half develop the argument on the limits ofvariation, being myself limited in space; but I feel satisfied that itis the true answer to the very common and very strong objection, that"variation has strict limits. " The fallacy is the requiring variation indomesticity to go beyond the limits of the same variation under nature. It does do so sometimes, however, because the conditions of existenceare so different. I do not think a case can be pointed out in which thelimits of variation under domestication are not up to or beyond thosealready marked out in nature, only we generally get in the _species_ anamount of change which in nature occurs only in the whole range of the_genus_ or _family_. 

The many cases, however, in which variation has gone far beyond natureand has not yet stopped are ignored. For instance, no wild pomaceousfruit is, I believe, so large as our apples, and no doubt they could begot much larger if flavour, etc. , were entirely neglected. 

I may perhaps push "protection" too far sometimes, for it is my hobbyjust now, but as the lion and the tiger are, I think, the only twonon-arboreal cats, I think the tiger stripe agreeing so well with itsusual habitat is at least a probable case. 

I am rewriting my article on Birds' Nests for the new _Natural HistoryReview_. 

I cannot tell you about the first appearance of _tears_, but it is veryearly--the first week or two, I think. I can see the _Victoria InstituteMagazine_ at the London Library. 

I shall read your book, _every word_. I hear from Sir C. Lyell that youcome out with a grand new theory at the end, which even the _cautious_(!) Huxley is afraid of! Sir C. Said he could think of nothing elsesince he read it. I long to see it. 

My address is Hurstpierpoint during the winter, and, when in town, 76-1/2 Westbourne Grove. 

I suppose you will now be going on with your book on Sexual Selectionand Man, by way of relaxation! It is a glorious subject, but willrequire delicate handling, --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_10 Duchess Street, W. February 7, 1868. _

Dear Darwin, --I have to thank you for signing the Memorial as to theEast London Museum, and also for your kindness in sending me a copy ofyour great book, which I have only just received. I shall take it downin the country with me next week, and enjoy every line at my leisure. 

Allow me also to congratulate you on the splendid position obtained byyour second son at Cambridge. 

You will perhaps be glad to hear that I have been for some timehammering away at my Travels, but I fear I shall make a mess of it. Ishall leave most of the Natural History generalisation, etc. , foranother work, as if I wait to incorporate all, I may wait foryears. --Hoping you are quite well, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. February 22, [1868?]. _

My dear Wallace, --I am hard at work on sexual selection and am drivenhalf mad by the number of collateral points which require investigation, such as the relative numbers of the two sexes, and especially onpolygamy. Can you aid me with respect to birds which have stronglymarked secondary sexual characters, such as birds of paradise, humming-birds, the rupicola or rock-thrush, or any other such cases?Many gallinaceous birds certainly are polygamous. I suppose that birdsmay be known not to be polygamous if they are seen during the wholebreeding season to associate in pairs, or if the male incubates, or aidsin feeding the young. Will you have the kindness to turn this in yourmind? but it is a shame to trouble you now that, as I am _heartily_ gladto hear, you are at work on your Malayan Travels. I am fearfully puzzledhow far to extend your protective views with respect to the females invarious classes. The more I work, the more important sexual selectionapparently comes out. 

Can butterflies be polygamous?--i. E. Will one male impregnate more thanone female?

Forgive me troubling you, and I daresay I shall have to ask yourforgiveness again, and believe me, my dear Wallace, yours mostsincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

P. S. --Baker has had the kindness to set the Entomological Societydiscussing the relative numbers of the sexes in insects, and has broughtout some very curious results. 

Is the orang polygamous? But I daresay I shall find that in your papersin (I think) the _Annals and Magazine of Natural History_. 

 * * * * *

The following group of letters deals with the causes of the sterility ofhybrids (_see_ note in "More Letters, " p. 287). Darwin's final view isgiven in the "Origin, " 6th edit. , 1900, p. 384. He acknowledges that itwould be advantageous to two incipient species if, by physiologicalisolation due to mutual sterility, they could be kept from blending; buthe continues: "After mature reflection, it seems to me that this couldnot have been effected through Natural Selection. " And finally heconcludes (p. 386): "But it would be superfluous to discuss thisquestion in detail; for with plants we have conclusive evidence that thesterility of crossed species must be due to some principle quiteindependent of Natural Selection. Both Gäartner and Kolreuter haveproved that in genera including numerous species a series can be formedfrom species which, when crossed, yield fewer and fewer seeds, tospecies which never produce a single seed, but yet are affected by thepollen of certain other species, for the germen swells. It is heremanifestly impossible to select the more sterile individuals, which havealready ceased to yield seeds; so that this acme of sterility, when thegermen alone is affected, cannot have been gained through selection; andfrom the laws governing the various grades of sterility being so uniformthroughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms, we may infer that thecause, whatever it may be, is the same or nearly the same in all cases. "

Wallace still adhered to his view (_see_ "Darwinism, " 1889, p. 174, _also_ p. 292 of "More Letters, " note 1, and Letter 211, p. 299). Thediscussion of 1868 began with a letter from Wallace, written towards theend of February, giving his opinion on the "Variation of Animals andPlants"; the discussion on the sterility of hybrids is at p. 185, Vol. II. , 1st edit. 

 * * * * *

(_Second and third sheets of a letter from Wallace, apparently ofFebruary, 1868. _)

I am in the second volume of your book, and I have been astonished atthe immense number of interesting facts you have brought together. Iread the chapter on Pangenesis first, for I could not wait. I can hardlytell you how much I admire it. It is a positive _comfort_ to me to haveany feasible explanation of a difficulty that has always been hauntingme, and I shall never be able to give it up till a better one suppliesits place, and that I think hardly possible. You have now fairly beatenSpencer on his own ground, for he really offered no solution of thedifficulties of the problem. The incomprehensible minuteness and vastnumbers of the physiological germs or atoms (Which themselves must becompounded of numbers of Spencer's physiological units) is the onlydifficulty, but that is only on a par with the difficulties in allconceptions of matter, space, motion, force, etc. As I understoodSpencer, his physiological units were identical throughout each species, but slightly different in each different species; but no attempt wasmade to show how the identical form of the parent or ancestors came tobe built up of such units. 

The only parts I have yet met with where I somewhat differ from yourviews are in the chapter on the Causes of Variability, in which I thinkseveral of your arguments are unsound: but this is too long a subject togo into now. 

Also, I do not see your objection to _sterility_ between allied specieshaving been aided by Natural Selection. It appears to me that, given adifferentiation of a species into two forms, each of which was adaptedto a special sphere of existence, every slight degree of sterility wouldbe a positive advantage, not to the _individuals_ who were sterile, butto _each form_. If you work it out, and suppose the two incipientspecies A, B to be divided into two groups, one of which contains thosewhich are fertile when the two are crossed, the other being slightlysterile, you will find that the latter will certainly supplant theformer in the struggle for existence, remembering that you have shownthat in such a cross the offspring would be _more vigorous_ than thepure breed, and would therefore certainly soon supplant them, and asthese would not be so well adapted to any special sphere of existence asthe pure species A and B, they would certainly in their turn give way toA and B. 

I am sure all naturalists will be disgusted at the malicious andignorant article in the _Athenæum_. It is a disgrace to the paper, and Ihope someone will publicly express the general opinion of it. We canexpect no good reviews of your book till the quarterlies or bestmonthlies come out. .. . I shall be anxious to see how Pangenesis isreceived. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. February 27, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --You cannot well imagine how much I have been pleasedby what you say about Pangenesis. None of my friends will speak out, except, to a certain extent, Sir H. Holland, [67] who found it very toughreading, but admits that some view "closely akin to it" will have to beadmitted. Hooker, as far as I understand him, which I hardly do atpresent, seems to think that the hypothesis is little more than sayingthat organisms have such and such potentialities. What you say exactlyand fully expresses my feeling, viz. That it is a relief to have somefeasible explanation of the various facts, which can be given up as soonas any better hypothesis is found. It has certainly been an immenserelief to my mind; for I have been stumbling over the subject for years, dimly seeing that some relation existed between the various classes offacts. I now hear from H. Spencer that his views quoted in my footnoterefer to something quite distinct, as you seem to have perceived. 

I shall be very glad to hear, at some future day, your criticisms on thecauses of variability. 

Indeed, I feel sure that I am right about sterility and NaturalSelection. Two of my grown-up children who are acute reasoners have twoor three times at intervals tried to prove me wrong, and when yourletter came they had another try, but ended by coming back to my side. Ido not quite understand your case, and we think that a word or two ismisplaced. I wish some time you would consider the case under thefollowing point of view. If sterility is caused or accumulated throughNatural Selection, then, as every degree exists up to absolutebarrenness, Natural Selection must have the power of increasing it. Nowtake two species, A and B, and assume that they are (by any means)half-sterile, i. E. Produce half the full number of offspring. Now tryand make (by Natural Selection) A and B absolutely sterile when crossed, and you will find how difficult it is. I grant, indeed it is certain, that the degree of sterility of the individuals of A and B will vary, but any such extra-sterile individuals of, we will say, A, if theyshould hereafter breed with other individuals of A, will bequeath noadvantage to their progeny, by which these families will tend toincrease in number over other families of A, which are not more sterilewhen crossed with B. But I do not know that I have made this any clearerthan in the chapter in my book. It is a most difficult bit of reasoning, which I have gone over and over again on paper with diagrams. 

I shall be intensely curious to see your article in the _Journal ofTravel_. 

Many thanks for such answers as you could give. From what you say Ishould have inferred that birds of paradise were probably polygamous. But after all, perhaps it is not so important as I thought. I have beengoing through the whole animal kingdom in reference to sexual selection, and I have just got to the beginning of Lepidoptera, i. E. To end ofinsects, and shall then pass on to Vertebrata. But my ladies next weekare going (ill-luck to it) to take me nolens-volens to London for awhole month. 

I suspect Owen wrote the article in the _Athenæum_, but I have been toldthat it is Berthold Seeman. The writer despises and hates me. 

Hearty thanks for your letter--you have indeed pleased me, for I hadgiven up the great god Pan as a stillborn deity. I wish you could beinduced to make it clear with your admirable powers of elucidation inone of the scientific journals. 

I think we almost entirely agree about sexual selection, as I now followyou to large extent about protection to females, having always believedthat colour was often transmitted to both sexes; but I do not go quiteso far about protection. --Always yours most sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Hurstpierpoint. March 1, 1868. _

My dear Darwin, --I beg to enclose what appears to me a demonstration, _on your own principles_, that Natural Selection _could_ produce_sterility of hybrids_. 

If it does not convince you I shall be glad if you will point out wherethe fallacy lies. I have taken the two cases of a slight sterilityovercoming a perfect fertility, and of a perfect sterility overcoming apartial fertility--the beginning and end of the process. You admit thatvariations in fertility and sterility occur, and I think you will alsoadmit that if I demonstrate that a considerable amount of sterilitywould be advantageous to a variety, that is sufficient proof that theslightest variation in that direction would be useful also, and would goon accumulating. 

Sir C. Lyell spoke to me as if he greatly admired pangenesis. I am veryglad H. Spencer at once acknowledges that his view was something quitedistinct from yours. Although, as you know, I am a great admirer of his, I feel how completely his view failed to go to the root of the matter, as yours does. His explained nothing, though he was evidently strugglinghard to find an explanation. Yours, as far as I can see, explainseverything in _growth and reproduction_, though of course the mystery of_life_ and _consciousness_ remains as great as ever. 

Parts of the chapter on Pangenesis I found hard reading, and have notquite mastered yet, and there are also throughout the discussions inVol. II. Many bits of hard reading on minute points which we, who havenot worked experimentally at cultivation and crossing as you have done, can hardly see the importance of, or their bearing on the generalquestion. 

If I am asked, I may perhaps write an article on the book for someperiodical, and if so shall do what I can to make pangenesisappreciated. 

I suppose Mrs. Darwin thinks you _must_ have a holiday, after theenormous labour of bringing out such a book as that. I am sorry I am notnow staying in town. I shall, however, be up for two days on Thursday, and shall hope to see you at the Linnean, where Mr. Trimen has a paperon some of his wonderful South African mimetic butterflies. 

I hope this will reach you before you leave. --Believe me yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Hurstpierpoint. March 8, 1868. _

Dear Darwin, --I am very sorry your letter came back here while I wasgoing to town, or I should have been very pleased to have seen you. 

Trimen's paper at the Linnean was a very good one, but the onlyopponents were Andrew Murray and B. Seeman. The former talked utternonsense about the "harmony of nature" produced by "polarisation, " alikein "rocks, plants and animals, " etc. Etc. Etc. And Seeman objected thatthere was mimicry among plants, and that our theory would not explainit. 

Lubbock answered them both in his best manner. 

Pray take your rest, and put my last notes by till you return to Down, or let your son discover the fallacies in them. 

Would you like to see the specimens of pupæ of butterflies whose colourshave changed in accordance with the colour of the surrounding objects?They are very curious, and Mr. T. W. Wood, who bred them, would, I amsure, be delighted to bring them to show you. His address is 89 StanhopeStreet, Hampstead Road, N. W. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

Darwin had already written a short note to Wallace expressing a generaldissent from his views. 

 * * * * *

_4 Chester Place, Regent's Park, N. W. March 17, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --Many thanks about Pieridæ. I have no photographs uphere, but will remember to send one from Down. Should you care to have alarge one, of treble or quadruple common size, I will with pleasure sendyou one under glass cover, to any address you like in London, either nowor hereafter. I grieve to say we shall not be here on April 2nd, as wereturn home on the 31st. In summer I hope that Mrs. Wallace andyourself will pay us a visit at Down, soon after you return to London;for I am sure you will allow me the freedom of an invalid. 

My paper to-morrow at the Linnean Society is simply to prove, alas! thatprimrose and cowslip are as good species as any in the world, and thatthere is no trustworthy evidence of one producing the other. The onlyinteresting point is the frequency of the production of natural hybrids, i. E. Oxlips, and the existence of one kind of oxlip which constitutes athird good and distinct species. I do not suppose that I shall be ableto attend the Linnean Society to-morrow. 

I have been working hard in collecting facts on sexual selection everymorning in London, and have done a good deal; but the subject grows moreand more complex, and in many respects more difficult and doubtful. Ihave had grand success this morning in tracing gradational steps bywhich the peacock tail has been developed: I quite feel as if I had seena long line of its progenitors. 

I do not feel that I shall grapple with the sterility argument till myreturn home; I have tried once or twice and it has made my stomach feelas if it had been placed in a vice. Your paper has driven three of mychildren half-mad--one sat up to twelve o'clock over it. My second son, the mathematician, thinks that you have omitted one almost inevitablededuction which apparently would modify the result. He has written outwhat he thinks, but I have not tried fully to understand him. I supposethat you do not care enough about the subject to like to see what he haswritten?

I hope your book progresses. 

I am intensely anxious to see your paper in _Murray's Journal_. --My dearWallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Hurstpierpoint. March 19, 1868. _

Dear Darwin, --I should very much value a _large_ photograph of you, andalso a carte for my album, though it is too bad to ask you for both, asyou must have so many applicants. 

I am sorry I shall not see you in town, but shall look forward withpleasure to paying you a visit in the summer. 

I am sorry about the Primulas, but I feel sure some such equally goodcase will some day be discovered, for it seems impossible to understandhow all natural species whatever should have acquired sterility. Closelyallied forms from adjacent islands would, I should think, offer the bestchance of finding good species fertile _inter se_; since even if NaturalSelection induces sterility I do not see how it could affect them, orwhy they should _always_ be sterile, and varieties _never_. 

I am glad you have got good materials on sexual selection. It is nodoubt a difficult subject. One difficulty to me is, that I do not seehow the constant _minute_ variations, which are sufficient for NaturalSelection to work with, could be _sexually_ selected. We seem to requirea series of bold and abrupt variations. How can we imagine that an inchin the tail of a peacock, or a quarter of an inch in that of the bird ofparadise, would be noticed and preferred by the female?

Pray let me see what your son says about the sterility selectionquestion. I am deeply interested in all that concerns the powers ofNatural Selection, but, though I admit there are a few things it cannotdo, I do not yet believe sterility to be one of them. 

In case your son has turned his attention to mathematical physics, willyou ask him to look at the enclosed question, which I have vainlyattempted to get an answer to?--Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_4 Chester Place, Regent's Park, N. W. March 19-24, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --I have sent your query to Cambridge to my son. Heought to answer it, for he got his place of Second Wrangler chiefly bysolving very difficult problems. I enclose his remarks on two of yourparagraphs: I should like them returned some time, for I have notstudied them, and let me have your impression. 

I have told E. Edwards to send one of my large photographs to youaddressed to 76-1/2 Westbourne Grove, not to be forwarded. When at homeI will send my carte. 

The sterility is a most [? puzzling] problem. I can see so far, but I amhardly willing to admit all your assumptions, and even if they were alladmitted, the process is so complex and the sterility (as you remark inyour note) so universal, even with species inhabiting quite distinctcountries (as I remarked in my chapter), together with the frequency ofa difference in reciprocal unions, that I cannot persuade myself that ithas been gained by Natural Selection, any more than the difficulty ofgrafting distinct genera and the impossibility of grafting distinctfamilies. You will allow, I suppose, that the capacity of grafting hasnot been directly acquired through Natural Selection. 

I think that you will be pleased with the second volume or part ofLyell's Principles, just out. 

In regard to sexual selection. A girl sees a handsome man, and withoutobserving whether his nose or whiskers are the tenth of an inch longeror shorter than in some other man, admires his appearance and says shewill marry him. So, I suppose, with the pea-hen; and the tail has beenincreased in length merely by, on the whole, presenting a more gorgeousappearance. Jenner Weir, however, has given me some facts showing thatbirds apparently admire details of plumage. --Yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Hurstpierpoint. March 24, [1868?]. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for the photo, which I shall get when I go totown. 

I return your son's notes with my notes on them. 

Without going into any details, is not this a strong general argument?--

1. A species varies occasionally in two directions, but owing to theirfree intercrossing they (the variations) never increase. 

2. A change of conditions occurs which threatens the existence of thespecies, but the _two varieties_ are adapted to the changing conditions, and, if accumulated, will form two new _species adapted to the newconditions_. 

3. Free crossing, however, renders this impossible, and so the speciesis in danger of extinction. 

4. If _sterility_ could be induced, then the pure races would increasemore rapidly and replace the old species. 

5. It is admitted that _partial sterility_ between _varieties_ doesoccasionally occur. It is admitted the _degree_ of this sterility_varies_. Is it not probable that Natural Selection can accumulate thesevariations and thus save the species?

If Natural Selection can _not_ do this, how do species ever arise, except when a variety is isolated?

Closely allied species in distinct countries being sterile is nodifficulty, for either they diverged from a common ancestor in contact, and Natural Selection increased the sterility, or they were isolated, and have varied since, in which case they have been for ages influencedby distinct conditions which may well produce sterility. 

If the difficulty of _grafting_ was as great as the difficulty of_crossing_, and as _regular_, I admit it would be a most seriousobjection. But it is not. I believe many distinct species can be graftedwhile others less distinct cannot. The regularity with which naturalspecies are sterile together, even when _very much alike_, I think is anargument in favour of the sterility having been generally produced byNatural Selection for the good of the species. 

The other difficulty, of unequal sterility of reciprocal crosses, seemsnone to me; for it is a step to more complete sterility, and as suchwould be useful and would be increased by selection. 

I have read Sir C. Lyell's second volume with great pleasure. He is, asusual, very cautious, and hardly ever expresses a positive opinion, butthe general effect of the whole book is very strong, as the argument isall on our side. 

I am in hopes it will bring in a new set of converts to NaturalSelection, and will at all events lead to a fresh ventilation of thesubject. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_4 Chester Place, Regent's Park, N. W. March 27, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --My son has failed in your problem, and says that it is"excessively difficult": he says you will find something about it inThomson and Tait, "Natural Philosophy" (art. 649). He has, however, sentthe solution, if the plate rested on a square rim, but he supposes thiswill not answer your purpose; nevertheless, I have forwarded it by thissame post. It seems that the rim being round makes the problem much moredifficult. 

I enclose my photograph, which I have received from Down. I sent youranswer to George on his objection to your argument on sterility, buthave not yet heard from him. I dread beginning to think over thisfearful problem, which I believe beats the plate on the circular rim;but I will sometime. I foresee, however, that there are so many doubtfulpoints that we shall never agree. As far as a glance serves it seems tome, perhaps falsely, that you sometimes argue that hybrids have anadvantage from greater vigour, and sometimes a disadvantage from notbeing so well fitted to their conditions. Heaven protect my stomachwhenever I attempt following your argument!--Yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent. April 6, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --I have been considering the terrible problem. Let mefirst say that no man could have more earnestly wished for the successof Natural Selection in regard to sterility than I did, and when Iconsidered a general statement (as in your last note) I always felt sureit could be worked out, but always failed in detail, the cause being, asI believe, that Natural Selection cannot effect what is not good for theindividual, including in this term a social community. It would take avolume to discuss all the points; and nothing is so humiliating to me asto agree with a man like you (or Hooker) on the premises and disagreeabout the result. 

I agree with my son's argument and not with rejoinder. The cause of ourdifference, I think, is that I look at the number of offspring as animportant element (all circumstances remaining the same) in keeping upthe average number of individuals within any area. I do not believe thatthe amount of food by any means is the sole determining cause of number. Lessened fertility is equivalent to a new source of destruction. Ibelieve if in one district a species produce _from any cause_ feweryoung, the deficiency would be supplied from surrounding districts. Thisapplies to your par. 5. If the species produced fewer young from anycause in _every_ district, it would become extinct unless its fertilitywere augmented through Natural Selection (_see_ H. Spencer). 

I demur to the probability and almost to the possibility of par. 1, asyou start with two forms, within the same area, which are not mutuallysterile, and which yet have supplanted the parent-form (par. 6). I knowof no ghost of a fact supporting belief that disinclination to crossaccompanies sterility. It cannot hold with plants, or the lower fixedaquatic animals. I saw clearly what an immense aid this would be, butgave it up. Disinclination to cross seems to have been independentlyacquired, probably by Natural Selection; and I do not see why it wouldnot have sufficed to have prevented incipient species from blending tohave simply increased sexual disinclination to cross. 

Par. 11: I demur to a certain extent to amount of sterility andstructural dissimilarity necessarily going together, except indirectlyand by no means strictly. Look at the case of pigeons, fowls, andcabbages. 

I overlooked the advantage of the half-sterility of reciprocal crosses;yet, perhaps from novelty, I do not feel inclined to admit theprobability of Natural Selection having done its work so clearly. 

I will not discuss the second case of utter sterility; but yourassumptions in par. 13 seem to me much too complicated. I cannot believeso universal an attribute as utter sterility between remote species wasacquired in so complex a manner. I do not agree with your rejoinder ongrafting; I fully admit that it is not so closely restricted ascrossing; but this does not seem to me to weaken the case as one ofanalogy. The incapacity of grafting is likewise an invariable attributeof plants sufficiently remote from each other, and sometimes of plantspretty closely allied. 

The difficulty of increasing the sterility, through Natural Selection, of two already sterile species seems to me best brought home byconsidering an actual case. The cowslip and primrose are moderatelysterile, yet occasionally produce hybrids: now these hybrids, two orthree or a dozen in a whole parish, occupy ground which _might_ havebeen occupied by either pure species, and no doubt the latter suffer tothis small extent. But can you conceive that any individual plants ofthe primrose and cowslip, which happened to be mutually rather moresterile (i. E. Which when crossed yielded a few less seeds) than usual, would profit to such a degree as to increase in number to the ultimateexclusion of the present primrose and cowslip? I cannot. 

My son, I am sorry to say, cannot see the full force of your rejoinderin regard to the second head of continually augmented sterility. Youspeak in this rejoinder, and in par. 5, of all the individuals becomingin some slight degree sterile in certain districts; if you were to admitthat by continued exposure to these same conditions the sterility wouldinevitably increase, there would be no need of Natural Selection. But Isuspect that the sterility is not caused so much by any particularconditions, as by long habituation to conditions of any kind. To speakaccording to pangenesis, the gemmules of hybrids are not injured, forhybrids propagate freely by buds; but their reproductive organs aresomehow affected, so that they cannot accumulate the proper gemmules, innearly the same manner as the reproductive organs of a pure speciesbecome affected when exposed to unnatural conditions. 

This is a very ill-expressed and ill-written letter. Do not answer it, unless the spirit urges you. Life is too short for so long a discussion. We shall, I _greatly_ fear, never agree. --My dear Wallace, mostsincerely yours, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Hurstpierpoint. [?] April 8, 1868. _

Dear Darwin, --I am sorry you should have given yourself the trouble toanswer my ideas on Sterility. If you are not convinced, I have littledoubt but that I am wrong; and in fact I was only _half convinced_ by myown arguments, and I now think there is about an even chance thatNatural Selection may or not be able to accumulate sterility. If myfirst proposition is modified to _the existence of a species and avariety in the same area_, it will do just as well for my argument. Suchcertainly do exist. They are fertile together, and yet each maintainsitself tolerably distinct. How can this be, if there is nodisinclination to crossing? My belief certainly is that number ofoffspring is not so important an element in keeping up population of aspecies as supply of food and other favourable conditions, because thenumbers of a species constantly vary greatly in different parts of itsarea, whereas the average number of offspring is not a very variableelement. 

However, I will say no more but leave the problem as insoluble, onlyfearing that it will become a formidable weapon in the hands of theenemies of Natural Selection. 

While writing a few pages on the northern alpine forms of plants on theJava mountains I wanted a few cases to refer to like Teneriffe, wherethere are no _northern_ forms, and scarcely any alpine. I expected thevolcanoes of Hawaii would be a good case, and asked Dr. Seeman aboutthem. It seems a man has lately published a list of Hawaiian plants, andthe mountains swarm with European alpine genera and some species![68] Isnot this most extraordinary and a puzzler? They are, I believe, trulyoceanic islands in the absence of mammals and the extreme poverty ofbirds and insects, and they are within the tropics. Will not that be ahard nut for you when you come to treat in detail on geographicaldistribution?

I enclose Seeman's note, which please return when you have copied thelist, if of any use to you. 

Many thanks for your carte, which I think very good. The large one hadnot arrived when I was in town last week. 

Sir C. Lyell's chapter on Oceanic Islands I think very good. --Believeme, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. April 9, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --You allude in your note to several points which Ishould much enjoy discussing with you did time and strength permit. Iknow Dr. Seeman is a good botanist, but I most strongly advise you toshow the list to Hooker before you make use of the materials in print. Hooker seems much overworked, and is now gone a tour, but I suppose youwill be in town before very long, and could see him. The list is quiteunintelligible to me; it is not pretended that the same species exist inthe Sandwich Islands and Arctic regions; and as far as the genera areconcerned, I know that in almost every one of them species inhabit suchcountries as Florida, North Africa, New Holland, etc. Therefore these, genera seem to me almost mundane, and their presence in the SandwichIslands will not, as I suspect in my ignorance, show any relation to theArctic regions. The Sandwich Islands, though I have never consideredthem much, have long been a sore perplexity to me: they are eminentlyoceanic in position and productions; they have long been separated fromeach other; and there are only slight signs of subsidence in the isletsto the westward. I remember, however, speculating that there must havebeen some immigration during the glacial period from North America orJapan; but I cannot remember what my grounds were. Some of the plants, Ithink, show an affinity with Australia. I am very glad that you likeLyell's chapter on Oceanic Islands, for I thought it one of the best inthe part which I have read. If you do not receive the big photo of me indue time, let me hear. --Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

The following refers to Wallace's article, "A Theory of Birds' Nests, "in Andrew Murray's _Journal of Travel_, i. 73. He here treats in fullerdetail the view already published in the _Westminster Review_ for July, 1867, p. 38. The rule which Wallace believes, with very few exceptions, to hold good is, "that when both sexes are of strikingly gay andconspicuous colours, the nest is . .. Such as to conceal the sittingbird; while, whenever there is a striking contrast of colours, the malebeing gay and conspicuous, the female dull and obscure, the nest is openand the sitting bird exposed to view. " At this time Wallace allowedconsiderably more influence to _sexual_ selection (in combination withthe need of protection) than in his later writings. See his letter toDarwin of July 23, 1877 (p. 298), which fixes the period at which thechange in his views occurred. He finally rejected Darwin's theory thatcolours "have been developed by the preference of the females, the moreornamented males becoming the parents of each successive generation. "(_See_ "Darwinism, " 1889, p. 285. )

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. April 15, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --I have been deeply interested by your admirablearticle on Birds' Nests. I am delighted to see that we really differvery little--not more than two men almost always will. You do not laymuch or any stress on new characters spontaneously appearing in one sex(generally the male) and being transmitted exclusively, or more commonlyonly in excess, to that sex. I, on the other hand, formerly paid far toolittle attention to protection. I had only a glimpse of the truth. Buteven now I do not go quite as far as you. I cannot avoid thinking rathermore than you do about the exceptions in nesting to the rule, especiallythe partial exceptions, i. E. When there is some little differencebetween the sexes in species which build concealed nests. I am now quitesatisfied about the incubating males; there is so little difference inconspicuousness between the sexes. I wish with all my heart I could gothe whole length with you. You seem to think that such birds probablyselect the most beautiful females: I must feel some doubt on this head, for I can find no evidence of it. Though I am writing so carping a note, I admire the article _thoroughly_. 

And now I want to ask a question. When female butterflies are morebrilliant than their males, you believe that they have in most cases, orin all cases, been rendered brilliant so as to mimic some other speciesand thus escape danger. But can you account for the males not havingbeen rendered equally brilliant and equally protected? Although it maybe most for the welfare of the species that the female should beprotected, yet it would be some advantage, certainly no disadvantage, for the unfortunate male to enjoy an equal immunity from danger. For mypart, I should say that the female alone had happened to vary in theright manner, and that the beneficial variations had been transmitted tothe same sex alone. Believing in this, I can see no improbability (butfrom analogy of domestic animals a strong probability): the variationsleading to beauty must _often_ have occurred in the males alone, andbeen transmitted to that sex alone. Thus I should account in many casesfor the greater beauty of the male over the female, without the need ofthe protective principle. I should be grateful for an answer on thispoint. 

I hope that your Eastern book progresses well. --My dear Wallace, yourssincerely, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

Sir Clifford Allbutt's view, referred to in the following letter, probably had reference to the fact that the sperm-cell goes, or iscarried, to the germ-cell, never vice versa. In this letter Darwin givesthe reason for the "law" referred to. Wallace has been good enough tosupply the following note (May 27, 1902): "It was at this time that mypaper on 'Protective Resemblance' first appeared in the _WestminsterReview_, in which I adduced the greater, or, rather, the morecontinuous, importance of the female (in the lower animals) for therace, and my 'Theory of Birds' Nests' (_Journal of Travel and NaturalHistory_, No. 2), in which I applied this to the usually dull colours offemale butterflies and birds. It is to these articles, as well as to myletters, that Darwin chiefly refers. "

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. April 30, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --Your letter, like so many previous ones, hasinterested me much. Dr. Allbutt's view occurred to me some time ago, andI have written a short discussion on it. It is, I think, a remarkablelaw, to which I have found no exception. The foundation lies in the factthat in many cases the eggs or seeds require nourishment and protectionby the mother-form for some time after impregnation. Hence thespermatozoa and antherozoids travel in the lower aquatic animals andplants to the female, and pollen is borne to the female organ. Asorganisms rise in the scale it seems natural that the male should carrythe spermatozoa to the females in his own body. As the male is thesearcher he has received and gained more eager passions than the female;and, very differently from you, I look at this as _one_ great difficultyin believing that the males select the more attractive females; as faras I can discover they are always ready to seize on any female, andsometimes on many females. Nothing would please me more than to findevidence of males selecting the more attractive females [? _inpigeons_[69]]: I have for months been trying to persuade myself of this. There is the case of man in favour of this belief, and I know in hybrid[_lizards'_[69]] unions of males preferring particular females, but alas!not guided by colour. Perhaps I may get more evidence as I wade throughmy twenty years' mass of notes. 

I am not shaken about the female protected butterflies: I will grant(only for argument) that the life of the male is of _very_ little value;I will grant that the males do not vary; yet why has not the protectivebeauty of the female been transferred by inheritance to the male? Thebeauty would be a gain to the male, as far as we can see, as aprotection; and I cannot believe that it would be repulsive to thefemale as she became beautiful. But we shall never convince each other. I sometimes marvel how truth progresses, so difficult is it for one manto convince another unless his mind is vacant. Nevertheless, I myself toa certain extent contradict my own remark; for I believe _far more_ inthe importance of protection than I did before reading your articles. 

I do not think you lay nearly stress enough in your articles on what youadmit in your letter, viz. "there seems to be some production ofvividness . .. Of colour in the male independent of protection. " This Iam making a chief point; and have come to your conclusion so far that Ibelieve that intense colouring in the female sex is often checked bybeing dangerous. 

That is an excellent remark of yours about no known case of the male_alone_ assuming protective colours; but in the cases in whichprotection has been gained by dull colours, I presume that sexualselection would interfere with the male losing his beauty. If the malealone had acquired beauty as a protection, it would be most readilyoverlooked, as males are so often more beautiful than their females. Moreover, I grant that the loss of the male is somewhat less preciousand thus there would be less rigorous selection with the male, so hewould be less likely to be made beautiful through Natural Selection forprotection. (This does not apply to sexual selection, for the greaterthe excess of males and the less precious their lives, so much thebetter for sexual selection. ) But it seems to me a good argument, andvery good if it could be thoroughly established. --Yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

I do not know whether you will care to read this scrawl. 

P. S. --I heard yesterday that my photograph had been sent to your Londonaddress--Westbourne Grove. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. May 5, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --I am afraid I have caused you a great deal of troublein writing to me at such length. I am glad to say that I agree almostentirely with your summary, except that I should put sexual selection asan equal or perhaps as even a more important agent in giving colour thannatural selection for protection. As I get on in my work I hope to getclearer and more decided ideas. Working up from the bottom of the scaleI have as yet only got to fishes. What I rather object to in yourarticles is that I do not think anyone would infer from them that youplace sexual selection even as high as No. 4 in your summary. It wasvery natural that you should give only a line to sexual selection inthe summary to the _Westminster Review_, but the result at first to mymind was that you attributed hardly anything to its power. In yourpenultimate note you say: "In the great mass of cases in which there is_great_ differentiation of colour between the sexes, I believe it is due_almost wholly_ to the need of protection to the female. " Now, lookingto the whole animal kingdom I can at present by no means admit thisview; but pray do not suppose that because I differ to a certain extent, I do not thoroughly admire your several papers and your admirablegeneralisation on birds' nests. With respect to this latter point, however, although following you, I suspect that I shall ultimately lookat the whole case from a rather different point of view. 

You ask what I think about the gay-coloured females of Pieris:[70] Ibelieve I quite follow you in believing that the colours are wholly dueto mimicry; and I further believe that the male is not brilliant fromnot having received through inheritance colour from the female, and fromnot himself having varied; in short, that he has not been influenced bySelection. 

I can make no answer with respect to the elephants. With respect to thefemale reindeer, I have hitherto looked at the horns simply as theconsequence of inheritance _not_ having been limited by sex. 

Your idea about colour being concentrated in the smaller males seemsgood, and I presume that you will not object to my giving it as yoursuggestion. --Believe me, my dear Wallace, with many thanks, yours verysincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

Wallace's more recent views on the question of Natural Selection andSterility may be found in a note written by him in 1899: "When writingmy 'Darwinism' and coming again to the consideration of the problem ofthe effect of Natural Selection in accumulating variations in the amountof sterility between varieties or incipient species, twenty years later, I became more convinced than I was when discussing with Darwin, of thesubstantial accuracy of my argument. Recently a correspondent who isboth a naturalist and a mathematician has pointed out to me a slighterror in my calculation at p, 183 (which does not, however, materiallyaffect the result) disproving the physiological selection of the lateDr. Romanes, but he can see no fallacy in my argument as to the power ofNatural Selection to increase sterility between incipient species, nor, so far as I am aware, has anyone shown such fallacy to exist. 

"On the other points on which I differed from Mr. Darwin in theforegoing discussion--the effect of high fertility on population of aspecies, etc. --I still hold the views I then expressed, but it would beout of place to attempt to justify them here. "--A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. August 16, [1868?]. _

Dear Darwin, --I ought to have written before to thank you for the copiesof your paper on "Primula" and on "Cross Unions of Dimorphic Plants, etc. " The latter is particularly interesting, and the conclusion mostimportant; but I think it makes the difficulty of _how_ these forms, with their varying degrees of sterility, originated, greater than ever. If Natural Selection could not accumulate varying degrees of sterilityfor the plant's benefit, then how did sterility ever come to beassociated with _one cross_ of a trimorphic plant rather than another?The difficulty seems to be increased by the consideration that theadvantage of a cross with a _distinct individual_ is gained just as wellby illegitimate as by legitimate unions. By what means, then, didillegitimate unions ever become sterile? It would seem a far simpler wayfor each plant's pollen to have acquired a prepotency on anotherindividual's stigma over that of the same individual, without theextraordinary complication of three differences of structure andeighteen different unions with varying degrees of sterility!

However, the fact remains an excellent answer to the statement thatsterility of hybrids proves the absolute distinctness of the parents. 

I have been reading with great pleasure Mr. Bentham's last admirableaddress, [71] in which he so well replies to the gross misstatements ofthe _Athenæum_; and also says a word in favour of pangenesis. I think wemay now congratulate you on having made a valuable convert, whoseopinions on the subject, coming so late and being evidently so wellconsidered, will have much weight. 

I am going to Norwich on Tuesday to hear Dr. Hooker, who I hope willboldly promulgate "Darwinianism" in his address. Shall we have thepleasure of seeing you there?

I am engaged in negotiations about my book. 

Hoping you are well and getting on with your next volumes, believe meyours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Freshwater, Isle of Wight. August 19, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --Thanks for your note. I did sometimes think of goingto Norwich, for I should have very much liked it, but it has been quiteout of the question. We have been here for five weeks for a change, andit has done me some little good; but I have been forced to live the lifeof a drone, and for a month before leaving home I was unable to doanything and had to stop all work. 

We return to Down to-morrow. 

Hooker has been here for two or three days, so that I have had muchtalk about his Address. I am glad that you will be there. 

It is real good news that your book is so advanced that you arenegotiating about its publication. 

With respect to dimorphic plants: it is a great puzzle, but I _fancy_ Ipartially see my way--too long for a letter and too speculative forpublication. The groundwork of the acquirement of such peculiarfertility (for what you say about any other distinct individual being, as it would appear, sufficient, is very true) rests on the stamens andpistil having varied first in relative length, _as actually occurs_irrespective of dimorphism, and the peculiar kind of fertilitycharacteristic of dimorphic and the trimorphic plants having been_secondarily_ acquired. Pangenesis makes _very_ few converts: G. H. Lewesis one. 

I had become, before my nine weeks' horrid interruption of all work, extremely interested in sexual selection and was making fair progress. In truth, it has vexed me much to find that the further I get on, themore I differ from you about the females being dull-coloured forprotection. I can now hardly express myself as strongly even as in the"Origin. " This has _much decreased_ the pleasure of my work. 

In the course of September, if I can get at all stronger, I hope to getMr. J. Jenner Weir (who has been _wonderfully_ kind in giving meinformation) to pay me a visit, and I will then write for the chance ofyour being able to come and, I hope, bring with you Mrs. Wallace. If Icould get several of you together, it would be less dull for you, for oflate I have found it impossible to talk with any human being for morethan half an hour, except on extraordinarily good days. --Believe me, mydear Wallace, ever yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent. August 30, [1868?]. _

Dear Darwin, --I was very sorry to hear you had been so unwell again, andhope you will not exert yourself to write me such long letters. Darwinianism was in the ascendant at Norwich (I hope you do not dislikethe word, for we really _must_ use it), and I think it rather disgustedsome of the parsons, joined with the amount of _advice_ they receivedfrom Hooker and Huxley. The worst of it is that there are no opponentsleft who know anything of natural history, so that there are none of thegood discussions we used to have. G. H. Lewes seems to me to be making agreat mistake in the _Fortnightly_, advocating _many distinct_ originsfor different groups, and even, if I understand him, distinct originsfor some allied groups, just as the anthropologists do who make the redman descend from the orang, the black man from the chimpanzee--or ratherthe Malay and orang one ancestor, the negro and chimpanzee another. Vogttold me that the Germans are all becoming converted by your last book. 

I am certainly surprised that you should find so much evidence againstprotection having checked the acquirement of bright colour in females;but I console myself by presumptuously hoping that I can explain yourfacts, unless they are derived from the very groups on which I chieflyrest--birds and insects. There is nothing _necessarily_ requiringprotection in females; it is a matter of habits. There are groups inwhich both sexes require protection in an exactly equal degree, andothers (I think) in which the male requires most protection, and I feelthe greatest confidence that these will ultimately support my view, although I do _not_ yet know the facts they may afford. 

Hoping you are in better health, believe me, dear Darwin, yoursfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. September 5, [1868?]. _

Dear Darwin, --It will give me great pleasure to accept your kindinvitation for next Saturday and Sunday, and my wife would very muchlike to come too, and will if possible. Unfortunately, there is a newservant coming that very day, and there is a baby at the mischievous ageof a year and a quarter to be left in somebody's care; but I daresay itwill be managed somehow. 

I will drop a line on Friday to say if we are coming the time youmention. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

_Friday_. 

My dear Darwin, --My wife has arranged to accompany me to-morrow, and wehope to be at Orpington Station at 5. 44, as mentioned by you. --Verytruly yours, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. September 16, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --The beetles have arrived, and cordial thanks: I neversaw such wonderful creatures in my life. I was thinking of somethingquite different. I shall wait till my son Frank returns, before soakingand examining them. I long to steal the box, but return it by this post, like a too honest man. 

I am so much pleased about the male musk Callichroma; for by odd chanceI told Frank a week ago that next spring he must collect at Cambridgelots of Cerambyx moschatus, for as sure as life he would find the odoursexual!

You will be pleased to hear that I am undergoing severe distress aboutprotection and sexual selection: this morning I oscillated with joytowards you; this evening I have swung back to the old position, out ofwhich I fear I shall never get. 

I did most thoroughly enjoy my talk with you three gentlemen, andespecially with you, and to my great surprise it has not knocked me up. Pray give my kindest remembrances to Mrs. Wallace, and if my wife wereat home she would cordially join in this. --Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

I have had this morning a capital letter from Walsh of Illinois; butdetails too long to give. 

 * * * * *

Among Wallace's papers was found the following draft of a letter of histo Darwin:

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. September 18, 1868. _

Dear Darwin, --The more I think of your views as to the colours offemales, the more difficulty I find in accepting them, and as you arenow working at the subject I hope it will not interrupt you to hear"counsel on the other side. "

I have a "general" and a "special" argument to submit. 

1. Female birds and insects are generally exposed to more danger thanthe male, and in the case of insects their existence is necessary for alonger period. 

2. They therefore require in some way or other a special balance ofprotection. 

3. Now, if the male and female were distinct species, with differenthabits and organisations, you would, I think, at once admit that adifference of colour serving to make that one less conspicuous whichevidently required more protection than the other had been acquired byNatural Selection. 

4. But you admit that variations appearing in one sex are transmitted(often) to that sex only: there is therefore nothing to prevent NaturalSelection acting on the two sexes as if they were two species. 

5. Your objection that the same protection would to a certain extent beuseful to the male, seems to me utterly unsound, and directly opposed toyour own doctrine so convincingly urged in the "Origin, " "_that NaturalSelection never can improve an animal beyond its needs_. " So thatadmitting abundant variation of colour in the male, it is impossiblethat he can be brought by Natural Selection to resemble the female(unless _her_ variations are always transmitted to _him_), because the_difference_ of their colours is to balance the _difference_ in theirorganisations and habits, and Natural Selection cannot give to the male_more_ than is needed to effect that balance. 

6. The fact that in almost all protected groups the females perfectlyresemble the males shows, I think, a tendency to transference of colourfrom one sex to the other when this tendency is not injurious. 

Or perhaps the _protection_ is acquired because this tendency exists. Iadmit therefore in the case of concealed nests they [habits] may havebeen acquired for protection. 

Now for the special case. 

7. In the very weak-flying Leptalis both sexes mimic Heliconidæ. 

8. In the much more powerful Papilio, Pieris, and Diadema it isgenerally the _female only_ that mimics Danaida. 

9. In these cases the females often acquire more bright and variedcolours than the male. Sometimes, as in _Pieris pyrrha_, conspicuouslyso. 

10. No single case is known of a male Papilio, Pieris, Diadema (or anyother insect?) _alone_ mimicking a Danais, etc. 

11. But colour is more frequent in males, and _variations_ always seemready for purposes of sexual or other selection. 

12. The fair inference seems to be that given in proposition 5 of thegeneral argument, viz. That _each species_ and _each sex_ can only bemodified by selection just as far as is absolutely necessary, not a stepfarther. A male, being by structure and habits less exposed to dangerand less requiring protection than the female, cannot have moreprotection given to it by Natural Selection, but a female must have someextra protection to balance the greater danger, and she rapidly acquiresit in one way or another. 

13. An objection derived from cases like male fish, which seem torequire protection, yet having brighter colours, seems to me of no moreweight than is that of the existence of many white and unprotectedspecies of Leptalis to Bates's theory of mimicry, that only one or twospecies of butterflies perfectly resemble leaves, or that the instinctsor habits or colours that seem essential to the preservation of oneanimal are often totally absent in an allied species. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent. September 23, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --I am very much obliged for all your trouble in writingme your long letter, which I will keep by me and ponder over. To answerit would require at least 200 folio pages! If you could see how often Ihave rewritten some pages, you would know how anxious I am to arrive asnear as I can to the truth. We differ, I think, chiefly from fixing ourminds perhaps too closely on different points, on which we agree: I laygreat stress on what I know takes place under domestication: I think westart with different fundamental notions on inheritance. I find it mostdifficult, but not, I think, impossible, to see how, for instance, a fewred feathers appearing on the head of a male bird, and which _are atfirst transmitted to both sexes_, could come to be transmitted to malesalone;[72] but I have no difficulty in making the whole head red if thefew red feathers in the male from the first tended to be sexuallytransmitted. I am quite willing to admit that the female may have beenmodified, either at the same time or subsequently, for protection, bythe accumulation of variations limited in their transmission to thefemale sex. I owe to your writings the consideration of this latterpoint. But I cannot yet persuade myself that females _alone_ have oftenbeen modified for protection. Should you grudge the trouble briefly totell me whether you believe that the plainer head and less bright_colours_ of [female symbol][73] chaffinch, the less red on the head andless clean colours of [female symbol] goldfinch, the much less red onbreast of [female symbol] bullfinch, the paler crest of goldencrestwren, etc. , have been acquired by them for protection? I cannot thinkso; any more than I can that the considerable differences between[female symbol] and [male symbol] house-sparrow, or much greaterbrightness of [male symbol] _Parus cæruleus_ (both of which build undercover) than of [female symbol] Parus are related to protection. I evenmisdoubt much whether the less blackness of blackbird is for protection. 

Again, can you give me reason for believing that the merest differencesbetween female pheasants, the female _Gallus bankiva_, the female ofblack grouse, the pea-hen, female partridge, have all special referenceto protection under slightly different conditions? I of course admitthat they are all protected by dull colours, derived, as I think, fromsome dull-ground progenitor; and I account partly for their differenceby partial transference of colour from the male, and by other means toolong to specify; but I earnestly wish to see reason to believe that eachis specially adapted for concealment to its environment. 

I grieve to differ from you, and it actually terrifies me, and makes meconstantly distrust myself. 

I fear we shall never quite understand each other. I value the cases ofbright-coloured, incubating male fishes--and brilliant femalebutterflies, solely as showing that one sex may be made brilliantwithout any necessary transference of beauty to the other sex; for inthese cases I cannot suppose that beauty in the other sex was checked byselection. 

I fear this letter will trouble you to read it. A very short answerabout your belief in regard to the [female symbol] finches andGallinaceæ would suffice. --Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours verysincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, S. W. September 27, 1868. _

Dear Darwin, --Your view seems to be that variations occurring in one sexare transmitted either to that sex exclusively or to both sexes equally, or more rarely partially transferred. But we have every gradation ofsexual colours from total dissimilarity to perfect identity. If this isexplained solely by the laws of inheritance, then the colours of one orother sex will be always (in relation to their environment) a _matter ofchance_. I cannot think this. I think Selection more powerful than lawsof inheritance, of which it makes use, as shown by cases of two, threeor four forms of female butterflies, all of which have, I have littledoubt, been specialised for protection. 

To answer your first question is most difficult, if not impossible, because we have no sufficient evidence in _individual cases of slightsexual difference_, to determine whether the male alone has acquired hissuperior brightness by sexual selection, or the female been made dullerby need of protection, or whether the two causes have acted. Many of thesexual differences of existing species may be inherited differences fromparent forms who existed under different conditions and had greater orless need of protection. 

I think I admitted before the general tendency (probably) of males toacquire brighter tints. Yet this cannot be universal, for many femalebirds and quadrupeds have equally bright tints. 

I think the case of [female symbol] _Pieris pyrrha_ proves that femalesalone can be greatly modified for protection. 

To your second question I can reply more decidedly. I do think thefemales of the Gallmaceæ you mention have been modified or beenprevented from acquiring the brighter plumage of the male by need ofprotection. I know that the _Gallus bankiva_ frequents drier and moreopen situations than the pea-hen of Java, which is found among grassyand leafy vegetation corresponding with the colours of the two. So theArgus pheasant, [male symbol] and [female symbol], are, I feel sure, protected by their tints corresponding to the dead leaves of the loftyforest in which they dwell, and the female of the gorgeous fire-backpheasant, _Lophura viellottii_, is of a very similar _rich browncolour_. I do not, however, at all think the question can be settled byindividual cases, but only by large masses of facts. 

The colours of the mass of female birds seem to me strictly analogous tothe colours of both sexes of snipes, woodcocks, plovers, etc. , which areundoubtedly protective. 

Now, supposing, on your view, that the colours of a male bird becomemore and more brilliant by sexual selection, and a good deal of thatcolour is transmitted to the female till it becomes positively injuriousto her during incubation and the race is in danger of extinction, do younot think that all the females who had acquired less of the male'sbright colours or who themselves varied in a protective direction wouldbe preserved, and that thus a good protective colouring would beacquired? If you admit that this could occur, and can show no goodreason why it should not often occur, then we no longer differ, for thisis the main point of my view. 

Have you ever thought of the red wax-tips of the Bombycilla beautifullyimitating the red fructification of lichens used in the nest, andtherefore the females have it too? Yet this is a very sexual-lookingcharacter. 

We begin printing this week. --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --Pray don't distress yourself on this subject. It will all comeright in the end, and after all it is only an episode in your greatwork. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. October 4, 1868. _

Dear Darwin, --I should have answered your letter before, but have beenvery busy reading over my MSS. The last time before going to press, drawing maps, etc. Etc. 

Your first question cannot be answered, because we have not, in_individual cases_ of _slight sexual_ difference, sufficient evidence todetermine how much of that difference is due to sexual selection actingon the male, how much to natural selection (protective) acting on thefemale, or how much of the difference may be due to inheriteddifferences from ancestors who lived under different conditions. On yoursecond question I can give an opinion. I do think the females of theGallinaceæ you mention have been either _modified_; or _prevented fromacquiring much of the brighter plumage of the males_, by the need ofprotection. I know that _Gallus bankiva_ frequents drier and more opensituations than _Pavo muticus_, which in Java is found among grassy andleafy vegetation corresponding with the colours of the two females. Sothe Argus pheasants, male and female, are, I feel sure, protected bytheir tints corresponding to dead leaves of the dry lofty forests inwhich they dwell; and the female of the gorgeous fire-back pheasant, _Lophura viellottii_, is of a very similar rich brown colour. 

These and many other colours of female birds seem to me exactlyanalogous to the colours of _both sexes_ in such groups as the snipes, woodcocks, plovers, ptarmigan, desert birds, Arctic animals, greenbirds. 

[The second page of this letter has been torn off. This letter and thatof September 27 appear both to answer the same letter from Darwin. Thelast page of this or of another letter was placed with it in theportfolio of letters; it is now given. ]

I am sorry to find that our difference of opinion on this point is asource of anxiety to you. 

Pray do not let it be so. The truth will come out at last, and ourdifference may be the means of setting others to work who may set usboth right. 

After all, this question is only an episode (though an important one) inthe great question of the origin of species, and whether you or I areright will not at all affect the main doctrine--that is one comfort. 

I hope you will publish your treatise on Sexual Selection as a separatebook as soon as possible, and then while you are going on with yourother work, there will no doubt be found someone to battle with me overyour facts, on this hard problem. 

With best wishes and kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and all your family, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. October 6, 1868. _

My dear Wallace, --Your letter is very valuable to me, and in every wayvery kind. I will not inflict a long answer, but only answer yourqueries. There are breeds (viz. Hamburgh) in which both sexes differmuch from each other and from both sexes of _G. Bankiva_; and both sexesare kept constant by selection. 

The comb of Spanish [male symbol] has been ordered to be upright andthat of Spanish [female symbol] to lop over, and this has been effected. There are sub-breeds of game fowl, with [female symbol]s very distinctand [male symbol]s almost identical; but this apparently is the resultof spontaneous variation without special selection. 

I am very glad to hear of the case of [female symbol] birds of paradise. 

I have never in the least doubted the possibility of modifying femalebirds _alone_ for protection; and I have long believed it forbutterflies: I have wanted only evidence for the females alone of birdshaving had their colours modified for protection. But then I believethat the variations by which a female bird or butterfly could get or hasgot protective colouring have probably from the first been variationslimited in their transmission to the female sex; and so with thevariations of the male, where the male is more beautiful than thefemale, I believe the variations were sexually limited in theirtransmission to the males. I am delighted to hear that you have beenhard at work on your MS. --Yours most sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. January 20, 1869. _

Dear Darwin, --It will give me very great pleasure if you will allow meto dedicate my little book of Malayan Travels to you, although it willbe far too small and unpretending a work to be worthy of that honour. Still, I have done what I can to make it a vehicle for communicating ataste for the higher branches of Natural History, and I know that youwill judge it only too favourably. We are in the middle of the secondvolume, and if the printers will get on, shall be out next month. 

Have you seen in the last number of the _Quarterly Journal of Science_the excellent remarks on _Fraser's_ article on Natural Selection failingas to Man? In one page it gets to the heart of the question, and I havewritten to the editor to ask who the author is. 

My friend Spruce's paper on Palms is to be read to-morrow evening at theLinnean. He tells me it contains a discovery which he calls "alterationof function. " He found a clump of Geonema all of which were females, andthe next year the same clump were all males! He has found other factsanalogous to this, and I have no doubt the subject is one that willinterest you. 

Hoping you are pretty well and are getting on steadily with your nextvolumes, and with kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and all your circle, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --Have you seen the admirable article in the _Guardian_ (!) onLyell's "Principles"? It is most excellent and liberal. It is written bythe Rev. Geo. Buckle, of Tiverton Vicarage, Bath, whom I met at Norwichand found a thoroughly scientific and liberal parson. Perhaps you haveheard that I have undertaken to write an article for the _Quarterly_ (!)on the same subject, to make up for that on "Modern Geology" last yearnot mentioning Sir C. Lyell. 

Really, what with the Tories passing Radical Reform Bills and the Churchperiodicals advocating Darwinianism, the millennium must be athand. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. January 22, 1869. _

My dear Wallace, --Your intended dedication pleases me much and I look atit as a _great_ honour, and this is nothing more than the truth. I amglad to hear, for Lyell's sake and on general grounds, that you aregoing to write in the _Quarterly_. Some little time ago I was actuallywishing that you wrote in the _Quarterly_, as I knew that youoccasionally contributed to periodicals, and I thought that yourarticles would thus be more widely read. 

Thank you for telling me about the _Guardian_, which I will borrow fromLyell. I did note the article in the _Quarterly Journal of Science_ andput it aside to read again with the articles in _Fraser_ and the_Spectator_. 

I have been interrupted in my regular work in preparing a new edition[74]of the "Origin, " which has cost me much labour, and which I hope I haveconsiderably improved in two or three important points. I always thoughtindividual differences more important than single variations, but now Ihave come to the conclusion that they are of paramount importance, andin this I believe I agree with you. Fleeming Jenkin's arguments haveconvinced me. [75]

I heartily congratulate you on your new book being so nearlyfinished. --Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. January 30, 1869. _

Dear Darwin, --Will you tell me _where_ are Fleeming Jenkin's argumentson the importance of single variation? Because I at present hold moststrongly the contrary opinion, that it is the individual differences or_general variability_ of species that enables them to become modifiedand adapted to new conditions. 

Variations or "sports" may be important in modifying an animal in onedirection, as in colour for instance, but how it can possibly work inchanges requiring co-ordination of many parts, as in Orchids forexample, I cannot conceive. And as all the more important structuralmodifications of animals and plants imply much co-ordination, it appearsto me that the chances are millions to one against _individualvariations_ ever coinciding so as to render the required modificationpossible. However, let me read first what has convinced you. 

You may tell Mrs. Darwin that I have now a daughter. 

Give my kind regards to her and all your family. --Very truly yours, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. February 2, 1869. _

My dear Wallace, --I must have expressed myself atrociously; I meant tosay exactly the reverse of what you have understood. F. Jenkin argued inthe _North British Review_[76] against single variations ever beingperpetuated, and has convinced me, though not in quite so broad a manneras here put. I always thought individual differences more important, butI was blind and thought that single variations might be preserved muchoftener than I now see is possible or probable. I mentioned this in myformer note merely because I believed that you had come to similarconclusions, and I like much to be in accord with you. I believe I wasmainly deceived by single variations offering such simple illustrations, as when man selects. 

We heartily congratulate you on the birth of your littledaughter. --Yours very sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. March 5, 1869. _

My dear Wallace, --I was delighted at receiving your book[77] thismorning. The whole appearance and the illustrations with which it [is]so profusely ornamented are quite beautiful. Blessings on you and yourpublisher for having the pages cut and gilded. 

As for the dedication, putting quite aside how far I deserve what yousay, it seems to me decidedly the best expressed dedication which I haveever met. 

The reading will probably last me a month, for I dare not have it readaloud, as I know that it will set me thinking. 

I see that many points will interest me greatly. When I have finished, if I have anything particular to say, I will write again. Accept mycordial thanks. The dedication is a thing for my children's children tobe proud of. --Yours most sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. March 10, 1869. _

Dear Darwin, --Thanks for your kind note. I could not persuade Mr. Macmillan to cut more than twenty-five copies for my own friends, and heeven seemed to think this a sign of most strange and barbarous taste. 

Mr. Weir's paper on the kinds of larvæ, etc. , eaten or rejected byinsectivorous birds was read at the last meeting of the EntomologicalSociety and was most interesting and satisfactory. His observations andexperiments, so far as they have yet gone, confirm in _every instance_my hypothetical explanation of the colours of caterpillars. He findsthat all nocturnal-feeding obscure-coloured caterpillars, all _green_and _brown_ and _mimicking_ caterpillars, are greedily eaten by almostevery insectivorous bird. On the other hand, every gaily coloured, spotted or banded species, which never conceal themselves, and all spinyand hairy kinds, are _invariably rejected_, either without or aftertrial. He has also come to the curious and rather unexpected conclusion, that hairy and spiny caterpillars are not protected by their hairs, butby their nauseous taste, the hairs being merely an external mark oftheir uneatableness, like the gay colours of others. He deduces thisfrom two kinds of facts: (1) that very young caterpillars before thehairs are developed are equally rejected, and (2) that in many cases thesmooth pupæ and even the perfect insects of the same species are equallyrejected. 

His facts, it is true, are at present not very numerous, but they allpoint one way. They seem to me to lend an immense support to my view ofthe great importance of protection in determining colour, for it has notonly prevented the eatable species from ever acquiring bright colours, spots, or markings injurious to them, but it has also conferred on allthe nauseous species distinguishing marks to render their uneatablenessmore protective to them than it would otherwise be. When you have readmy book I shall be glad of any hints for corrections if it comes toanother edition. I was horrified myself by coming accidentally onseveral verbal inelegancies after all my trouble in correcting, and Ihave no doubt there are many more important errors. --Believe me, dearDarwin, yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. March 22, 1869. _

My dear Wallace, --I have finished your book. [78] It seems to meexcellent, and at the same time most pleasant to read. That you everreturned alive is wonderful after all your risks from illness and seavoyages, especially that most interesting one to Waigiou and back. Ofall the impressions which I have received from your book, the strongestis that your perseverance in the cause of science was heroic. Yourdescriptions of catching the splendid butterflies have made me quiteenvious, and at the same time have made me feel almost young again, sovividly have they brought before my mind old days when I collected, though I never made such captures as yours. Certainly collecting is thebest sport in the world. I shall be astonished if your book has not agreat success; and your splendid generalisations on geographicaldistribution, with which I am familiar from your papers, will be new tomost of your readers. I think I enjoyed most the Timor case, as it isbest demonstrated; but perhaps Celebes is really the most valuable. Ishould prefer looking at the whole Asiatic continent as having formerlybeen more African in its fauna, than admitting the former existence of acontinent across the Indian Ocean. Decaisne's paper on the flora ofTimor, in which he points out its close relation to that of theMascarene Islands, supports your view. On the other hand, I mightadvance the giraffes, etc. , in the Sewalik deposits. How I wish someonewould collect the plants of Banca! The puzzle of Java, Sumatra andBorneo is like the three geese and foxes: I have a wish to extendMalacca through Banca to part of Java and thus make three parallelpeninsulas, but I cannot get the geese and foxes across the river. 

Many parts of your book have interested me much: I always wished tohear an independent judgment about the Rajah Brooke, and now I have beendelighted with your splendid eulogium on him. 

With respect to the fewness and inconspicuousness of the flowers in thetropics, may it not be accounted for by the hosts of insects, so thatthere is no need for the flowers to be conspicuous? As, according toHumboldt, fewer plants are social in the tropical than in the temperateregions, the flowers in the former would not make so great a show. 

In your note you speak of observing some inelegancies of style. I noticenone. All is as clear as daylight. I have detected two or three errata. 

In Vol. I. You write lond_i_acus: is this not an error?

Vol. II. , p. 236: for _western_ side of Aru read _eastern_. 

Page 315: Do you not mean the horns of the moose? For the elk has notpalmated horns. 

I have only one criticism of a general nature, and I am not sure thatother geologists would agree with me: you repeatedly speak as if thepouring out of lava, etc. , from volcanoes actually caused the subsidenceof an adjoining area. I quite agree that areas undergoing oppositemovements are somehow connected; but volcanic outbursts must, I think, be looked at as mere accidents in the swelling tip of a great dome orsurface of _plutonic_ rocks; and there seems no more reason to concludethat such swelling or elevation in mass is the cause of the subsidencethan that the subsidence is the cause of the elevation; which latterview is indeed held by some geologists, I have regretted to find solittle about the habits of the many animals which you have seen. 

In Vol. II. , p. 399, I wish I could see the connection betweenvariations having been first or long ago selected, and their appearanceat an earlier age in birds of paradise than the variations which havesubsequently arisen and been selected. In fact, I do not understand yourexplanation of the curious order of development of the ornaments ofthese birds. 

Will you please to tell me whether you are sure that the femaleCasuarius (Vol. II. , p. 150) sits on her eggs as well as the male?--for, if I am not mistaken, Bartlett told me that the male alone, who is lessbrightly coloured about the neck, sits on the eggs. In Vol. II. , p. 255, you speak of male savages ornamenting themselves more than the women, ofwhich I have heard before; now, have you any notion whether they do thisto please themselves, or to excite the admiration of their fellow-men, or to please the women, or, as is perhaps probable, from all threemotives?

Finally, let me congratulate you heartily on having written so excellenta book, full of thought on all sorts of subjects. Once again, let methank you for the very great honour which you have done me by yourdedication. --Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

Vol. II. , p. 455: When in New Zealand I thought the inhabitants a mixedrace, with the type of Tahiti preponderating over some darker race withmore frizzled hair; and now that the stone instruments [have] revealedthe existence of ancient inhabitants, is it not probable that theseislands were inhabited by true Papuans? Judging from descriptions thepure Tahitans must differ much from your Papuans. 

 * * * * *

The reference in the following letter is to Wallace's review, in theApril number of the _Quarterly_, of Lyell's "Principles of Geology"(tenth edition), and of the sixth edition of the "Elements of Geology. "Wallace points out that here for the first time Sir C. Lyell gave up hisopposition to Evolution; and this leads Wallace to give a short accountof the views set forth in the "Origin of Species. " In this articleWallace makes a definite statement as to his views on the evolution ofman, which were opposed to those of Darwin. He upholds the view that thebrain of man, as well as the organs of speech, the hand and the externalform, could not have been evolved by Natural Selection (the "child" heis supposed to "murder "). At p. 391 he writes: "In the brain of thelowest savages and, as far as we know, of the prehistoric races, we havean organ . .. Little inferior in size and complexity to that of thehighest types. .. . But the mental requirements of the lowest savages, such as the Australians or the Andaman Islanders, are very little abovethose of many animals. .. . How then was an organ developed far beyond theneeds of its possessor? Natural Selection could only have endowed thesavage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas heactually possesses one but very little inferior to that of the averagemembers of our learned societies. "

This passage is marked in Darwin's copy with a triply underlined "No, "and with a shower of notes of exclamation. It was probably the firstoccasion on which he realised the extent of this great and strikingdivergence in opinion between himself and his colleague. He had, however, some indication of it in Wallace's paper on Man in the_Anthropological Review_, 1864, referred to in his letter to Wallace ofMay 28, 1864, and again in that of April 14, 1869. 

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. March 27, 1869. _

My dear Wallace, --I must send a line to thank you, but this note willrequire no answer. This very morning after writing I found that "elk"was used for "moose" in Sweden, but I had been reading lately about elkand moose in North America. 

As you put the case in your letter, which I think differs somewhat fromyour book, I am inclined to agree, and had thought that a feather couldhardly be increased in length until it had first grown to full length, and therefore it would be increased late in life and transmitted to acorresponding age. But the Crossoptilon pheasant, and even the commonpheasant, show that the tail feathers can be developed very early. 

Thanks for other facts, which I will reflect on when I go again over myMS. 

I read all that you said about the Dutch Government with much interest, but I do not feel I know enough to form any opinion against yours. 

I shall be intensely curious to read the _Quarterly_: I hope you havenot murdered too completely your own and my child. 

I have lately, i. E. In the new edition of the "Origin, "[79] beenmoderating my zeal, and attributing much more to mere uselessvariability. I did think I would send you the sheet, but I daresay youwould not care to see it, in which I discuss Nägeli's essay on NaturalSelection not affecting characters of no functional importance, andwhich yet are of high classificatory importance. 

Hooker is pretty well satisfied with what I have said on this head. Itwill be curious if we have hit on similar conclusions. You are about thelast man in England who would deviate a hair's breadth from hisconviction to please any editor in the world. --Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

P. S. --After all, I have thought of one question, but if I receive noanswer I shall understand that (as is probable) you have nothing to say. I have seen it remarked that the men and women of certain tribes differa little in shade or tint; but have you ever seen or heard of anydifference in tint between the two sexes which did not appear to followfrom a difference in habits of life?

 * * * * *

_Down, Bromley, Kent, S. E. April 14, 1869. _

My dear Wallace, --I have been wonderfully interested by your article, [80]and I should think Lyell will be much gratified by it. I declare if Ihad been editor and had the power of directing you I should haveselected for discussion the very points which you have chosen. I haveoften said to younger geologists (for I began in the year 1830) thatthey did not know what a revolution Lyell had effected; nevertheless, your extracts from Cuvier have quite astonished me. 

Though not able really to judge, I am inclined to put more confidence inCroll than you seem to do; but I have been much struck by many of yourremarks on degradation. 

Thomson's views of the recent age of the world have been for some timeone of my sorest troubles, and so I have been glad to read what you say. Your exposition of Natural Selection seems to me inimitably good; therenever lived a better expounder than you. 

I was also much pleased at your discussing the difference between ourviews and Lamarck's. One sometimes sees the odious expression, "Justiceto myself compels me to say, etc. , " but you are the only man I everheard of who persistently does himself an injustice and never demandsjustice. Indeed, you ought in the review to have alluded to your paperin the Linnean _Journal_, and I feel sure all our friends will agree inthis, but you cannot "Burke" yourself, however much you may try, as maybe seen in half the articles which appear. 

I was asked but the other day by a German professor for your paper, which I sent him. Altogether, I look at your article as appearing in the_Quarterly_ as an immense triumph for our cause. I presume that yourremarks on Man are those to which you alluded in your note. 

If you had not told me I should have thought that they had been added bysomeone else. As you expected, I differ grievously from you, and I amvery sorry for it. 

I can see no necessity for calling in an additional and proximate causein regard to Man. But the subject is too long for a letter. 

I have been particularly glad to read your discussion, because I am nowwriting and thinking much about Man. 

I hope that your Malay book sells well. I was extremely pleased with thearticle in the _Q. J. Of Science_, inasmuch as it is thoroughlyappreciative of your work. Alas! you will probably agree with what thewriter says about the uses of the bamboo. 

I hear that there is also a good article in the _Saturday Review_, buthave heard nothing more about it. --Believe me, my dear Wallace, yoursever sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

P. S. --I have had a baddish fall, my horse partly rolling over me; but Iam getting rapidly well. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. April 18, 1869. _

Dear Darwin, --I am very glad you think I have done justice to Lyell, andhave also well "exposed" (as a Frenchman would say) Natural Selection. There is nothing I like better than writing a little account of it, andtrying to make it clear to the meanest capacity. 

The "Croll" question is awfully difficult. I had gone into it morefully, but the Editor made me cut out eight pages. 

I am very sorry indeed to hear of your accident, but trust you will soonrecover and that it will leave no bad effects. 

I can quite comprehend your feelings with regard to my "unscientific"opinions as to Man, because a few years back I should myself havelooked at them as equally wild and uncalled for. I shall look withextreme interest for what you are writing on Man, and shall give fullweight to any explanations you can give of his probable origin. Myopinions on the subject have been modified solely by the considerationof a series of remarkable phenomena, physical and mental, which I havenow had every opportunity of fully testing, and which demonstrate theexistence of forces and influences not yet recognised by science. Thiswill, I know, seem to you like some mental hallucination, but as I canassure you from personal communication with them, that Robert Chambers, Dr. Norris of Birmingham, the well-known physiologist, and C. F. Varley, the well-known electrician, who have all investigated the subject foryears, agree with me both as to the facts and as to the main inferencesto be drawn from them, I am in hopes that you will suspend your judgmentfor a time till we exhibit some corroborative symptoms of insanity. 

In the meantime I can console you by the assurance that I _don't_ agreewith the _Q. J. Of Science_ about bamboo, and that I see no cause tomodify any of my opinions expressed in my article on the "Reign ofLaw. "--Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. June 23, 1869. _

Dear Darwin, --Thank you very much for the copy of your fifth edition ofthe "Origin. " I have not yet read all the additions, but those I havelooked at seem very interesting, though somewhat brief, but I supposeyou are afraid of its great and rapid growth. 

A difficult sexual character seems to me the plumules or battledorescales on the wings of certain families and genera of butterflies, almost invariably changing in form with the species and genera inproportion to other changes, and always constant in each species yetconfined to the males, and so small and mixed up with the other scalesas to produce no effect on the colour or marking of the wings. How couldsexual selection produce them?

Your correspondent Mr. Geach is now in England, and if you would like tosee him I am sure he would be glad to meet you. He is staying with hisbrother (address Guildford), but often comes to town. 

Hoping that you have quite recovered from your accident and that the_great work_ is progressing, believe me, dear Darwin, yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --You will perhaps be pleased to hear that German, French, andDanish translations of my "Malay Archipelago" are in progress. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_Caerleon, Barmouth, N. Wales. June 25, 1869. _

My dear Wallace, --We have been here a fortnight, and shall remain heretill the beginning of August. I can say nothing good about my health, and I am so weak that I can hardly crawl half a mile from the house; butI hope I may improve, and anyhow the magnificent view of Cader isenjoyable. 

I do not know that I have anything to ask Mr. Geach, nor do I suppose Ishall be in London till late in the autumn, but I should be particularlyobliged, if you have any communication with Mr. Geach, if you wouldexpress for me my _sincere_ thanks for his kindness in sending me thevery valuable answers on Expression. I wrote some months ago to him inanswer to his last letter. 

I would ask him to Down, but the fatigue to me of receiving a strangeris something which to you would be utterly unintelligible. 

I think I have heard of the scales on butterflies; but there are lotsof sexual characters which quite baffle all powers of even conjecture. 

You are quite correct, that I felt forced to make all additions to the"Origin" as short as possible. 

I am indeed pleased to hear, and fully expected, that your Malay workwould be known throughout Europe. 

Oh dear! what would I not give for a little more strength to get on withmy work. --Ever yours, C. DARWIN. 

I wish that you could have told me that your place in the new Museum wasall settled. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. October 20, 1869. _

Dear Darwin, --I do not know your son's (Mr. George Darwin's) address atCambridge. Will you be so good as to forward him the enclosed notebegging for a little information?

I was delighted to see the notice in the _Academy_ that you are reallygoing to bring out your book on Man. I anticipate for it an enormoussale, and shall read it with intense interest, although I expect to findin it more to differ from than in any of your other books. Somereasonable and reasoning opponents are now taking the field. I have beenwriting a little notice of Murphy's "Habit and Intelligence, " which, with much that is strange and unintelligible, contains some very acutecriticisms and the statement of a few real difficulties. Another articlejust sent me from the _Month_ contains some good criticism. Howincipient organs can be useful is a real difficulty, so is theindependent origin of similar complex organs; but most of his otherpoints, though well put, are not very formidable. I am trying to begin alittle book on the Distribution of Animals, but I fear I shall not makemuch of it from my idleness in collecting facts. 

I shall make it a popular sketch first, and, if it succeeds, gathermaterials for enlarging it at a future time. If any suggestion occurs toyou as to the kind of maps that would be best, or on any other essentialpoint, I should be glad of a hint. I hope your residence in Wales didyou good. I had no idea you were so near Dolgelly till I met your sonthere one evening when I was going to leave the next morning. It is aglorious country, but the time I like is May and June--the foliage is soglorious. 

Sincerely hoping you are pretty well, and with kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and the rest of your family, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S. E. October 21, 1869. _

My dear Wallace, --I forwarded your letter at once to my son George, butI am nearly sure that he will not be able to tell you anything; I wishhe could for my own sake; but I suspect there are few men in England whocould. Pray send me a copy or tell me where your article on Murphy willbe published. I have just received the _Month_, but have only read halfas yet. I wish I knew who was the author; you ought to know, as headmires you so much; he has a wonderful deal of knowledge, but hisdifficulties have not troubled me much as yet, except the case of thedipterous larva. My book will not be published for a long time, butMurray wished to insert some notice of it. Sexual selection has been atremendous job. Fate has ordained that almost every point on which wediffer should be crowded into this vol. Have you seen the October numberof the _Revue des deux Mondes?_ It has an article on you, but I have notyet read it; and another article, not yet read, by a very good man onthe Transformist School. 

I am very glad to hear that you are beginning a book, but do not let itbe "little, " on Distribution, etc. I have no hints to give about maps;the subject would require long and anxious consideration. Before Forbespublished his essay on Distribution and the Glacial Period I wrote outand had _copied_ an essay on the same subject, which Hooker read. Ifthis MS. Would be of any use to you, _on account of the references_ init to papers, etc. , I should be very glad to lend it, to be used in anyway; for I foresee that my strength will never last out to come to thissubject. 

I have been pretty well since my return from Wales, though at the timeit did me no good. 

We shall be in London next month, when I shall hope to see you. --My dearWallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. December 4, [1869]. _

Dear Darwin, --Dr. Adolf Bernhard Meyer, who translated my book intoGerman, has written to me for permission to translate my original paperin the _Linnean Proceedings_ with yours, and wants to put my photographand yours in it. If you have given him permission to translate thepapers (which I suppose he can do without permission if he pleases), Iwrite to ask which of your photographs you would wish to represent youin Germany--the last, or the previous one by Ernest Edwards, which Ithink much the best--as if you like I will undertake to order them andsave you any more trouble about it. It is, of course, out of thequestion our meeting to be photographed together, as Mr. Meyer coollyproposes. 

Hoping you are well, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --I have written a paper on Geological Time, which will appear in_Nature_, and I _think_ I have hit upon a solution of your greatestdifficulties in that matter. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S. E. December 5, 1869. _

My dear Wallace, --I wrote to Dr. Meyer that the photographs in Englandwould cost much and that they did not seem to me worth the cost to him, but that I of course had no sort of objection. I should be greatlyobliged if you would kindly take the trouble to order any one which youthink best: possibly it would be best to wait, unless you feel sure, till you hear again from Dr. M. I sent him a copy of our joint paper. Hehas kindly sent me the translation of your book, which is splendidly gotup, and which I thought I could not better use than by sending it toFritz Müller in Brazil, who will appreciate it. 

I liked your reviews on Mr. Murphy very much; they are capitallywritten, like everything which is turned out of your workshop. I wasspecially glad about the eye. If you agree with me, take someopportunity of bringing forward the case of perfected greyhound orracehorse, in proof of the possibility of the selection of manycorrelated variations. I have remarks on this head in my last book. 

If you throw light on the want of geological time, may honour, eternalglory and blessings crowd thick on your head. --Yours most sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

I forgot to say that I wrote to Dr. M. To say that I should not soon bein London, and that, of all things in the world, I hate most the botherof sitting for photographs, so I declined with many apologies. I haverecently refused several applications. 

 * * * * *

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, N. W. January 22, 1870. _

Dear Darwin, --My paper on Geological Time having been in type nearly twomonths, and not knowing when it will appear, I have asked for a proof tosend you, Huxley and Lyell. The latter part only contains what I thinkis new, and I shall be anxious to hear if it at all helps to get overyour difficulties. 

I have been lately revising and adding to my various papers bearing onthe "Origin of Species, " etc. , and am going to print them in a volumeimmediately, under the title of "Contributions to the Theory of NaturalSelection: A Series of Essays. "

In the last, I put forth my heterodox opinions as to Man, and evenventure to attack the Huxleyan philosophy!

Hoping you are quite well and are getting on with your Man book, believeme, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --When you have read the proof and done with it, may I beg you toreturn it to me?--A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S. E. January 26, [1870]. _

My dear Wallace, --I have been very much struck by your whole article(returned by this post), especially as to rate of denudation, for thestill glaciated surfaces have of late most perplexed me. Also_especially_ on the lesser mutations of climate during the last 60, 000years; for I quite think with you no cause so powerful in inducingspecific changes, through the consequent migrations. Your argument wouldbe somewhat strengthened about organic changes having been formerly morerapid, if Sir W. Thomson is correct that physical changes were formerlymore violent and abrupt. 

The whole subject is so new and vast that I suppose you hardly expectanyone to be at once convinced, but that he should keep your view beforehis mind and let it ferment. This, I think, everyone will be forced todo. I have not as yet been able to digest the fundamental notion of theshortened age of the sun and earth. Your whole paper seems to meadmirably clear and well put. I may remark that Rütimeyer has shown thatseveral wild mammals in Switzerland since the neolithic period have hadtheir dentition and, I _think_, general size _slightly_ modified. Icannot believe that the Isthmus of Panama has been open since thecommencement of the glacial period; for, notwithstanding the fishes, sofew shells, crustaceans, and, according to Agassiz, not one echinodermis common to the sides. I am very glad you are going to publish all yourpapers on Natural Selection: I am sure you are right, and that they willdo our cause much good. 

But I groan over Man--you write like a metamorphosed (in retrogradedirection) naturalist, and you the author of the best paper that everappeared in the _Anthropological Review_! Eheu! Eheu! Eheu!--Yourmiserable friend, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. March 31, 1870. _

My dear Wallace, --Many thanks for the woodcut, which, judging from therate at which I crawl on, will hardly be wanted till this time nextyear. Whether I shall have it reduced, or beg Mr. Macmillan for astereotype, as you said I might, I have not yet decided. 

I heartily congratulate you on your removal being over, and I much moreheartily condole with myself at your having left London, for I shallthus miss my talks with you which I always greatly enjoy. 

I was excessively pleased at your review of Galton, and I agree to everyword of it. I must add that I have just re-read your article in the_Anthropological Review_, and _I defy_ you to upset your owndoctrine. --Ever yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. April 20, [1870]. _

My dear Wallace, --I have just received your book ["NaturalSelection"][81] and read the preface. There never has been passed on me, or indeed on anyone, a higher eulogium than yours. I wish that I fullydeserved it. Your modesty and candour are very far from new to me. Ihope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect--and very few things in mylife have been more satisfactory to me--that we have never felt anyjealousy towards each other, though in one sense rivals. I believe thatI can say this of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that it istrue of you. 

You have been a good Christian to give a list of your additions, for Iwant much to read them, and I should hardly have had time just atpresent to have gone through all your articles. 

Of course, I shall immediately read those that are new or greatlyaltered, and I will endeavour to be as honest as can reasonably beexpected. Your book looks remarkably well got up. --Believe me, my dearWallace, to remain yours very cordially, CH. DARWIN

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S. E. June 5, 1870. _

My dear Wallace, --As imitation and protection are your subjects I havethought that you would like to possess the enclosed curious drawing. Thenote tells all I know about it. --Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN

P. S. --I read not long ago a German article on the colours of _female_birds, and that author leaned rather strongly to your side aboutnidification. I forget who the author was, but he seemed to know a gooddeal. --C. D. 

 * * * * *

_Holly House, Barking, E. July 6, 1870. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for the drawing. I must say, however, theresemblance to a snake is not very striking, unless to a cobra not foundin America. It is also evident that it is not Mr. Bates's caterpillar, as that threw the head backwards so as to show the feet above, formingimitations of keeled scales. 

Claparède has sent me his critique on my book. You will probably have ittoo. His arguments in reply to my heresy seem to me of the weakest. Ihear you have gone to press, and I look forward with fear and tremblingto being crushed under a mountain of facts!

I hear you were in town the other day. When you are again, I should beglad to come at any convenient hour and give you a call. 

Hoping your health is improving, and with kind remembrances to Mrs. Darwin and all your family, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

In "My Life" (Vol. II. , p. 7) Wallace wrote: "In the year 1870 Mr. A. W. Bennett read a paper before Section D of the British Association atLiverpool entitled 'The Theory of Natural Selection from a MathematicalPoint of View, ' and this paper was printed in full in _Nature_ ofNovember 10, 1870. To this I replied on November 17, and my reply sopleased Mr. Darwin that he at once wrote to me as follows:"

_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S. E. November 22, 1870. _

My dear Wallace, --I must ease myself by writing a few words to say howmuch I and all others in this house admire your article in _Nature_. Youare certainly an unparalleled master in lucidly stating a case and inarguing. Nothing ever was better done than your argument about the term"origin of species, " and the consequences about much being gained, evenif we know nothing about precise cause of each variation. By chance Ihave given a few words in my first volume, now some time printed off, about mimetic butterflies, and have touched on two of your points, viz. On species already widely dissimilar not being made to resemble eachother, and about the variations in Lepidoptera being often wellpronounced. How strange it is that Mr. Bennett or anyone else shouldbring in the action of the mind as a leading cause of variation, seeingthe beautiful and complex adaptations and modifications of structure inplants, which I do not suppose they would say had minds. 

I have finished the first volume, and am half-way through the firstproof of the second volume, of my confounded book, which half kills meby fatigue, and which I much fear will quite kill me in your goodestimation. 

If you have leisure I should much like a little news of you and yourdoings and your family. --Ever yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Holly House, Barking, E. November 24, 1870. _

Dear Darwin, --Your letter gave me very great pleasure. We still agree, Iam sure, on nineteen points out of twenty, and on the twentieth I am notinconvincible. But then I must be convinced by facts and arguments, notby high-handed ridicule such as Claparède's. 

I hope you see the difference between such criticisms as his, and thatin the last number of the _North American Review_, where my last chapteris really criticised, point by point; and though I think some of it veryweak, I admit that some is very strong, and almost converts me from theerror of my ways. 

As to your new book, I am sure it will not make me think less highly ofyou than I do, unless you do, what you have never done yet, ignorefacts and arguments that go against you. 

I am doing nothing just now but writing articles and putting downanti-Darwinians, being dreadfully ridden upon by a horridold-man-of-the-sea, who has agreed to let me have the piece of land Ihave set my heart on, and which I have been trying to get of him sincelast February, but who will not answer letters, will not sign anagreement, and keeps me week after week in anxiety, though I haveaccepted his own terms unconditionally, one of which is that I pay rentfrom last Michaelmas! And now the finest weather for planting is goingby. It is a bit of a wilderness that can be made into a splendidimitation of a Welsh valley in little, and will enable me to gatherround me all the beauties of the temperate flora which I so much admire, or I would not put up with the little fellow's ways. The fixing on aresidence for the rest of your life is an important event, and I am notlikely to be in a very settled frame of mind for some time. 

I am answering A. Murray's Geographical Distribution of Coleoptera formy Entomological Society Presidential Address, and am printing a secondedition of my "Essays, " with a few notes and additions. Very glad to see(by your writing yourself) that you are better, and with kind regards toall your family, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Holly House, Barking, E. January 27, 1871. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your first volume, [82] which I have justfinished reading through with the greatest pleasure and interest, and Ihave also to thank you for the great tenderness with which you havetreated me and my heresies. 

On the subject of sexual selection and protection you do not yetconvince me that I am wrong, but I expect your heaviest artillery willbe brought up in your second volume, and I may have to capitulate. Youseem, however, to have somewhat misunderstood my exact meaning, and I donot think the difference between us is quite so great as you seem tothink it. There are a number of passages in which you argue against theview that the female has, in any large number of cases, been "speciallymodified" for protection, or that _colour_ has _generally_ been obtainedby either sex for purposes of protection. 

But my view is, and I thought I had made it clear, that the female has(in most cases) been simply prevented from acquiring the gay tints ofthe male (even when there was a tendency for her to inherit it) becauseit was hurtful; and, that when protection is not needed, gay colours areso generally acquired by both sexes as to show that inheritance by bothsexes of colour variations is the most usual, when _not prevented fromacting_ by Natural Selection. 

The colour itself may be acquired either by sexual selection or by otherunknown causes. There are, however, difficulties in the very wideapplication you give to sexual selection which at present stagger me, though no one was or is more ready than myself to admit the perfecttruth of the principle or the immense importance and great variety ofits applications. Your chapters on Man are of intense interest, but astouching my special heresy not as yet altogether convincing, though ofcourse I fully agree with every word and every argument which goes toprove the "evolution" or "development" of man out of a lower form. Myonly difficulties are as to whether you have accounted for _every_ stepof the development by ascertained laws. Feeling sure that the book willkeep up and increase your high reputation and be immensely successful, as it deserves to be, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S. E. January 30, 1871. _

My dear Wallace, --Your note has given me very great pleasure, chieflybecause I was so anxious not to treat you with the least disrespect, andit is so difficult to speak fairly when differing from anyone. If I hadoffended you, it would have grieved me more than you will readilybelieve. Secondly, I am greatly pleased to hear that Vol. I. Interestsyou; I have got so sick of the whole subject that I felt in utter doubtabout the value of any part. I intended when speaking of the female nothaving been specially modified for protection to include the preventionof characters acquired by the [male symbol] being transmitted to the[female symbol]; but I now see it would have been better to have said"specially acted on, " or some such term. Possibly my intention may beclearer in Vol. II. Let me say that my conclusions are chiefly foundedon a consideration of all animals taken in a body, bearing in mind howcommon the rules of sexual differences appear to be in all classes. Thefirst copy of the chapter on Lepidoptera agreed pretty closely with you. I then worked on, came back to Lepidoptera, and thought myself compelledto alter it, finished sexual selection, and for the last time went overLepidoptera, and again I felt forced to alter it. 

I hope to God there will be nothing disagreeable to you in Vol. II. , andthat I have spoken fairly of your views. I feel the more fearful on thishead, because I have just read (but not with sufficient care) Mivart'sbook, [83] and I feel _absolutely certain_ that he meant to be fair (buthe was stimulated by theological fervour); yet I do not think he hasbeen quite fair: he gives in one place only half of one of my sentences, ignores in many places all that I have said on effects of use, speaks ofmy dogmatic assertion, "of false belief, " whereas the end of paragraphseems to me to render the sentence by no means dogmatic or arrogant;etc. Etc. I have since its publication received some quite charmingletters from him. 

What an ardent (and most justly) admirer he is of you. His work, I donot doubt, will have a most potent influence versus Natural Selection. The pendulum will now swing against us. The part which, I think, willhave most influence is when he gives whole series of cases, like that ofwhalebone, in which we cannot explain the gradational steps; but suchcases have no weight on my mind--if a few fish were extinct, who onearth would have ventured even to conjecture that lung had originated inswim-bladder? In such a case as Thylacines, I think he was bound to saythat the resemblance of the jaw to that of the dog is superficial; thenumber and correspondence and development of teeth being widelydifferent. I think, again, when speaking of the necessity of altering anumber of characters together, he ought to have thought of man havingpower by selection to modify simultaneously or almost simultaneouslymany points, as in making a greyhound or racehorse--as enlarged upon inmy "Domestic Animals. "

Mivart is savage or contemptuous about my "moral sense, " and so probablywill you be. I am extremely pleased that he agrees with my position, _asfar as animal nature is concerned_, of man in the series; or, ifanything, thinks I have erred in making him too distinct. 

Forgive me for scribbling at such length. 

You have put me quite in good spirits, I did so dread having beenunintentionally unfair towards your views. I hope earnestly the secondvolume will escape as well. I care now very little what others say. Asfor our not quite agreeing, really in such complex subjects it is almostimpossible for two men who arrive independently at their conclusions toagree fully--it would be unnatural for them to do so. --Yours ever verysincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Holly House, Barking, E. March 11, 1871. _

Dear Darwin, --I need not say that I read your second volume with, ifpossible, a greater interest than the first, as so many topics ofspecial interest to me are treated of. You will not be surprised to findthat you have not convinced me on the "female protection" question, butyou _will_ be surprised to hear that I do not despair of convincing you. I have been writing, as you are aware, a review for the _Academy_, whichI tried to refuse doing, but the Editor used as an argument thestatement that you wished me to do so. It is not an easy job fairly tosummarise such a book, but I hope I have succeeded tolerably. When I gotto discussion, I felt more at home, but I most sincerely trust that Imay not have let pass any word that may seem to you in the least toostrong. 

You have not written a word about me that I could wish altered, but as Iknow you wish me to be candid with you, I will mention that you havequoted one passage in a note (p. 376, Vol. II. ) which seems to me acaricature of anything I have written. 

Now let me ask you to rejoice with me, for I have got my chalk pit, andam hard at work engineering a road up its precipitous slopes. I hope youmay be able to come and see me there some day, as it is an easy ridefrom London, and I shall be anxious to know if it is equal to the pit inthe wilds of Kent Mrs. Darwin mentioned when I lunched with you. Shouldyour gardener in the autumn have any thinnings out of almost any kindof hardy plants they would be welcome, as I have near four acres ofground in which I want to substitute ornamental plants for weeds. 

With best wishes, and hoping you may have health and strength to go onwith your great work, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

My review will appear next Wednesday. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S. E. March 16, 1871. _

My dear Wallace, --I have just read your grand review. [84] It is in everyway as kindly expressed towards myself as it is excellent in matter. TheLyells have been here, and Sir C. Remarked that no one wrote such goodscientific reviews as you, and, as Miss Buckley added, you delight inpicking out all that is good, though very far from blind to the bad. Inall this I most entirely agree. I shall always consider your review as agreat honour, and however much my book may hereafter be abused, as nodoubt it will be, your review will console me, notwithstanding that wediffer so greatly. 

I will keep your objections to my views in my mind, but I fear that thelatter are almost stereotyped in my mind, I thought for long weeks aboutthe inheritance and selection difficulty, and covered quires of paperwith notes, in trying to get out of it, but could not, though clearlyseeing that it would be a great relief if I could. I will confine myselfto two or three remarks. I have been much impressed with what you urgeagainst colour[85] in the case of insects having been acquired throughsexual selection. I always saw that the evidence was very weak; but Istill think, if it be admitted that the musical instruments of insectshave been gained through sexual selection, that there is not the leastimprobability in colour having been thus gained. Your argument withrespect to the denudation of mankind, and also to insects, that taste onthe part of one sex would have to remain nearly the same during manygenerations, in order that sexual selection should produce any effect, Iagree to, and I think this argument would be sound if used by one whodenied that, for instance, the plumes of birds of paradise had been sogained. 

I believe that you admit this, and if so I do not see how your argumentapplies in other cases. I have recognised for some short time that Ihave made a great omission in not having discussed, as far as I could, the acquisition of taste, its inherited nature, and its permanencewithin pretty close limits for long periods. 

One other point and I have done: I see by p. 179 of your review that Imust have expressed myself very badly to have led you to think that Iconsider the prehensile organs of males as affording evidence of thefemales exerting a choice. I have never thought so, and if you chance toremember the passage (but do not hunt for it), pray point it out to me. 

I am extremely sorry that I gave the note from Mr. Stebbing; I thoughtmyself bound to notice his suggestion of beauty as a cause ofdenudation, and thus I was led on to give his argument. I altered thefinal passage which seemed to me offensive, and I had misgivings aboutthe first part. 

I heartily wish I had yielded to these misgivings. I will omit in anyfuture edition the latter half of the note. 

I have heard from Miss Buckley that you have got possession of yourchalk pit, and I congratulate you on the tedious delay being over. Ifear all our bushes are so large that there is nothing which we are atall likely to grub up. 

Years ago we threw away loads of things. I should very much like to seeyour house and grounds; but I fear the journey would be too long. Goingeven to Kew knocks me up, and I have almost ceased trying to do so. 

Once again let me thank you warmly for your admirable review. --My dearWallace, yours ever very sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

What an excellent address you gave about Madeira, but I wish you hadalluded to Lyell's discussion on land shells, etc. --not that he has saida word on the subject. The whole address quite delighted me. I hear Mr. Crotch[86] disputed some of your facts about the wingless insects, but heis a _crotchety_ man. As far as I remember, I did not venture to ask Mr. Appleton to get you to review me, but only said, in answer to aninquiry, that you would undoubtedly be the best, or one of the very fewmen who could do so effectively. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent, S. E. March 24, 1871. _

My dear Wallace, --Very many thanks for the new edition of your Essays. Honour and glory to you for giving list of additions. It is grand asshowing that our subject flourishes, your book coming to a new editionso soon. My book also sells immensely; the edition will, I believe, be6, 500 copies. I am tired with writing, for the load of letters which Ireceive is enough to make a man cry, yet some few are curious andvaluable. I got one to-day from a doctor on the hair on backs of youngweakly children, which afterwards falls off. Also on hairy idiots. But Iam tired to death, so farewell. 

Thanks for your last letter. 

There is a very striking second article on my book in the _Pall Mall_. The articles in the _Spectator_[87] have also interested me much. --Againfarewell. 

C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Holly House, Barking, E. May 14, 1871. _

Dear Darwin, --Have you read that very remarkable book "The Fuel of theSun"? If not, get it. It solves the great problem of the almostunlimited duration of the sun's heat in what appears to me a mostsatisfactory manner. I recommended it to Sir C. Lyell, and he tells methat Grove spoke very highly of it to him. It has been somewhat ignoredby the critics because it is by a new man with a perfectly originalhypothesis, founded on a vast accumulation of physical and chemicalfacts; but not being encumbered with any mathematical shibboleths, theyhave evidently been afraid that anything so intelligible could not besound. The manner in which everything in physical astronomy is explainedis almost as marvellous as the powers of Natural Selection in the sameway, and naturally excites a suspicion that the respective authors arepushing their theories "a little too far. "

If you read it, get Proctor's book on the Sun at the same time, andrefer to his coloured plates of the protuberances, corona, etc. , whichmarvellously correspond with what Matthieu Williams's theory requires. The author is a practical chemist engaged in iron manufacture, and it isfrom furnace chemistry that he has been led to the subject. I think itthe most original, most thoughtful and most carefully-worked-out theorythat has appeared for a long time, and it does not say much for thecritics that, as far as I know, its great merits have not been properlyrecognised. 

I have been so fully occupied with road-making, well-digging, garden-and house-planning, planting, etc. , that I have given up all other work. 

Do you not admire our friend Miss Buckley's admirable article in_Macmillan_? It seems to me the best and most original that has beenwritten on your book. 

Hoping you are well, and are not working too hard, I remain yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 9, 1871. _

My dear Wallace, --I send by this post a review by Chauncey Wright, as Imuch want your opinion of it, as soon as you can send it. I consider youan incomparably better critic than I am. The article, though not veryclearly written, and poor in parts for want of knowledge, seems to meadmirable. 

Mivart's book is producing a great effect against Natural Selection, andmore especially against me. Therefore, if you think the article evensomewhat good, I will write and get permission to publish it as ashilling pamphlet, together with the MS. Addition (enclosed), for whichthere was not room at the end of the review. I do not suppose I shouldlose more than £20 or £30. 

I am now at work at a new and cheap edition of the "Origin, " and shallanswer several points in Mivart's book and introduce a new chapter forthis purpose; but I treat the subject so much more concretely, and Idaresay less philosophically, than Wright, that we shall not interferewith each other. You will think me a bigot when I say, after studyingMivart, I was never before in my life so convinced of the _general_(i. E. Not in detail) truth of the views in the "Origin. " I grieve to seethe omission of the words by Mivart, detected by Wright. [88] I complainedto M. That in two cases he quotes only the commencement of sentences byme and thus modifies my meaning; but I never supposed he would haveomitted words. There are other cases of what I consider unfairtreatment. I conclude with sorrow that though he means to be honourable, he is so bigoted that he cannot act fairly. 

I was glad to see your letter in _Nature_, though I think you were alittle hard on the silly and presumptuous man. 

I hope that your house and grounds are progressing well, and that youare in all ways flourishing. 

I have been rather seedy, but a few days in London did me much good; andmy dear good wife is going to take me somewhere, _nolens volens_, at theend of this month. 

C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Holly Home, Barking, E. July 12, 1871. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for giving me the opportunity to read at myleisure the very talented article of Mr. C. Wright. His criticism ofMivart, though very severe, is, I think, in most cases sound; but I findthe larger part of the article so heavy and much of the language andargument so very obscure, that I very much doubt the utility of printingit separately. I do not think the readers of Mivart could ever read itin that form, and I am sure your own answer to Mivart's arguments willbe so much more clear and to the point, that the other will beunnecessary. You might extract certain portions in your own chapter, such as the very ingenious suggestion as to the possible origin ofmammary glands, as well as the possible use of the rattle of therattlesnake, etc. 

I cannot see the force of Mivart's objection to the theory of productionof the long neck of the giraffe (suggested in my first Essay), and whichC. Wright seems to admit, while his "watch-tower" theory seems to memore difficult and unlikely as a means of origin. The argument, "Whyhaven't other allied animals been modified in the same way?" seems to methe weakest of the weak. I must say also I do not see any great reasonto complain of the "words" left out by Mivart, as they do not seem to mematerially to affect the meaning. Your expression, "and tends to departin a slight degree, " I think hardly grammatical; a _tendency_ to departcannot very well be said to be in a slight degree; a _departure_ can, but a tendency must be either a _slight tendency_ or a _strongtendency_; the degree to which the departure may reach must depend onfavourable or unfavourable causes in addition to the tendency itself. Mivart's words, "and tending to depart from the parental type, " seem tome quite unobjectionable as a paraphrase of yours, because the "tending"is kept in; and your own view undoubtedly is that the tendency may leadto an ultimate departure to any extent. Mivart's error is to supposethat your words favour the view of _sudden departures_, and I do not seethat the expression he uses really favours his view a bit more than ifhe had quoted your exact words. The expression of yours he relies uponis evidently "the whole organism seeming to have become plastic, " and heargues, no doubt erroneously, that having so become "plastic, " anyamount or a larger amount of sudden variation in some direction islikely. 

Mivart's greatest error, the confounding "individual variations" with"minute or imperceptible variations, " is well exposed by C. Wright, andthat part I should like to see reprinted; but I always thought you laidtoo much stress on the slowness of the action of Natural Selection owingto the smallness and rarity of favourable variations. In your chapter onNatural Selection the expressions, "extremely slight modifications, ""every variation even the slightest, " "every grade of constitutionaldifference, " occur, and these have led to errors such as Mivart's, I sayall this because I feel sure that Mivart would be the last tointentionally misrepresent you, and he has told me that he was sorry theword "infinitesimal, " as applied to variations used by NaturalSelection, got into his book, and that he would alter it, as no doubt hehas done, in his second edition. 

Some of Mivart's strongest points--the eye and ear, for instance--areunnoticed in the review. You will, of course, reply to these. Hisstatement of the "missing link" argument is also forcible, and has, Ihave no doubt, much weight with the public. As to all his minorarguments, I feel with you that they leave Natural Selection strongerthan ever, while the two or three main arguments do leave a lingeringdoubt in my mind of some fundamental organic law of development of whichwe have as yet no notion. 

Pray do not attach any weight to my opinions as to the review. It isvery clever, but the writer seems a little like those critics who knowan author's or an artist's meaning better than they do themselves. 

My house is now in the hands of a contractor, but I am wall-building, etc. , and very busy. --With best wishes, believe me, dear Darwin, yoursvery faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 12, 1871. _

My dear Wallace, --Very many thanks. As soon as I read your letter Idetermined, not to print the paper, notwithstanding my eldest daughter, who is a very good critic, thought it so interesting as to be worthreprinting. Then my wife came in, and said, "I do not much care aboutthese things and shall therefore be a good judge whether it is verydull. " So I will leave my decision open for a day or two. Your letterhas been, and will be, of use to me in other ways: thus I had quiteforgotten that you had taken up the case of the giraffe in your firstmemoir, and I must look to this. I feel very doubtful how far I shallsucceed in answering Mivart; it is so difficult to answer objections todoubtful points and make the discussion readable. I shall make only aselection. The worst of it is that I cannot possibly hunt through all myreferences for isolated points; it would take me three weeks ofintolerably hard work. I wish I had your power of arguing clearly. Atpresent I feel sick of everything, and if I could occupy my time andforget my daily discomforts or little miseries, I would never publishanother word. But I shall cheer up, I daresay, soon, being only just gotover a bad attack. Farewell. God knows why I bother you about myself. 

I can say nothing more about missing links than what I have said. Ishould rely much on pre-Silurian times; but then comes Sir W. Thomsonlike an odious spectre. Farewell. --Yours most sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

I was grieved to see in the _Daily News_ that the madman about the flatearth has been threatening your life. What an odious trouble this musthave been to you. 

P. S. --There is a most cutting review of me in the _Quarterly_:[89] I haveonly read a few pages. The skill and style make me think of Mivart. Ishall soon be viewed as the most despicable of men. This _Quarterly_review tempts me to republish Ch. Wright, even if not read by anyone, just to show that someone will say a word against Mivart, and that his(i. E. Mivart's) remarks ought not to be swallowed without somereflection. 

I quite agree with what you say that Mivart fully intends to behonourable; but he seems to me to have the mind of a most able lawyerretained to plead against us, and especially against me. God knowswhether my strength and spirit will last out to write a chapter versusMivart and others; I do so hate controversy, and feel I should do it sobadly. 

P. S. --I have now finished the review: there can be no doubt it is byMivart, and wonderfully clever. 

 * * * * *

_Holly House, Barking, E. July 16, 1871. _

Dear Darwin, --I am very sorry you are so unwell, and that you allowcriticisms to worry you so. Remember the noble army of converts you havemade! and the host of the most talented men living who support youwholly. What do you think of putting C. Wright's article as an appendixto the new edition of the "Origin"? That would get it read, and obviatemy chief objection, that the people who read Mivart and the "Origin"will very few of them buy a separate pamphlet to read. Pamphlets aresuch nuisances. I don't think Mivart could have written the _Quarterly_article, but I will look at it and shall, I think, be able to tell. Praykeep your spirits up. I am so distracted by building troubles that I canwrite nothing, and I shall not, till I get settled in my new house, some time next spring, I hope. --With best wishes, believe me yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Haredene, Albury, Guildford. August 1, 1871. _

My dear Wallace, --Your kind and sympathetic letter pleased me greatlyand did me good, but as you are so busy I did not answer it. I write nowbecause I have just received a very remarkable letter from Fritz Müller(with butterflies' wings gummed on paper as illustrations) on mimicry, etc. I think it is well worth your reading, but I will not send it, unless I receive a 1/2d. Card to this effect. He puts the difficulty offirst start in imitation excellently, and gives wonderful proof ofcloseness of the imitation. He hints a curious addition to the theory inrelation to sexual selection, which you will think madly hypothetical:it occurred to me in a very different class of cases, but I was afraidto publish it. It would aid the theory of imitative protection, _whenthe colours are bright_. He seems much pleased with your caterpillartheory. I wish the letter could be published, but without colouredillustrations [it] would, I fear, be unintelligible. 

I have not yet made up my mind about Wright's review; I shall stop tillI hear from him. Your suggestion would make the "Origin, " already toolarge, still more bulky. 

By the way, did Mr. Youmans, of the United States, apply to you to writea popular sketch of Natural Selection? I told him you would do itimmeasurably better than anyone in the world. My head keeps very rockyand wretched, but I am better, --Ever yours most truly, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Holly House, Barking, E. March 3, 1872. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your new edition of the "Origin, " which Ihave been too busy to acknowledge before. I think your answer to Mivarton the initial stages of modification ample and complete, and thecomparison of whale and duck most beautiful. I always saw the fallacy ofthese objections, of course. The eye and ear objection you have not sosatisfactorily answered, and to me the difficulty exists of how _threetimes over_ an organ of sight was developed with the apparatus evenapproximately identical. Why should not, in one case out of the three, the heat rays or the chemical rays have been utilised for the samepurpose, in which case no translucent media would have been required, and yet vision might have been just as perfect? The fact that the eyesof insects and molluscs are transparent to us shows that the very samelimited portion of the rays of the spectrum is utilised for vision bythem as by us. 

The chances seem to me immense against that having occurred through"fortuitous variation, " as Mivart puts it. 

I see still further difficulties on this point but cannot go into themnow. Many thanks for your kind invitation. I will try and call some day, but I am now very busy trying to make my house habitable by Lady Day, when I _must_ be in it. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 27, 1872. _

My dear Wallace, --I have just read with infinite satisfaction yourcrushing article in _Nature_. [90] I have been the more glad to see it, asI have not seen the book itself: I did not order it, as I felt surefrom Dr. B. 's former book that he could write nothing of value. Butassuredly I did not suppose that anyone would have written such a massof inaccuracies and rubbish. How rich is everything which he says andquotes from Herbert Spencer!

By the way, I suppose that you read H. Spencer's answer to Martineau: itstruck me as quite wonderfully good, and I felt even more stronglyinclined than before to bow in reverence before him. Nothing has amusedme more in your review than Dr. B. 's extraordinary presumption indeciding that such men as Lyell, Owen, H. Spencer, Mivart, Gaudry, etc. Etc. , are all wrong. I daresay it would be very delightful to feel suchoverwhelming confidence in oneself. 

I have had a poor time of it of late, rarely having an hour of comfort, except when asleep or immersed in work; and then when that is over Ifeel dead with fatigue. I am now correcting my little book onExpression; but it will not be published till November, when of course acopy will be sent to you. I shall now try whether I can occupy myselfwithout writing anything more on so difficult a subject as Evolution. 

I hope you are now comfortably settled in your new house, and have moreleisure than you have had for some time. I have looked out in the papersfor any notice about the curatorship of the new Museum, but have seennothing. If anything is decided in your favour, I _beg_ you to informme. --My dear Wallace, very truly yours, C. DARWIN. 

How grandly the public has taken up Hooker's case. 

 * * * * *

_Down. August 3, [1872]. _

My dear Wallace, --I hate controversy, chiefly perhaps because I do itbadly; but as Dr. Bree accuses you of "blundering, " I have thoughtmyself bound to send the enclosed letter[91] to _Nature_, that is, ifyou in the least desire it. In this case please post it. If you do not_at all_ wish it, I should rather prefer not sending it, and in thiscase please tear it up. And I beg you to do the same, if you intendanswering Dr. Bree yourself, as you will do it incomparably better thanI should. Also please tear it up if you don't like the letter. --My dearWallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 4, 1872. _

Dear Darwin, --I have sent your letter to _Nature_, as I think it willsettle that question far better than anything I can say. Many thanks forit. I have not seen Dr. Bree's letter yet, as I get _Nature_ here veryirregularly, but as I was very careful to mention none but _real errors_in Dr. Bree's book, I do not imagine there will be any necessity for mytaking any notice of it. It was really entertaining to have such a bookto review, the errors and misconceptions were so inexplicable and theself-sufficiency of the man so amazing. Yet there is some excellentwriting in the book, and to a half-informed person it has all theappearance of being a most valuable and authoritative work. 

I am now reviewing a much more important book and one that, if I mistakenot, will really compel you sooner or later to modify some of yourviews, though it will not at all affect the main doctrine of NaturalSelection as applied to the higher animals. I allude, of course, toBastian's "Beginnings of Life, " which you have no doubt got. It is hardreading, but intensely interesting. I am a thorough convert to his mainresults, and it seems to me that nothing more important has appearedsince your "Origin. " It is a pity he is so awfully voluminous anddiscursive. When you have thoroughly digested it I shall be glad to knowwhat you are disposed to think. My first notice of it will I thinkappear in _Nature_ next week, but I have been hurried for it, and it isnot so well written an article as I could wish. 

I sincerely hope your health is improving. --Believe me yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --I fear Lubbock's motion is being pushed off to the end of theSession, and Hooker's case will not be fairly considered. I hope thematter will _not_ be allowed to drop. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. August 28, 1872. _

My dear Wallace, --I have at last finished the gigantic job of readingDr. Bastian's book, and have been deeply interested in it. You wished tohear my impression, but it is not worth sending. 

He seems to me an extremely able man, as indeed I thought when I readhis first essay. His general argument in favour of archebiosis[92] iswonderfully strong; though I cannot think much of some few of hisarguments. The result is that I am bewildered and astonished by hisstatements, but am not convinced; though on the whole it seems to meprobable that archebiosis is true. I am not convinced partly I thinkowing to the deductive cast of much of his reasoning; and I know notwhy, but I never feel convinced by deduction, even in the case of H. Spencer's writings. If Dr. B. 's book had been turned upside down, and hehad begun with the various cases of heterogenesis, and then gone on toorganic and afterwards to saline solutions, and had then given hisgeneral arguments, I should have been, I believe, much more influenced. I suspect, however, that my chief difficulty is the effect of oldconvictions being stereotyped on my brain. I must have more evidencethat germs or the minutest fragments of the lowest forms are alwayskilled by 212° of Fahr. Perhaps the mere reiteration of the statementsgiven by Dr. B. By other men whose judgment I respect and who haveworked long on the lower organisms would suffice to convince me. Here isa fine confession of intellectual weakness; but what an inexplicableframe of mind is that of belief. 

As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being spontaneously generated, my mindcan no more digest such statements, whether true or false, than mystomach can digest a lump of lead. 

Dr. B. Is always comparing archebiosis as well as growth tocrystallisation; but on this view a Rotifer or Tardigrade is adapted toits humble conditions of life by a happy accident; and this I cannotbelieve. That observations of the above nature may easily be altogetherwrong is well shown by Dr. B. Having declared to Huxley that he hadwatched the entire development of a leaf of Sphagnum. He must haveworked with very impure materials in some cases, as plenty of organismsappeared in a saline solution not containing an atom of nitrogen. 

I wholly disagree with Dr. B. About many points in his latter chapters. Thus the frequency of generalised forms in the older strata seems to meclearly to indicate the common descent with divergence of more recentforms. 

Notwithstanding all his sneers, I do not strike my colours as yet aboutpangenesis. I should like to live to see archebiosis proved true, for itwould be a discovery of transcendent importance; or if false I shouldlike to see it disproved, and the facts otherwise explained; but I shallnot live to see all this. If ever proved, Dr. B. Will have taken aprominent part in the work. How grand is the onward rush of science; itis enough to console us for the many errors which we have committed andfor our efforts being overlaid and forgotten in the mass of new factsand new views which are daily turning up. 

This is all I have to say about Dr. B. 's book, and it certainly has notbeen worth saying. Nevertheless, reward me whenever you can by giving meany news about your appointment to the Bethnal Green Museum. --My dearWallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 31, 1872. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your long and interesting letter aboutBastian's book, though I almost regret that my asking you for youropinion should have led you to give yourself so much trouble. I quiteunderstand your frame of mind, and think it quite a natural and properone. You had hard work to hammer your views into people's heads atfirst, and if Bastian's theory is true he will have still harder work, because the facts he appeals to are themselves so difficult toestablish. Are not you mistaken about the Sphagnum? As I remember it, Huxley detected a fragment of Sphagnum leaf _in the same solution inwhich a fungoid growth had been developed_. Bastian mistook the Sphagnumalso for a vegetable growth, and on account of this ignorance of thecharacter of Sphagnum, and its presence in the solution, Huxley rejectedsomewhat contemptuously (and I think very illogically) all Bastian'sobservations. Again, as to the saline solution without nitrogen, wouldnot the air supply what was required?

I quite agree that the book would have gained force by rearrangement inthe way you suggest, but perhaps he thought it necessary to begin with ageneral argument in order to induce people to examine his new collectionof facts, I am impressed _most_ by the agreement of so many observers, some of whom struggle to explain away their own facts. What awonderfully ingenious and suggestive paper that is by Galton on "BloodRelationship. " It helps to render intelligible many of theeccentricities of heredity, atavism, etc. 

Sir Charles Lyell was good enough to write to Lord Ripon and Mr. Cole[93]about me and the Bethnal Green Museum, and the answer he got was that atpresent no appointment of a director is contemplated. I suppose they seeno way of making it a Natural History Museum, and it will have to bekept going by Loan Collections of miscellaneous works of art, in whichcase, of course, the South Kensington people will manage it. It is aconsiderable disappointment to me, as I had almost calculated on gettingsomething there. 

With best wishes for your good health and happiness, believe me, dearDarwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --I have just been reading Howorth's paper in the _Journal of theAnthropological Institute_. How perverse it is. He throughout confounds"fertility" with "increase of population, " which seems to me to be themain cause of his errors. His elaborate accumulation of facts in otherpapers in _Nature_, on "Subsidence and Elevation of Land, " I believe tobe equally full of error, and utterly untrustworthy as a whole. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. September 2, 1872. _

My dear Wallace, --I write a line to say that I understood--but I may ofcourse have been mistaken--from Huxley that Bastian distinctly statedthat he had watched the development of the scale of Sphagnum: I wasastonished, as I knew the appearance of Sphagnum under a high power, andasked a second time; but I repeat that I may have been mistaken. Busktold me that Sharpey had noticed the appearance of numerous Infusoria inone of the solutions not containing any nitrogen; and I do not supposethat any physiologist would admit the possibility of Infusoria absorbingnitrogen gas. Possibly I ought not to have mentioned statements made inprivate conversation, so please do not repeat them. 

I quite agree about the extreme importance of such men as Cohn[illegible] and Carter having observed apparent cases of heterogenesis. At present I should prefer any mad hypothesis, such as that everydisintegrated molecule of the lowest forms can reproduce theparent-form, and that the molecules are universally distributed, andthat they do not lose their vital power until heated to such atemperature that they decompose like dead organic particles. 

I am extremely grieved to hear about the Museum: it is a greatmisfortune. --Yours most sincerely, C. DARWIN. 

I have taken up old botanical work and have given up all theories. 

I quite agree about Howorth's paper: he wrote to me and I told him thatwe differed so widely it was of no use our discussing any point. 

As for Galton's paper, I have never yet been able to fully digest it: asfar as I have, it has not cleared my ideas, and has only aided inbringing more prominently forward the large proportion of the latentcharacters. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. October 20, 1872. _

My dear Wallace, --I have thought that you would perhaps like to seeenclosed specimen and extract from letter (translated from the German bymy son) from Dr. W. Marshall, Zoological Assistant to Schlegel atLeyden. Neither the specimen nor extract need be returned; and you neednot acknowledge the receipt. The resemblance is not so close, now thatthe fragments are gummed on card, as I at first thought. Your review ofHouzeau was very good: I skimmed through the whole gigantic book, butyou managed to pick out the plums much better than I did for myself. Youare a born critic. What an _admirable_ number that was of _Nature_. 

I am writing this at Sevenoaks, where we have taken a house for threeweeks and have one more week to stay. We came here that I may get alittle rest, of which I stood in much need. --Ever yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

With respect to what you say about certain instincts of ants having beenacquired by experience or sense, have you kept in mind that the neutershave no progeny? I wish I knew whether the fertile females, or queens, do the same work (viz. Placing the eggs in warm places, etc. ) as theneuters do afterwards; if so the case would be comparatively simple; butI believe this is not the case, and I am driven to selection of varyingpre-existing instincts. 

 * * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 15, 1872. _

Dear Darwin, --I should have written earlier to thank you for yourbook, [94] but was hoping to be able to read more of it before doing so. I have not, however, found time to get beyond the first three chapters, but that is quite sufficient to show me how exceedingly interesting youhave made the subject, and how completely and admirably you have workedit out. I expect it will be one of the most popular of your works. Ihave just been asked to write a review of it for the _Quarterly Journalof Science_, for which purpose I shall be in duty bound to seek out somedeficiencies, however minute, so as to give my notice some flavour ofcriticism. 

The cuts and photos are admirable, and my little boy and girl seized itat once to look at the naughty babies. 

With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --I will take this opportunity of asking you if you know of any bookthat will give me a complete catalogue of vertebrate fossils with someindication of their affinities. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 13, 1873. _

My dear Wallace, --I have read your review with much interest, and Ithank you sincerely for the very kind spirit in which it is written. Icannot say that I am convinced by your criticisms. [95] If you have everactually observed a kitten sucking and pounding with extended toes itsmother, and then seen the same kitten when a _little older_ doing thesame thing on a soft shawl, and ultimately an old cat (as I have seen), and do not admit that it is identically the same action, I amastonished. 

With respect to the decapitated frog, [96] I have always heard of Pflügeras a most trustworthy observer. If, indeed, anyone knows a frog's habitsso well as to say that it never rubs off a bit of leaf or other object, which may stick to its thigh, in the same manner as it did the acid, your objection would be valid. Some of Flourens' experiments, in whichhe removed the cerebral hemisphere from a pigeon, indicate that acts_apparently_ performed consciously can be done without consciousness--Ipresume through the force of habit; in which case it would appear thatintellectual power is not brought into play. Several persons have madesuch suggestions and objections as yours about the hands being held upin astonishment:[97] if there was any straining of the muscles, as withprotruded arms under fright, I would agree: as it is I must keep to myold opinion, and I daresay you will say that I am an obstinate oldblockhead. --My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

The book has sold wonderfully; 9, 000 copies have now been printed. 

 * * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. Wednesday morning, [November, 1873]. _

Dear Darwin, --Yours just received. Pray act exactly as if nothing hadbeen said to me on the subject. I do not particularly _wish_ for thework, [98] as, besides being as you say, tedious work, it involves aconsiderable amount of responsibility. Still, I am prepared to do anyliterary work of the kind, as I told Bates some time ago, and that isthe reason he wrote to me about it. I certainly think, however, that itwould be in many ways more satisfactory to you if your son did it, and Itherefore hope he may undertake it. 

Should he, however, for any reasons, be unable, I am at your service asa _dernier ressort_. 

In case my meaning is not quite clear, I will _not do it_ unless yourson has the offer and declines it. --Believe me, dear Darwin, yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED B. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 18, 1873. _

Dear Darwin, --I quite understand what you require, and would undertaketo do it to the best of my ability. Of course in such work I should notthink of offering criticisms of matter. 

I do not think I could form any idea of how long it would take by seeingthe MSS. , as it would all depend upon the amount of revision andworking-in required. I have helped Sir C. Lyell with his last three orfour editions in a somewhat similar though different way, and for him Ihave kept an account simply of the hours I was employed in any way forhim, and he paid me 5/- an hour; but (of course this is confidential) Ido not think this quite enough for the class of work. I should proposefor your work 7/- an hour as a fair remuneration, and I would put downeach day the hours I worked at it. 

No doubt you will get it done for very much less by any literary manaccustomed to regular literary work and nothing else, and perhaps betterdone, so do not in the least scruple in saying you decide on employingthe gentleman you had in view if you prefer it. 

If you send it to me could you let me have _all_ your MSS. Copied out, as it adds considerably to the time required if there is any difficultyin deciphering the writing, which in yours (as you are no doubt aware)there often is. 

My hasty note to Bates was not intended to be shown you or anyone. Ithought he had heard of it from Murray, and that the arrangement was tobe made by Murray. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --I have been delighted with H. Spencer's "Study of Sociology. " Someof the passages in the latter part are _grand_. You have perhaps seenthat I am dipping into politics myself occasionally. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenkam, Kent. November 19, 1873. _

Dear Wallace, --I thank you for your extremely kind letter, and I amsorry that I troubled you with that of yesterday. My wife thinks that myson George would be so much pleased at undertaking the work for me, thatI will write to him, and so probably shall have no occasion to troubleyou. If on still further reflection, and after looking over my notes, Ithink that my son could not do the work, I will write again and_gratefully_ accept your proposal. But if you do not hear, you willunderstand that I can manage the affair myself. I never in my lifetimeregretted an interruption so much as this new edition of the "Descent. "I am deeply immersed in some work on physiological points with plants. 

I fully agree with what you say about H. Spencer's "Sociology"; I do notbelieve there is a man in Europe at all his equal in talents. I did notknow that you had been writing on politics, except so far as your letteron the coal question, which interested me much and struck me as acapital letter. 

I must again thank you for your letter, and remain, dear Wallace, yoursvery sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

I hope to Heaven that politics will not replace natural science. 

I know too well how atrociously bad my handwriting is. 

 * * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. December 6, 1874. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your kindness in sending me a copy of yournew edition of the "Descent. " I see you have made a whole host ofadditions and corrections which I shall have great pleasure in readingover as soon as I have got rid of my horrid book on GeographicalDistribution, which is almost driving me mad with the amount of drudgeryrequired and the often unsatisfactory nature of the result. However, Imust finish with it soon, or all the part first done will have to bedone over again, every new book, either as a monograph, or aclassification, putting everything wrong (for me). 

Hoping you are in good health and able to go on with your favouritework, I remain yours very sincerely, ALFRED B. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. July 21, 1875. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your kindness in sending me a copy of yournew book. [99] Being very busy I have only had time to dip into it yet. The account of Utricularia is most marvellous, and quite new to me. I'mrather surprised that you do not make any remarks on the origin of theseextraordinary contrivances for capturing insects. Did you think theywere too obvious? I daresay there is no difficulty, but I feel sure theywill be seized on as inexplicable by Natural Selection, and your silenceon the point will be held to show that you consider them so! Thecontrivance in Utricularia and Dionæa, and in fact in Drosera too, seemsfully as great and complex as in Orchids, but there is not the samemotive force. Fertilisation and cross-fertilisation are important endsenough to lead to _any_ modification, but can we suppose merenourishment to be so important, seeing that it is so easily and almostuniversally obtained by extrusion of roots and leaves? Here are plantswhich lose their roots and leaves to acquire the same results byinfinitely complex modes! What a wonderful and long-continued series ofvariations must have led up to the perfect "trap" in Utricularia, whileat any stage of the process the same end might have been gained by alittle more development of roots and leaves, as in 9, 999 plants out of10, 000!

Is this an imaginary difficulty, or do you mean to deal with it infuture editions of the "Origin"?--Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 7, 1875. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your beautiful little volume on "ClimbingPlants, " which forms a most interesting companion to your "Orchids" and"Insectivorous Plants. " I am sorry to see that you have not this timegiven us the luxury of cut edges. 

I am in the midst of printing and proof-sheets, which are wearisome inthe extreme from the mass of names and statistics I have been obliged tointroduce, and which will, I fear, make my book insufferably dull to allbut zoological specialists. 

My trust is in my pictures and maps to catch the public. 

Hoping yourself and all your family are quite well, believe me yoursvery faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. June 5, 1876. _

My dear Wallace, --I must have the pleasure of expressing to you myunbounded admiration of your book, [100] though I have read only to page184--my object having been to do as little as possible while resting. Ifeel sure that you have laid a broad and safe foundation for all futurework on Distribution. How interesting it will be to see hereafter plantstreated in strict relation to your views; and then all insects, pulmonate molluscs, and fresh-water fishes, in greater detail than Isuppose you have given to these lower animals. The point which hasinterested me most, but I do not say the most valuable point, is yourprotest against sinking imaginary continents in a quite reckless manner, as was started by Forbes, followed, alas, by Hooker, and caricatured byWollaston and Murray. By the way, the main impression which the latterauthor has left on my mind is his utter want of all scientific judgment. I have lifted up my voice against the above view with no avail, but Ihave no doubt that you will succeed, owing to your new arguments and thecoloured chart. Of a special value, as it seems to me, is the conclusionthat we must determine the areas chiefly by the nature of the mammals. When I worked many years ago on this subject, I doubted much whether thenow-called Palearctic and Nearctic regions ought to be separated; and Idetermined if I made another region that it should be Madagascar. I havetherefore been able to appreciate the value of your evidence on thesepoints. What progress Palæontology has made during the last 20 years!But if it advances at the same rate in the future, our views on themigration and birthplace of the various groups will, I fear, be greatlyaltered. I cannot feel quite easy about the Glacial period and theextinction of large mammals, but I much hope that you are right. I thinkyou will have to modify your belief about the difficulty of dispersal ofland molluscs; I was interrupted when beginning to experimentise on thejust-hatched young adhering to the feet of ground-roosting birds. Idiffer on one other point, viz. In the belief that there must haveexisted a Tertiary Antarctic continent, from which various formsradiated to the southern extremities of our present continents. But Icould go on scribbling for ever. You have written, as I believe, a grandand memorable work, which will last for years as the foundation for allfuture treatises on Geographical Distribution, --My dear Wallace, yoursvery sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. 

P. S. --You have paid me the highest conceivable compliment by what yousay of your work in relation to my chapters on Distribution in the"Origin, " and I heartily thank you for it. 

 * * * * *

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. June 7, 1876. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your very kind letter. So few people willread my book at all regularly, that a criticism from one who does sowill be very welcome. 

If, as I suppose, it is only to p. 184 of Vol. I. That you have read, you cannot yet quite see my conclusions on the points you refer to (landmolluscs and Antarctic continent). My own conclusions fluctuated duringthe progress of the book, and I have, I know, occasionally usedexpressions (the relics of earlier ideas) which are not quite consistentwith what I say further on. I am positively against any Southerncontinent as _uniting_ South America with Australia or New Zealand, asyou will see at Vol. I. , pp. 398-403 and 459-466. My general conclusionsas to Distribution of Land Mollusca[101] are at Vol. II. , pp. 522-529. When you have read these passages and looked at the general facts whichlead to them, I shall be glad to hear if you still differ from me. 

Though, of course, _present results_ as to origin and migrations ofgenera of mammals will have to be modified owing to new discoveries, Icannot help thinking that much will remain unaffected, because in allgeographical and geological discoveries the great outlines are soonreached; the details alone remain to be modified. I also think much ofthe geological evidence is now so accordant with, and explanatory of, geographical distribution that it is prima facie correct in outline. Nevertheless, such vast masses of new facts will come out in the nextfew years that I quite dread the labour of incorporating them in a newedition. 

Now for a little personal matter. For two years I have made up my mindto leave this place--mainly for two reasons: drought and wind preventthe satisfactory growth of all delicate plants; and I cannot stand beingunable to attend evening meetings and being obliged to refuse everyinvitation in London. But I was obliged to stay till I had got it intodecent order to attract a customer. At last it is so, and I am offeringit for sale, and as soon as it is disposed of I intend to try theneighbourhood of Dorking, whence there are late trains from CannonStreet and Charing Cross. 

I see your post-mark was Dorking, so I suppose you have been stayingthere. Is it not a lovely country? I hope your health is improved, andwhen, quite at your leisure, you have waded through my book, I trustyou will again let me have a few lines of friendly criticism andadvice. --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham. June 17, 1876. _

My dear Wallace, --I have now finished the whole of Vol. I. , with thesame interest and admiration as before; and I am convinced that myjudgment was right and that it is a memorable book, the basis of allfuture work on the subject. I have nothing particular to say, butperhaps you would like to hear my impressions on two or three points. Nothing has struck me more than the admirable and convincing manner inwhich you treat Java. To allude to a very trifling point, it is capitalabout the unadorned head of the Argus pheasant. [102] How plain a thing is, when it is once pointed out! What a wonderful case is that of Celebes! Iam glad that you have slightly modified your views with respect toAfrica, [103] and this leads me to say that I cannot swallow the so-calledcontinent of Lemuria, i. E. The direct connection of Africa andCeylon![104] The facts do not seem to me many and strong enough to justifyso immense a change of level. Moreover, Mauritius and the other islandsappear to me oceanic in character. But do not suppose that I place myjudgment on this subject on a level with yours. A wonderfully good paperwas published about a year ago on India in the _Geological Journal_--I_think_ by Blandford. [105] Ramsay agreed with me that it was one of thebest published for a long time. The author shows that India has been acontinent with enormous fresh-water lakes from the Permian period to thepresent day. If I remember right he believes in a former connection withSouth Africa. 

I am sure that I read, some 20 to 30 years ago, in a French journal, anaccount of teeth of mastodon found in Timor; but the statement may havebeen an error. 

With respect to what you say about the colonising of New Zealand, Isomewhere have an account of a frog frozen in the ice of a Swissglacier, and which revived when thawed. I may add that there is anIndian toad which can resist salt water and haunts the seaside. Nothingever astonished me more than the case of the Galaxias; but it does notseem known whether it may not be a migratory fish like the salmon. Itseems to me that you complicate rather too much the successivecolonisations with New Zealand. I should prefer believing that theGalaxias was a species, like the Emys of the Sewalik Hills, which haslong retained the same form. Your remarks on the insects and flowers ofNew Zealand have greatly interested me; but aromatic leaves I havealways looked at as a protection against their being eaten by insects orother animals; and as insects are there rare, such protection would notbe much needed. I have written more than I intended, and I must againsay how profoundly your book has interested me. 

Now let me turn to a very different subject. I have only just heard ofand procured your two articles in the _Academy_. I thank you mostcordially for your generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the"Origin" I did not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that Imight not be accused of concealing my opinion I went out of my way andinserted a sentence which seemed to me (and still so seems) to declareplainly my belief. This was quoted in my "Descent of Man. " Therefore itis very unjust, not to say dishonest, of Mr. Mivart to accuse me of basefraudulent concealment; I care little about myself; but Mr. Mivart, inan article in the _Quarterly Review_ (which I _know_ was written byhim), accused my son George of encouraging profligacy, and this withoutthe least foundation. [106] I can assert this positively, as I laidGeorge's article and the _Quarterly Review_ before Hooker, Huxley andothers, and all agreed that the accusation was a deliberatefalsification. Huxley wrote to him on the subject and has almost orquite cut him in consequence; and so would Hooker, but he was advisednot to do so as President of the Royal Society. Well, he has gained hisobject in giving me pain, and, good God, to think of the flattering, almost fawning speeches which he has made to me! I wrote, of course, tohim to say that I would never speak to him again. I ought, however, tobe contented, as he is the one man who has ever, as far as I know, treated me basely. 

Forgive me for writing at such length, and believe me yours verysincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

P. S. --I am very sorry that you have given up sexual selection. I am notat all shaken, and stick to my colours like a true Briton. When I thinkabout the unadorned head of the Argus pheasant, I might exclaim, _Et tu, Brute!_

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham. June 25, 1876. _

My dear Wallace, --I have been able to read rather more quickly of lateand have finished your book. I have not much to say. Your carefulaccount of the temperate parts of South America interested me much, andall the more from knowing something of the country. I like also much thegeneral remarks towards the end of the volume on the land molluscs. Nowfor a few criticisms. 

P. 122:[107] I am surprised at your saying that "during the whole Tertiaryperiod North America was zoologically far more strongly contrasted withSouth America than it is now. " But we know hardly anything of the latterexcept during the Pliocene period, and then the mastodon, horse, severalgreat Dentata, etc. Etc. , were common to the North and South. If you areright I erred greatly in my Journal, where I insisted on the formerclose connection between the two. 

P. 252, and elsewhere: I agree thoroughly with the general principlethat a great area with many competing forms is necessary for much andhigh development; but do you not extend this principle too far--I shouldsay much too far, considering how often several species of the samegenus have been developed on very small islands?

P. 265: You say that the Sittidæ extend to Madagascar, but there is nonumber in the tabular heading. [108]

P. 359: Rhinochetus is entered in the tabular heading under No. 3 of the_Neotropical_ sub-regions. [109]

Reviewers think it necessary to find some fault, and if I were to reviewyou, the sole point which I should blame is your not giving verynumerous references. These would save whoever follows you great labour. Occasionally I wished myself to know the authority for certainstatements, and whether you or somebody else had originated certainsubordinate views. Take the case of a man who had collected largely onsome island, for instance St. Helena, and who wished to work out thegeographical relations of his collection; he would, I think, feel veryblank at not finding in your work precise references to all that hadbeen written on St. Helena. I hope you will not think me a confoundedlydisagreeable fellow. 

I may mention a capital essay which I received a few mouths ago fromAxel Blytt[110] on the distribution of the plants of Scandinavia; showingthe high probability of there having been secular periods alternatelywet and dry; and of the important part which they have played indistribution. 

I wrote to Forel, who is always at work on ants, and told him of yourviews about the dispersal of the blind Coleoptera, and asked him toobserve. 

I spoke to Hooker about your book, and feel sure that he would likenothing better than to consider the distribution of plants in relationto your views; but he seemed to doubt whether he should ever have time. 

And now I have done my jottings, and once again congratulate you onhaving brought out so grand a work. I have been a little disappointed atthe review in _Nature_[111]--My dear Wallace, yours sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Rose Hill, Dorking. July 23, 1876. _

My dear Darwin, --I should have replied sooner to your last kind andinteresting letters, but they reached me in the midst of my packingprevious to removal here, and I have only just now got my books andpapers in a get-at-able state. 

And first, many thanks for your close observation in detecting the twoabsurd mistakes in the tabular headings. 

As to the former greater distinction of the North and South Americanfaunas, I think I am right. The Edentata, being proved (as I hold) tohave been mere temporary migrants into North America in thepost-Pliocene epoch, form no part of its Tertiary fauna. Yet in SouthAmerica they were so enormously developed in the Pliocene epoch that weknow, if there is any such thing as Evolution, etc. , that strangeancestral forms must have preceded them in Miocene times. 

Mastodon, on the other hand, represented by one or two species only, appears to have been a late immigrant into South America from the North. 

The immense development of Ungulates (in varied families, genera, andspecies) in North America during the whole Tertiary epoch is, however, the great feature, which assimilates it to Europe and contrasts it withSouth America. True camels, hosts of hog-like animals, truerhinoceroses, and hosts of ancestral horses, all bring North Americamuch nearer to the Old World than it is now. Even the horse, representedin all South America by Equus only, was probably a temporary immigrantfrom the North. 

As to extending too far the principle (yours) of the necessity ofcomparatively large areas for the development of varied faunas, I mayhave done so, but I think not. There is, I think, every probability thatmost islands, etc. , where a varied fauna now exists have been once moreextensive, e. G. New Zealand, Madagascar. Where there is no such evidence(e. G. Galapagos), the fauna is _very restricted_. 

Lastly as to want of references; I confess the justice of yourcriticism. But I am dreadfully unsystematic. It is my first large workinvolving much of the labour of others. I began with the intention ofwriting a comparatively short sketch, enlarged it, and added to it, bitby bit; remodelled the tables, the headings, and almost everything else, more than once, and got my materials into such confusion that it is awonder it has not turned out far more crooked and confused than it is. I, no doubt, ought to have given references; but in many cases I foundthe information so small and scattered, and so much had to be combinedand condensed from conflicting authorities, that I hardly knew how torefer to them or where to leave off. Had I referred to all authorsconsulted for every fact, I should have greatly increased the bulk ofthe book, while a large portion of the references would be valueless ina few years owing to later and better authorities. My experience ofreferring to references has generally been most unsatisfactory. Onefinds, nine times out of ten, the fact is stated, and nothing more; ora reference to some third work not at hand!

I wish I could get into the habit of giving chapter and verse for everyfact and extract, but I am too lazy and generally in a hurry, having toconsult books against time when in London for a day. 

However, I will try and do something to mend this matter should I haveto prepare another edition. 

I return you Forel's letter. It does not advance the question much, neither do I think it likely that even the complete observation hethinks necessary would be of much use; because it may well be that theova or larvæ or imagos of the beetles are not carried systematically bythe ants, but only occasionally owing to some exceptional circumstances. This might produce a great effect in distribution, yet be so rare asnever to come under observation. 

Several of your remarks in previous letters I shall carefully consider. I know that, compared with the extent of the subject, my book is in manyparts crude and ill-considered; but I thought, and still think, itbetter to make _some generalisations_ wherever possible, as I am not atall afraid of having to alter my views in many points of detail. I wasso overwhelmed with zoological details that I never went through theGeological Society's _Journal_ as I ought to have done, and as I mean todo before writing more on the subject. 

With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Rose Hill, Dorking. December 13, 1876. _

My dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your new book on "Crossing Plants, "which I have read with much interest. I hardly expected, however, thatthere would have been so many doubtful and exceptional cases. I fancythat the results would have come out better had you always takenweights instead of heights; and that would have obviated the objectionthat will, I daresay, be made, that _height_ proves nothing, because atall plant may be weaker, less bulky and less vigorous than a shorterone. Of course no one who knows you or who takes a _general_ view ofyour results will say this, but I daresay it will be said. I am afraidthis book will not do much or anything to get rid of the one greatobjection, that the physiological characteristic of species, theinfertility of hybrids, has not yet been produced. Have you ever triedexperiments with plants (if any can be found) which for severalcenturies have been grown under very different conditions, as forinstance potatoes on the high Andes and in Ireland? If any approach tosterility occurred in mongrels between these it would be a grand step. The most curious point you have brought out seems to me the slightsuperiority of self-fertilisation over fertilisation with another flowerof the same plant, and the most important result, that difference ofconstitution is the essence of the benefit of cross-fertilisation. Allyou now want is to find the neutral point where the benefit is at itsmaximum, any greater difference being prejudicial. 

Hoping you may yet demonstrate this, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Rose Hill, Dorking. January 17, 1877. _

My dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your valuable new edition of the"Orchids, " which I see contains a great deal of new matter of thegreatest interest. I am amazed at your continuous work, but I suppose, after all these years of it, it is impossible for you to remain idle. I, on the contrary, am very idle, and feel inclined to do nothing butstroll about this beautiful country, and read all kinds of miscellaneousliterature. 

I have asked my friend Mr. Mott to send you the last of his remarkablepapers--on Haeckel. But the part I hope you will read with as muchinterest as I have done is that on the deposits of Carbon, and the partit has played and must be playing in geological changes. He seems tohave got the idea from some German book, but it seems to me veryimportant, and I wonder it never occurred to Sir Charges Lyell. If thecalculations as to the quantity of undecomposed carbon deposited areanything approaching to correctness, the results must be important. 

Hoping you are in pretty good health, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Rose Hill, Dorking. July 23, 1877. _

My dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your admirable volume on "The Forms ofFlowers. " It would be impertinence of me to say anything in praise ofit, except that I have read the chapters on "Illegitimate Offspring ofHeterostyled Plants" and on "Cleistogamic Flowers" with great interest. 

I am almost afraid to tell you that in going over the subject of theColours of Animals, etc. , for a small volume of essays, etc. , I ampreparing, I have come to conclusions directly opposed to _voluntarysexual selection_, and believe that I can explain (in a general way)_all_ the phenomena of sexual ornaments and colours by laws ofdevelopment aided by simple Natural Selection. 

I hope you admire as I do Mr. Belt's remarkable series of papers insupport of his terrific "oceanic glacier river-damming" hypothesis. Inawful grandeur it beats everything "glacial" yet out, and it certainlyexplains a wonderful lot of hard facts. The last one, on the "GlacialPeriod in the Southern Hemisphere, " in the _Quarterly Journal ofScience_, is particularly fine, and I see he has just read a paper atthe Geological Society. It seems to me supported by quite as muchevidence as Ramsay's "Lakes"; but Ramsay, I understand, will have noneof it--as yet. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. August 31, 1877. _

My dear Wallace, --I am very much obliged to you for sending yourarticle, which is very interesting and appears to me as clearly writtenas it can be. You will not be surprised that I differ altogether fromyou about sexual colours. That the tail of the peacock and his elaboratedisplay of it should be due merely to the vigour, activity, and vitalityof the male is to me as utterly incredible as my views are to you. Mantegazza published a few years ago in Italy a somewhat similar view. Icannot help doubting about recognition through colour; our horses, dogs, fowls, and pigeons seem to know their own species, however differentlythe individuals may be coloured. I wonder whether you attribute theodoriferous and sound-producing organs, when confined to the males, totheir greater vigour, etc. ? I could say a good deal in opposition toyou, but my arguments would have no weight in your eyes, and I do notintend to write for the public anything on this or any other difficultsubject. By the way, I doubt whether the term voluntary in relation tosexual selection ought to be employed: when a man is fascinated by apretty girl it can hardly be called voluntary, and I suppose that femaleanimals are charmed or excited in nearly the same manner by the gaudymales. 

Three essays have been published lately in Germany which would interestyou: one by Weismann, who shows that the coloured stripes on thecaterpillars of Sphinx are beautifully protective: and birds werefrightened away from their feeding-place by a caterpillar with largeeye-like spots on the broad anterior segments of the body. Fritz Müllerhas well discussed the first steps of mimicry with butterflies, andcomes to nearly or quite the same conclusion as you, but supports it byadditional arguments. 

Fritz Müller also has lately shown that the males alone of certainbutterflies have odoriferous glands on their wings (distinct from thosewhich secrete matter disgusting to birds), and where these glands areplaced the scales assume a different shape, making little tufts. 

Farewell: I hope that you find Dorking a pleasant place? I was stayinglately at Abinger Hall, and wished to come over to see you, but drivingtires me so much that my courage failed. --Yours very sincerely, CHAS. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Madeira Villa, Madeira Road, Ventnor, Isle of Wight. September 3, 1877. _

My dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your letter. Of course I did not expectmy paper to have any effect on your opinions. You have looked at all thefacts so long from your special point of view that it would requireconclusive arguments to influence you, and these, from the complexnature of the question, are probably not to be had. We must, I think, leave the case in the hands of others, and I am in hopes that my papermay call sufficient attention to the subject to induce some of the greatschool of Darwinians to take the question up and work it out thoroughly. You have brought such a mass of facts to support your view, and haveargued it so fully, that I hardly think it necessary for you to do more. Truth will prevail, as you as well as I wish it to do. I will only makeone or two remarks. The word "voluntary" was inserted in _my proofsonly_, in order to distinguish clearly between the two radicallydistinct kinds of "sexual selection. " Perhaps "conscious" would be abetter word, to which I think you will not object, and I will alter itwhen I republish. I lay no stress on the word "voluntary. "

Sound- and scent-producing organs in males are surely due to "natural"or "automatic" as opposed to "conscious" selection. If there weregradations in the sounds produced, from mere noises, up to elaboratemusic--the case would be analogous to that of "colours" and "ornament. "Being, however, comparatively simple, Natural Selection, owing to theiruse as a guide, seems sufficient. The louder sound, heard at a greaterdistance, would attract or be heard by more females, or it may attractother males and lead to combats _for_ the females, but this would notimply _choice_ in the sense of rejecting a male whose stridulation was atrifle less loud than another's, which is the essence of the theory asapplied by you to colour and ornament. But greater general vigour wouldalmost certainly lead to greater volume or persistence of sound, and sothe same view will apply to both cases on my theory. 

Thanks for the references you give me. My ignorance of German preventsme supporting my views by the mass of observations continually beingmade abroad, so I can only advance my own ideas for what they are worth. 

I like Dorking much, but can find no house to suit me, so fear I shallhave to move again. 

With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. September 5, [1877]. _

My dear Wallace, --"Conscious" seems to me much better than "voluntary. "Conscious action, I presume, comes into play when two males fight for afemale; but I do not know whether you admit that, for instance, thespur of the cock is due to sexual selection. 

I am quite willing to admit that the sounds and vocal organs of somemales are used only for challenging, but I doubt whether this applies tothe musical notes of Hylobates or to the howling (I judge chiefly fromRengger) of the American monkeys. No account that I have seen of thestridulation of male insects shows that it is a challenge. All those whohave attended to birds consider their song as a charm to the females andnot as a challenge. As the males in most cases search for the females Ido not see how their odoriferous organs will aid them in finding thefemales. But it is foolish in me to go on writing, for I believe I havesaid most of this in my book: anyhow, I well remember thinking over it. The "belling" of male stags, if I remember rightly, is a challenge, andso I daresay is the roaring of the lion during the breeding season. 

I will just add in reference to your former letter that I fully admitthat with birds the fighting of the males co-operates with their charms;and I remember quoting Bartlett that gaudy colouring in the males isalmost invariably concomitant with pugnacity. But, thank Heaven, whatlittle more I can do in science will be confined to observation onsimple points. However much I may have blundered, I have done my best, and that is my constant comfort. --Most truly yours, C. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Waldron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. September 14, 1878. _

Dear Darwin, --An appointment is soon to be made of someone to have thesuperintendence of Epping Forest under the new Act, and as it is a postwhich of all others I should like I am trying very hard to get upinterest enough to secure it. 

One of the means is the enclosed memorial, which has been already signedby Sir J. Hooker and Sir J. Lubbock, and to which I feel sure you willadd your name, which I expect has weight "even in the City. "

In want of anything better to do I have been grinding away at a book onthe Geography of Australia for Stanford for the last six months. 

Hoping you are in good health, and with my best compliments to Mrs. Darwin and the rest of your family, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. September 16, 1878. _

My dear Wallace, --I return the paper signed, and most heartily wish thatyou may be successful, not only for your own sake, but for that ofNatural Science, as you would then have more time for new researches. 

I keep moderately well, but always feel half-dead, yet manage to workaway on vegetable physiology, as I think that I should die outright if Ihad nothing to do. --Believe me yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN

 * * * * *

_Walron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. September 23, 1878. _

Dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your signature and good wishes. I havesome hopes of success, but am rather doubtful of the Committee of theCorporation who will have the management, for they have just decidedafter a great struggle in the Court of Common Council that it is to be arotatory Committee, every member of the Council (of whom there are 200)coming on it in succession if they please. They evidently look upon itas a Committee which will have great opportunities of excursions, picnics, and dinners, at the expense of the Corporation, while theimprovement of the Forest will be quite a secondary matter. 

I am very glad to hear you are tolerably well. It is all I can say ofmyself. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 5, 1880. _

My dear Wallace, --As this note requires no sort of answer, you mustallow me to express my lively admiration of your paper in the_Nineteenth Century_. [112] You certainly are a master in the difficult artof clear exposition. It is impossible to urge too often that theselection from a single varying individual or of a single varying organwill not suffice. You have worked in capitally Allen's admirableresearches. As usual, you delight to honour me more than I deserve. WhenI have written about the extreme slowness of Natural Selection (in whichI hope I may be wrong), I have chiefly had in my mind the effects ofintercrossing. I subscribe to almost everything you say excepting thelast short sentence. 

And now let me add how grieved I was to hear that the City of London didnot elect you for the Epping office, but I suppose it was too much tohope that such a body of men should make a good selection. I wish youcould obtain some quiet post and thus have leisure for moderatescientific work. I have nothing to tell you about myself; I see fewpersons, for conversation fatigues me much; but I daily do some work inexperiments on plants, and hope thus to continue to the end of my days. 

With all good wishes, believe me yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. 

P. S. --Have you seen Mr. Farrer's article in the last _Fortnightly_? Itreminded me of an article on bequests by you some years ago whichinterested and almost converted me. 

 * * * * *

_Waldron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. January 9, 1880. _

My dear Darwin, --It is a great pleasure to receive a letter from yousometimes--especially when we do not differ very much. I am, of course, much pleased and gratified that you like my article. I wrote it chieflybecause I thought there was something a little fresh still to say on thesubject, and also because I wished to define precisely my presentposition, which people continually misunderstand. The main part of thearticle forms part of a chapter of a book I have now almost finished onmy favourite subject of "Geographical Distribution. " It will form a sortof supplement to my former work, and will, I trust, be more readable andpopular. I go pretty fully into the laws of variation and dispersal; theexact character of specific and generic areas, and their causes; thegrowth, dispersal and extinction of species and groups, illustrated bymaps, etc. ; changes of geography and of climate as affecting dispersal, with a full discussion of the Glacial theory, adopting Croll's views(part of this has been published as a separate article in the _QuarterlyReview_ of last July, and has been highly approved by Croll and Geikie);a discussion of the theory of permanent continents and oceans, which Isee you were the first to adopt, but which geologists, I am sorry tosay, quite ignore. All this is preliminary. Then follows a series ofchapters on the different kinds of islands, continental and oceanic, with a pretty full discussion of the characters, affinities, and originof their fauna and flora in typical cases. Among these I am myself quitepleased with my chapters on New Zealand, as I believe I have fullyexplained and accounted for _all_ the main peculiarities of the NewZealand and Australian floras. I call the book "Island Life, " etc. Etc. , and I think it will be interesting. 

Thanks for your regrets and kind wishes anent Epping. It was adisappointment, as I had good friends on the Committee and therefore hadtoo much hope. I may just mention that I am thinking of making someapplication through friends for some post in the new Josiah MasonCollege of Science at Birmingham, as Registrar or Curator and Librarian, etc. The Trustees have advertised for Professors to begin next October. Should you happen to know any of the Trustees, or have any influentialfriends in Birmingham, perhaps you could help me. 

I think this book will be my last, as I have pretty well said all I haveto say in it, and I have never taken to experiment as you have. But Iwant some easy occupation for my declining years, with not too muchconfinement or desk-work, which I cannot stand. You see I had somereason for writing to you; but do not you trouble to write again unlessyou have something to communicate. 

With best wishes, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

I have not seen the _Fortnightly_ yet, but will do so. 

 * * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. October 11, 1880. _

My dear Darwin, --I hope you will have received a copy of my last book, "Island Life, " as I shall be very glad of your opinion on certain pointsin it. The first five chapters you need not read, as they containnothing fresh to you, but are necessary to make the work complete initself. The next five chapters, however (VII. To X. ), I think, willinterest you. As I _think_, in Chapters VIII. And IX. I have found thetrue explanation of geological climates, and on this I shall be veryglad of your candid opinion, as it is the very foundation-stone of thebook. The rest will not contain much that is fresh to you, except thethree chapters on New Zealand. Sir Joseph Hooker thinks my theory ofthe Australian and New Zealand floras a decided advance on anything thathas been done before. 

In connection with this, the chapter on the Azores should be read. 

Chap. XVI. On the British Fauna may also interest you. 

I mention these points merely that you may not trouble yourself to readthe whole book, unless you like. 

Hoping that you are well, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. November 3, 1880. _

My dear Wallace, --I have now read your book, [113] and it has interested medeeply. It is quite excellent, and seems to me the best book which youhave ever published; but this may be merely because I have read it last. As I went on, I made a few notes, [114] chiefly when I differed stronglyfrom you; but God knows whether they are worth your reading. You will bedisappointed with many of them; but they will show that I had the will, though I did not know the way, to do what you wanted. 

I have said nothing on the infinitely many passages and views which Iadmired and which were new to me. My notes are badly expressed; but Ithought that you would excuse my taking any pains with my style. I wishthat my confounded handwriting was better. 

I had a note the other day from Hooker, and I can see that he is _much_pleased with the Dedication. 

With all good wishes, believe me yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

In two or three weeks you will receive a book from me; if you care toknow what it is about, read the paragraph in Introduction about newterms and then the last chapter, and you will know whole contents ofbook. 

 * * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. November 8, 1880. _

My dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your kind remarks and notes on my book. Several of the latter will be of use to me if I have to prepare a secondedition, which I am not so sure of as you seem to be. 

1. In your remark as to the doubtfulness of paucity of fossils being dueto coldness of water, I think you overlook that I am speaking _only_ ofwaters in the latitude of the Alps, in Miocene and Eocene times, whenicebergs and glaciers temporarily descended into an otherwise warm sea;my theory being that there was no glacial epoch at that time, but merelya local and temporary descent of the snow-line and glaciers owing tohigh excentricity and winter in _aphelion_. 

2. I cannot see the difficulty about the cessation of the glacialperiod. Between the Miocene and the Pleistocene periods geographicalchanges occurred which rendered a true glacial period possible withhigh excentricity. When the high excentricity passed away the glacialepoch also passed away in the Temperate zone; but it persists in theArctic zone, where during the Miocene there were mild climates, and thisis due to the persistence of the changed geographical conditions. Thepresent Arctic climate is itself a comparatively new and abnormal stateof things due to geographical modification. As to "epoch" and "period, "I use them as synonyms to avoid repeating the same word. 

3. Rate of deposit and geological time: there no doubt I may have goneto an extreme, but my "twenty-eight million years" may be anything under100 millions, as I state. There is an enormous difference between _mean_and _maximum_ denudation and deposition. In the case of the great faultsthe upheaval along a given line would itself facilitate the denudation(whether subaerial or marine) of the upheaved portion at a rate perhapsa hundred times faster than plains and plateaux. So, local subsidencemight itself lead to very rapid deposition. Suppose a portion of theGulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Mississippi were to subside for afew thousand years, it might receive the greater part of the sedimentfrom the whole Mississippi valley, and thus form strata at a very rapidrate. 

4. You quote the Pampas thistles, etc. , against my statement of theimportance of preoccupation. But I am referring especially to St. Helena, and to plants naturally introduced from the adjacent continents. Surely, if a certain number of African plants reached the island andbecame modified into a complete adaptation to its climatic conditions, they would hardly be expelled by other African plants arrivingsubsequently. They might be so conceivably, but it does not seemprobable. The cases of the Pampas, New Zealand, Tahiti, etc. , are verydifferent, where highly developed _aggressive_ plants have beenartificially introduced. Under nature it is these very aggressivespecies that would first reach any island in their vicinity, and, beingadapted to the island and colonising it thoroughly, would then holdtheir own against other plants from the _same_ country, mostly lessaggressive in character. I have not explained this so fully as I shouldhave done in the book. Your criticism is therefore useful. 

My Chap. XXIII. Is no doubt very speculative, and I cannot wonder atyour hesitating at accepting my views. To me, however, your theory ofhosts of existing species migrating over the tropical lowlands from theNorth Temperate to the South Temperate zone appears more speculative andmore improbable. For, where could the rich lowland _equatorial_ florahave existed during a period of general refrigeration sufficient forthis? and what became of the wonderfully rich Cape flora which, if thetemperature of Tropical Africa had been so recently lowered, wouldcertainly have spread northwards and on the return of the heat couldhardly have been driven back into the sharply defined and _veryrestricted area_ in which it now exists?

As to the migration of plants from mountain to mountain not being soprobable as to remote islands, I think that is fully counterbalanced bytwo considerations:

(a) The area and abundance of the mountain stations along such a rangeas the Andes are immensely greater than those of the islands in theNorth Atlantic, for example. 

(b) The temporary occupation of mountain stations by migrating plants(which I think I have shown to be probable) renders _time_ a much moreimportant element in increasing the number and variety of the plants sodispersed than in the case of islands, where the flora soon acquires afixed and endemic character, and where the number of species isnecessarily limited. 

No doubt, direct evidence of seeds being carried great distances throughthe air is wanted, but, I am afraid, can hardly be obtained. Yet I feelthe greatest confidence that they _are_ so carried. Take for instancethe two peculiar orchids of the Azores (Habinaria species): what othermode of transit is conceivable? The whole subject is one of greatdifficulty, but I hope my chapter may call attention to a hithertoneglected factor in the distribution of plants. 

Your references to the Mauritius literature are very interesting, andwill be useful to me; and again thanking you for your valuable remarks, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. November 21, 1880. _

My dear Darwin, --Many thanks for your new book containing your wonderfulseries of experiments and observations on the movements of plants. Ihave read the introduction and conclusion, which shows me the importanceof the research as indicating the common basis of the infinitely variedhabits and mode of growth of plants. The whole subject becomes thus muchsimplified, though the nature of the basic vitality which leads to suchwonderful results remains as mysterious as ever. --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. January 1, 1881. _

My dear Darwin, --I have been intending to write to you for some weeks tocall your attention to what seems to me a striking confirmation (or atall events a support) of my views of the land migration of plants frommountain to mountain. In _Nature_ of Dec. 9th, p. 126, Mr. Baker, ofKew, describes a number of the alpine plants of Madagascar as being_identical species_ with some found on the mountains of Abyssinia, theCameroons, and other African mountains. Now, if there is one thing moreclear than another it is that Madagascar has been separated from Africasince the Miocene (probably the early Miocene) epoch. These plants musttherefore have reached the island either _since_ then, in which casethey certainly must have passed through the air for long distances, orat the time of the union. But the Miocene and Eocene periods werecertainly warm, and these alpine plants could hardly have migrated overtropical forest lands, while it is very improbable that if they had beenisolated at so remote a period, exposed to such distinct climatal andorganic environments as in Madagascar and Abyssinia, they would have inboth places retained their specific characters unchanged. Thepresumption is, therefore, that they are comparatively _recent_immigrants, and if so must have passed across the sea from mountain tomountain, for the richness and speciality of the Madagascar forestvegetation render it certain that no recent glacial epoch has seriouslyaffected that island. 

Hoping that you are in good health, and wishing you the compliments ofthe season, I remain yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 2, 1881. _

My dear Wallace, --The case which you give is a very striking one, and Ihad overlooked it in _Nature. _[115] But I remain as great a heretic asever. Any supposition seems to me more probable than that the seeds ofplants should have been blown from the mountains of Abyssinia or othercentral mountains of Africa to the mountains of Madagascar. It seems tome almost infinitely more probable that Madagascar extended far to thesouth during the Glacial period, and that the southern hemisphere was, according to Croll, then more temperate; and that the whole of Africawas then peopled with some temperate forms, which crossed chiefly byagency of birds and sea-currents; and some few by the wind from theshores of Africa to Madagascar, subsequently ascending to the mountains. 

How lamentable it is that two men should take such widely differentviews, with the same facts before them; but this seems to be almostregularly our case, and much do I regret it. 

I am fairly well, but always feel half dead with fatigue. I heard but anindifferent account of your health some time ago, but trust that you arenow somewhat stronger. --Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours verysincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 7, 1881. _

My dear Wallace, --You know from Miss Buckley that, with her assistance, I drew up a memorial to Mr. Gladstone with respect to your services toscience. The memorial was corrected by Huxley, who has aided me in everypossible way. It was signed by twelve good men, and you would have beengratified if you had seen how strongly they expressed themselves on yourclaims. 

The Duke of Argyll, to whom I sent the memorial, wrote a private note toMr. Gladstone. The memorial was sent in only on January 5th, and I havejust received a note in Mr. Gladstone's own handwriting, in which hesays: "I lose no time in apprising you that although the Fund ismoderate and at present poor, I shall recommend Mr. Wallace for apension of £200 a year. " I will keep this note carefully, as, if thepresent Government were to go out, I do not doubt that it would bebinding on the next Government. 

I hope that it will give you some satisfaction to see that not onlyevery scientific man to whom I applied, but that also our Governmentappreciated your lifelong scientific labour. --Believe me, my dearWallace, yours sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

I should expect that there will be some delay before you receive anofficial announcement. 

 * * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. January 8, 1881. _

My dear Darwin, --I need not say how very grateful I am to you for yourconstant kindness, and especially for the trouble you have taken inrecommending me to Mr. Gladstone. It is also, of course, very gratifyingto hear that so many eminent men have so good an opinion of the littlescientific work I have done, for I myself feel it to be very little incomparison with that of many others. 

The amount you say Mr. Gladstone proposes to recommend is considerablymore than I expected would be given, and it will relieve me from a greatdeal of the anxieties under which I have laboured for several years. To-day is my fifty-eighth birthday, and it is a happy omen that yourletter should have arrived this morning. 

I presume after I receive the official communication will be the propertime to thank the persons who have signed the memorial in my favour. Ido not know whether it is the proper etiquette to write a private letterof thanks to Mr. Gladstone, or only a general official one. Whenever Ihear anything from the Government I will let you know. 

Again thanking you for your kindness, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 10, 1881. _

My dear Wallace, --I am heartily glad that you are pleased about thememorial. 

I do not feel that my opinion is worth much on the point which youmention. A relation who is in a Government office and whose judgment, Ithink, may be fully trusted, felt sure that if you received an officialannouncement without any private note, it ought to be answeredofficially, but if the case were mine, I would express whatever Ithought and felt in an official document. His reason was that Gladstonegives or recommends the pension on public grounds alone. 

If the case were mine I would not write to signers of the memorial, because I believe that they acted like so many jurymen in a claimagainst the Government. Nevertheless, if I met any of them or waswriting to them on any other subject, I should take the opportunity ofexpressing my feelings. I think you might with propriety write toHuxley, as he entered so heartily into the scheme and aided in the mostimportant manner in many ways. 

Sir J. Lubbock called here yesterday and Mr. F. Balfour came here withone of my sons, and it would have pleased you to see how unfeignedlydelighted they were at my news of the success of the memorial. 

I wrote also to tell the Duke of Argyll of the success, and he in answerexpressed very sincere pleasure. --My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. January 29, 1881. _

My dear Darwin, --Yours just received was very welcome, and the delay inits reaching me is of no importance whatever, as, having seen theannouncement of the Queen's approval of the pension, of course I felt itwas safe. The antedating of the first payment is a very liberal andthoughtful act; but I do not think it is any way exceptional as regardsmyself. I am informed it is the custom because, as no payment is madeafter the death of the person, if the first payment were delayed theproposed recipient might die before the half-year (or quarter-day) andthus receive nothing at all. 

I suppose you sent the right address to Mr. Seymour. I have not yetheard from him, but I daresay I shall during the next week. 

As I am assured both by Miss Buckley and by Prof. Huxley that it is toyou that I owe in the first place this great kindness, and that you havealso taken an _immense_ amount of trouble to bring it to so successfulissue, I must again return you my best thanks, and assure you that thereis no one living to whose kindness in such a matter I could feel myselfindebted with so much pleasure and satisfaction. --Believe me, dearDarwin, yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 9. _

My dear Wallace, --Dr. G. Krefft has sent me the enclosed from Sydney. Anurseryman saw a caterpillar feeding on a plant and covered the wholeup, but, when he searched for the cocoon [pupa], was long before hecould find it, so good was its imitation, in colour and form, of theleaf to which it was attached. 

I hope that the world goes well with you. Do not trouble yourself byacknowledging this. --Ever yours, CH. DARWIN. 

Accompanying this letter, which has been published in "Darwin and ModernScience" (1909), was a photograph of the chrysalis (_Papilio sarpedonchoredon_) attached to a leaf of its food-plant. Many butterfly pupæare known to have the power of individual adjustment to the colours ofthe particular food-plant or other normal environment; and it isprobable that the Australian _Papilio_ referred to by Darwin possessesthis power. 

 * * * * *

_Nutwood Cottage, Frith Hill, Godalming, July 9, 1881. _

My dear Darwin, --I am just doing, what I have rarely if ever donebefore--reading a book through a second time immediately after the firstperusal. I do not think I have ever been so attracted by a book, withperhaps the exception of your "Origin of Species" and Spencer's "FirstPrinciples" and "Social Statics. " I wish therefore to call yourattention to it, in case you care about books on social and politicalsubjects, but here there is also an elaborate discussion of Malthus's"Principles of Population, " to which both you and I have acknowledgedourselves indebted. The present writer, Mr. George, while admitting themain principle as self-evident and as actually operating in the case ofanimals and plants, denies that it ever has operated or can operate inthe case of man, still less that it has any bearing whatever on the vastsocial and political questions which have been supported by a referenceto it. He illustrates and supports his views with a wealth ofillustrative facts and a cogency of argument which I have rarely seenequalled, while his style is equal to that of Buckle, and thus his bookis delightful reading. The title of the book is "Progress and Poverty. "It has gone through six editions in America, and is now published inEngland by Kegan Paul. It is devoted mainly to a brilliant discussionand refutation of some of the most widely accepted maxims of politicaleconomy, such as the relation of wages and capital, the nature of rentand interest, the laws of distribution, etc. , but all treated as partsof the main problem as stated in the title-page, "An Enquiry into theCause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase ofWealth. " It is the most startling novel and original book of the lasttwenty years, and if I mistake not will in the future rank as making anadvance in political and social science equal to that made by Adam Smitha century ago. 

I am here settled in my little cottage engaged in the occupation I mostenjoy--making a garden, and admiring the infinite variety and beauty ofvegetable life. I am out of doors all day and hardly read anything. Asthe long evenings come on I shall get on with my book on the "LandQuestion, " in which I have found a powerful ally in Mr. George. 

Hoping you are well, believe me, yours most faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The following is the last letter Wallace received from Darwin, who diedon Wednesday, April 19, 1882, in the seventy-fourth year of his age. 

_Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 12, 1881. _

My dear Wallace, --I have been heartily glad to get your note and hearsome news of you. I will certainly order "Progress and Poverty, " for thesubject is a most interesting one. But I read many years ago some bookson political economy, and they produced a disastrous effect on my mind, viz. Utterly to distrust my own judgment on the subject and to doubtmuch everyone else's judgment! So I feel pretty sure that Mr. George'sbook will only make my mind worse confounded than it is at present. I, also, have just finished a book which has interested me greatly, butwhether it would interest anyone else I know not: it is "The Creed ofScience, " by W. Graham, A. M. Who and what he is I know not, but hediscusses many great subjects, such as the existence of God, immortality, the moral sense, the progress of society, etc. I think someof his propositions rest on very uncertain foundations, and I could getno clear idea of his notions about God. Notwithstanding this and otherblemishes, the book has interested me _extremely_. Perhaps I have beento some extent deluded, as he manifestly ranks too high what I havedone. 

I am delighted to hear that you spend so much time out of doors and inyour garden; for with your wonderful power of observation you will seemuch which no one else has seen. From Newman's old book (I forget thetitle) about the country near Godalming, it must be charming. 

We have just returned home after spending five weeks on Ullswater: thescenery is quite charming; but I cannot walk, and everything tires me, even seeing scenery, talking with anyone or reading much. What I shalldo with my few remaining years of life I can hardly tell. I haveeverything to make me happy and contented, but life has become verywearisome to me. I heard lately from Miss Buckley in relation to Lyell'sLife, and she mentioned that you were thinking of Switzerland, which Ishould think and hope you will enjoy much. 

I see that you are going to write on the most difficult politicalquestion, the Land. Something ought to be done--but what is to rule? Ihope that you will [not] turn renegade to natural history; but I supposethat politics are very tempting. 

With all good wishes for yourself and family, believe me, my dearWallace, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN. 

 * * * * *

Wallace's last letter to Darwin was written in October, 1881:

_Nutwood Cottage, Frith Hill, Godalming. October 18, 1881. _

My dear Darwin, --I have delayed writing to thank you for your book onWorms till I had been able to read it, which I have now done with greatpleasure and profit, since it has cleared up many obscure points as tothe apparent sinking or burying of objects on the surface and theuniversal covering up of old buildings. I have hitherto looked upon themchiefly from the gardener's point of view--as a nuisance, but I shalltolerate their presence in the view of their utility and importance. Afriend here to whom I am going to lend your book tells me that anagriculturist who had been in West Australia, near Swan River, told himmany years ago of the hopelessness of farming there, illustrating thepoverty and dryness of the soil by saying, "There are no worms in theground. "

I do not see that you refer to the formation of leaf-mould by the meredecay of leaves, etc. In favourable places many inches or even feet ofthis is formed--I presume without the agency of worms. If so, would itnot take part in the formation of all mould? and also the decay of theroots of grasses and of all annual plants, or do you suppose that _all_these are devoured by worms? In reading the book I have not noticed asingle erratum. 

I enclose you a copy of two letters to the _Mark Lane Express_, writtenat the request of the editor, and which will show you the direction inwhich I am now working, and in which I hope to do a littlegood. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] "While at Hertford I lived altogether in five different houses, andin three of these the Silk family lived next door to us, which involvednot only each family having to move about the same time, but also thattwo houses adjoining each other should have been vacant together, andthat they should have been of the size required by each, which after thefirst was not the same, the Silk family being much the larger. "--"MyLife, " i. 32. 

[2] "My Life, " i. 191-2. 

[3] "My Life, " i. 108-111. 

[4] Darwin makes a similar comment: "I was very successful incollecting, and invented two new methods . .. And thus I got some veryrare species. No poet ever felt more delighted at seeing his first poempublished than I did at seeing, in Stephens' 'Illustrations of BritishInsects, ' the magic words, 'captured by C. Darwin, Esq. '"--Darwin'sAutobiography, in the one-volume "Life, " p. 20. 

[5] "My Life, " i. 194-5. 

[6] There is no record in his autobiography as to the exact date when hefirst became acquainted with Lyell's work, though several timesreference is made to it. 

[7] "Travels on the Amazon, " p. 277. 

[8] "Voyage of the _Beagle_, " pp. 11-12. 

[9] "Voyage of the _Beagle_, " p. 534. 

[10] It is interesting to note that the careers of Sir Joseph Hooker, Charles Darwin, H. W. Bates, Alfred Russel Wallace and T. H. Huxley wereall determined by voyages or journeys of exploration. 

[11] "Life of Charles Darwin" (one-volume Edit. ), p. 29. 

[12] "Voyage of the _Beagle_, " p. 535. 

[13] This letter may have been written for publication. 

[14] A reference to the loss of his earlier collection (p. 29). 

[15] The original of this letter is in the possession of the Trustees ofthe British Museum. 

[16] For the other part of this letter see "My Life, " i. 379. 

[17] "My early letters to Bates suffice to show that the great problemof the origin of species was already distinctly formulated in my mind;that I was not satisfied with the more or less vague solutions at thattime offered; that I believed the conception of evolution throughnatural law so clearly formulated in the 'Vestiges' to be, so far as itwent, a true one; and that I firmly believed that a full and carefulstudy of the facts of nature would ultimately lead to a solution of themystery. "--"My Life, " i. 254-7. 

[18] "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction ofSpecies. "--_Ann. And Mag. Of Natural History_, 2nd Series, 1855, xvi. 184. 

[19] "Life of Charles Darwin" (one-vol. Edit. ), p. 171. 

[20] "Life of Charles Darwin, " (one-vol. Edit. ), p. 40, [21] _See post_, p. 112. 

[22] "My Life, " i. 359. 

[23] "My Life, " i. 361-3. 

[24] It will be remembered, that Darwin died in April, 1882, twenty-sixyears previously. 

[25] "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, " ii. 188. 

[26] "The Herbert Spencer Lecture, " delivered at the Museum, December 8, 1910. (Clarendon Press, Oxford. )

[27] "My Life, " ii. 23-4. 

[28] "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of NewSpecies. "--_Ann. And Mag. Of Nat. Hist. _, 1855. The law is thus statedby Wallace: "Every species has come into existence coincident both intime and space with a pre-existing closely-allied species. "

[29] "The Origin of Species. "

[30] "The Origin of Species. "

[31] First Edit. , 1859, pp. 1, 2. 

[32] "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties and on thePerpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. " ByC. Darwin and A. R. Wallace. Communicated by Sir C. Lyell and J. D. Hooker. _Journ. Linn. Soc. _, 1859, iii. 45. Read July 1st, 1858. 

[33] "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species. "_Ann. And Mag. Of Nat. Hist. _, 1855, xvi. 184. 

[34] This seems to refer to Wallace's paper on "The Zoological Geographyof the Malay Archipelago, " _Journ. Linn. Soc. _, 1860. 

[35] Dr. Samuel Wilberforce. 

[36] Now Major Leonard Darwin. 

[37] The last sheet of the letter is missing. 

[38] Wallace's paper was entitled "Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton'sPaper on the Bee's Cells and on the Origin of Species. " Prof. Haughton'spaper appeared in the _Ann. And Mag. Of Nat. Hist. _, 1863, xi. 415. Wallace's was published in the same journal. 

[39] For March, 1864. 

[40] _Reader_, April 16, 1864. An abstract of Wallace's paper "On thePhenomena of Variation and Geographical Distribution, as illustrated bythe Papilionidæ of the Malayan Region, " _Linn. Soc. Trans. _, xxv. 

[41] _Anthropolog. Rev. _, 1864. 

[42] _Nat. Hist. Rev. _, 1864, p. 328. 

[43] "Read June, 1864. "--A. R. W. 

[44] "June 8, 1864. "--A. R. W. 

[45] "Referring to my broken engagement. "--A. R. W. 

[46] Paper on the three forms of Lythrum. 

[47] Probably the one on the Distribution of Malayan Butterflies, _Linn. Soc. Trans. _, xxv. 

[48] E. B. Tylor's "Early History of Mankind, " and Lecky's "Rationalism. "

[49] "Prehistoric Times. "

[50] The note speaks of the "characteristic unselfishness" with whichWallace ascribed the theory of Natural Selection to Darwin. 

[51] "Für Darwin. "

[52] "On the Pigeons of the Malay Archipelago, " _Ibis_, October, 1865. Wallace points out (p. 366) that "the most striking superabundance ofpigeons, as well as of parrots, is confined to the Australo-Malayansub-regions in which . .. The forest-haunting and fruit-eating mammals, such as monkeys and squirrels, are totally absent. " He points out alsothat monkeys are "exceedingly destructive to eggs and youngbirds. "--Note, "More Letters, " i. 265. 

[53] "The Geographical Distribution and Variability of the MalayanPapilionidæ, " _Linn. Soc. Trans. _, xxv. 

[54] The passage referred to in this letter as needing fartherexplanation is the following: "The last six cases of mimicry areespecially instructive, because they seem to indicate one of theprocesses by which dimorphic forms have been produced. When, as in thesecases, one sex differs much from the other, and varies greatly itself, it may be that individual variations will occasionally occur, having adistant resemblance to groups which are the objects of mimicry, andwhich it is therefore advantageous to resemble. Such a variety will havea better chance of preservation; the individuals possessing it will bemultiplied; and their accidental likeness to the favoured group will berendered permanent by hereditary transmission, and each successivevariation which increases the resemblance being preserved, and allvariation departing from the favoured type having less chance ofpreservation, there will in time result those singular cases of two ormore isolated and fixed forms bound together by that intimaterelationship which constitutes them the sexes of a single species. Thereason why the females are more subject to this kind of modificationthan the males is probably that their slower flight when laden witheggs, and their exposure to attack while in the act of depositing theireggs upon leaves, render it especially advantageous for them to haveadditional protection. This they at once obtain by acquiring aresemblance to other species which, from whatever cause, enjoy acomparative immunity from persecution. "

[55] This no doubt refers to Janet's "Matérialisme Contemporain. "

[56] _Quarterly Journal of Science_, January 7, 1867. "Ice Marks inNorth Wales, " by A. R. Wallace. 

[57] I. E. , the suggestion that conspicuous caterpillars or perfectinsects (e. G. White butterflies) which are distasteful to birds areprotected by being easily recognised and avoided. 

[58] A bearded woman having an irregular double set of teeth. See"Animals and Plants, " ii. 328. 

[59] The letter to which this is a reply is missing. It evidently refersto Wallace's belief in the paramount importance of protection in theevolution of colour. _See also_ Darwin's letter of February 26, 1867. 

[60] _Menura superba. _ See "The Descent of Man" (1901), p. 687. Rhynchæa, mentioned on p. 184, is discussed in the "Descent, " p. 727. The female is more brightly coloured than the male and has a convolutedtrachea, elsewhere a masculine character. There seems some reason tosuppose that "the male undertakes the duty of incubation. "

[61] _Westminster Review_, July, 1867. 

[62] _Angræcum sesquipedale_, a Madagascar orchid, with a whip-likenectary, 11 to 12 in. In length, which, according to Darwin("Fertilisation of Orchids, " 2nd Edit. , p. 163), is adapted to thevisits of a moth with a proboscis of corresponding length. He points outthat there is no difficulty in believing in the existence of such a mothas F. Müller had described (_Nature_, 1873, p. 223), a Braziliansphinx-moth with a trunk 10 to 11 in. In length. Moreover, Forbes hadgiven evidence to show that such an insect does exist in Madagascar(_Nature_, 1873, p. 121). The case of _Angræcum_ was put forward by theDuke of Argyll as being necessarily due to the personal contrivance ofthe Deity. Mr. Wallace shows (p. 476, _Quarterly Journal of Science_, 1867) that both proboscis and nectary might be increased in length bymeans of Natural Selection. It may be added that Hermann Müller hasshown good grounds for believing that mutual specialisation of this kindis beneficial both to insect and to plant. 

[63] "Variation of Animals and Plants, " 1st Edit. , ii. 431. "Did Hecause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that abreed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pindown the bull for man's brutal sport?"

[64] _See_ Wallace, _Quarterly Journ. Of Sci. _, 1867, pp. 477-8. Heimagined an observer examining a great river system, and findingeverywhere adaptations which reveal the design of the Creator. "He wouldsee special adaptations to the wants of man in the broad, quiet, navigable rivers, through fertile alluvial plains, that would support alarge population, while the rocky streams and mountain torrents wereconfined to those sterile regions suitable for a small population ofshepherds and herdsmen. "

[65] At p. 485 Wallace deals with Fleeming Jenkin's review in the _NorthBritish Review_, 1867. The review strives to show that there are strictlimitations to variation, since the most rigorous and long-continuedselection does not indefinitely increase such a quality as the fleetnessof a racehorse. On this Wallace remarks that the argument "fails to meetthe real question, " which is not whether indefinite change is possible, but "whether such differences as do occur in nature could have beenproduced by the accumulation of variations by selection. "

[66] Abstract of a paper on "Birds' Nests and Plumage, " read before theBritish Association. See _Gard. Chron. _, 1867, p. 1047. 

[67] Sir Henry Holland, Bart. , M. D. , F. R. S. , a writer on MentalPhysiology and other scientific subjects (b. 1788, d. 1873). 

[68] "This turns out to be inaccurate, or greatly exaggerated. There areno true alpines, and the European genera are comparatively few. _See_ my'Island Life, ' p. 323. "--A. R. W. 

[69] "In pigeons" and "lizards" inserted by A. R. W. 

[70] See _Westminster Review_, July, 1867, p. 37. 

[71] _Proc. Linn. Soc. _, 1867-8, p. 57. 

[72] It is not enough that females should be produced from the maleswith red feathers, which should be destitute of red feathers; but thesefemales must have a _latent tendency_ to produce such feathers, otherwise they would cause deterioration in the red head-feathers oftheir male offspring. Such latent tendency would be shown by theirproducing the red feathers when old or diseased in their ovaria. 

[73] The symbols [male symbol], [female symbol] stand for male andfemale respectively. 

[74] The fifth. 

[75] Explained in letter of February 2, 1869. _See_ p. 234. 

[76] June, 1867. 

[77] "Malay Archipelago. "

[78] "Malay Archipelago. "

[79] The fifth edition, pp. 150-7. 

[80] In the _Quarterly Review_, April, 1869. 

[81] Inserted by A. R. W. 

[82] "The Descent of Man. "

[83] "The Genesis of Species, " by St. G. Mivart. 1871. 

[84] In the _Academy_, March 15, 1871. 

[85] "Mr. Wallace says that the pairing of butterflies is probablydetermined by the fact that one male is stronger-winged or morepertinacious than the rest, rather than by the choice of the females. Hequotes the case of caterpillars which are brightly coloured and yetsexless. Mr. Wallace also makes the good criticism that 'The Descent ofMan' consists of two books mixed together. "--"Life and Letters ofCharles Darwin, " iii. 137. 

[86] G. Crotch was a well-known coleopterist and official in theUniversity Library at Cambridge. 

[87] _Spectator_, March 11 and 18, 1871. "With regard to the evolutionof conscience the reviewer thinks that Mr. Darwin comes much nearer tothe 'kernel of the psychological problem' than many of his predecessors. The second article contains a good discussion of the bearing of thebook on the question of design, and concludes by finding in it avindication of Theism more wonderful than that in Paley's 'NaturalTheology. '"--"Life and Letters, " iii. 138. 

[88] _North American Review_, Vol. 113, pp. 83, 84. Chauncey Wrightpoints out that the words omitted are "essential to the point on whichhe [Mr. Mivart] cites Mr. Darwin's authority. " It should be mentionedthat the passage from which words are omitted is not given withininverted commas by Mr. Mivart. --_See_ "Life and Letters of CharlesDarwin, " iii. 144. 

[89] July, 1871. 

[90] A review of Dr. Bree's book, "An Exposition of Fallacies in theHypotheses of Mr. Darwin. "--_Nature_, July 25, 1872. 

[91] "Bree on Darwinism, " _Nature_, Aug. 8, 1872. The letter is asfollows: "Permit me to state--though the statement is almostsuperfluous--that Mr. Wallace, in his review of Dr. Bree's work, giveswith perfect correctness what I intended to express, and what I believewas expressed clearly, with respect to the probable position of man inthe early part of his pedigree. As I have not seen Dr. Bree's recentwork, and as his letter is unintelligible to me, I cannot evenconjecture how he has so completely mistaken my meaning; but, perhaps, no one who has read Mr. Wallace's article, or who has read a workformerly published by Dr. Bree on the same subject as his recent one, will be surprised at any amount of misunderstanding on hispart. --CHARLES DARWIN, Aug. 3. " _See_ "Life and Letters of CharlesDarwin, " iii. 167. 

[92] That is to say, spontaneous generation. For the distinction betweenarchebiosis and heterogenesis, _see_ Bastian, Chap. VI. _See also_ "Lifeand Letters of Charles Darwin, " iii. 168. 

[93] Sir Henry Cole, K. C. B. (1808-80). 

[94] "Expression of the Emotions. "

[95] _Quarterly Journal of Science_, January, 1873, p. 116: "I canhardly believe that when a cat, lying on a shawl or other soft material, pats or pounds it with its feet, or sometimes sucks a piece of it, it isthe persistence of the habit of pressing the mammary glands and suckingduring kittenhood. " Wallace goes on to say that infantine habits aregenerally completely lost in adult life, and that it seems unlikely thatthey should persist in a few isolated instances. 

[96] Wallace speaks of "a readiness to accept the most marvellousconclusions or interpretations of physiologists on what seem veryinsufficient grounds, " and he goes on to assert that the frog experimentis either incorrectly recorded, or else that it "demonstrates volition, and not reflex action. "

[97] The raising of the hands in surprise is explained ("Expression ofthe Emotions, " 1st Edit. , p. 287) on the doctrine of antithesis as beingthe opposite of listlessness. Mr. Wallace's view (given in the secondedition of "Expression of the Emotions, " p. 300) is that the gesture isappropriate to sudden defence or to the giving of aid to another person. 

[98] At this time Darwin, while very busy with other work, had toprepare a second edition of "The Descent of Man, " and it is probablethat he or the publishers suggested that Wallace should make thenecessary corrections. --EDITOR. 

[99] "Insectivorous Plants. "

[100] "The Geographical Distribution of Animals. " 1876. 

[101] Wallace points out that "hardly a small island on the globe buthas some land shell peculiar to it, " and he goes so far as to say thatprobably air-breathing mollusca have been chiefly distributed by air- orwater-carriage, rather than by voluntary dispersal on the land. _See_"More Letters, " II. 14. 

[102] _See_ "The Descent of Man, " 1st Edit. , pp. 90 and 143, fordrawings of the Argus pheasant and its markings. The ocelli on the wingfeathers were favourite objects of Darwin's, and sometimes formed thesubject of the little lectures which on rare occasions he would give toa visitor interested in Natural History. In Wallace's book, the meaningof the ocelli comes in by the way, in the explanation of Plate IX. , "AMalayan Forest with some of its Peculiar Birds. " The case is a"remarkable confirmation of Mr. Darwin's views, that gaily colouredplumes are developed in the male bird for the purpose of attractivedisplay. "

[103] "Geographical Distribution of Animals, " i. 286-7. 

[104] "Geographical Distribution, " i. 76. The name Lemuria was proposedby Mr. Sclater for an imaginary submerged continent extending fromMadagascar to Ceylon and Sumatra. Wallace points out that if we confineourselves to facts Lemuria is reduced to Madagascar, which he makes asubdivision of the Ethiopian Region. 

[105] H. F. Blandford, "On the Age and Correlations of the Plant-bearingSeries of India and the Former Existence of an Indo-Oceanic Continent"(_Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc_. , 1875, xxxi. 519). 

[106] In the _Contemporary Review_ for August, 1873, Mr. George Darwinwrote an article "On Beneficial Restrictions to Liberty of Marriage. " Inthe July number of the _Quarterly Review_, 1874, p. 70, in an articleentitled "Primitive Man--Tylor and Lubbock, " Mr. Mivart thus referred toMr. Darwin's article: "Elsewhere (pp. 424-5) Mr. George Darwin speaks(1) in an approving strain of the most oppressive laws and of theencouragement of vice to check population. (2) There is no sexualcriminality of Pagan days that might not be defended on the principlesadvocated by the school to which this writer belongs. " In the _QuarterlyReview_ for October, 1874, p. 587, appeared a letter from Mr. GeorgeDarwin "absolutely denying" charge No. 1, and with respect to charge No. 2 he wrote: "I deny that there is any thought or word in my essay whichcould in any way lend itself to the support of the nameless crimes herereferred to. " To the letter was appended a note from Mr. Mivart, inwhich he said: "Nothing would have been further from our intention thanto tax Mr. Darwin personally (as he seems to have supposed) with theadvocacy of laws or acts which he saw to be oppressive or vicious. We, therefore, most willingly accept his disclaimer, and are glad to findthat he does not, in fact, apprehend the full tendency of the doctrineswhich he has helped to propagate. Nevertheless, we cannot allow that wehave enunciated a single proposition which is either 'false' or'groundless. ' . .. But when a writer, according to his own confession, comes before the public 'to attack the institution of marriage' . .. Hemust expect searching criticism; and, without implying that Mr. Darwinhas in 'thought' or 'word' approved of anything which he wishes todisclaim, we must still maintain that the doctrines which he advocatesare most dangerous and pernicious. "--EDITOR. 

[107] The pages refer to Vol. II. Of Wallace's "GeographicalDistribution. "

[108] The number (4) was erroneously omitted. --A. R. W. 

[109] An error: should have been the Australian. --A. R. W. 

[110] Axel Blytt, "Essay on the Immigration of the Norwegian Flora. "Christiania, 1876. 

[111] June 22, 1876, p. 165 _et seq. _

[112] "The Origin of Species and Genera. "

[113] "Island Life. "

[114] In "My Life" (ii. 12-13) Wallace writes; "With this came sevenfoolscap pages of notes, many giving facts from his extensive readingwhich I had not seen. There were also a good many doubts and suggestionson the very difficult questions in the discussion of the causes of theglacial epochs. Chapter XXIII. , discussing the Arctic element in SouthTemperate floras, was the part he most objected to, saying, 'This israther too speculative for my old noddle. I must think that you overratethe importance of new surfaces on mountains and dispersal from mountainto mountain. I still believe in alpine plants having lived on thelowlands and in the southern tropical regions having been cooled duringglacial periods, and thus only can I understand character of floras onthe isolated African mountains. It appears to me that you are notjustified in arguing from dispersal to oceanic islands to mountains. Notonly in latter cases currents of sea are absent, but what is there tomake birds fly direct from one alpine summit to another? There is leftonly storms of wind, and if it is probable or possible that seeds maythus be carried for great distances, I do not believe that there is atpresent any evidence of their being thus carried more than a few miles. 'This is the most connected piece of criticism in the notes, and Itherefore give it verbatim. "

[115] "_Nature_, December 9, 1880. The substance of this article by Mr. Baker, of Kew, is given in 'More Letters, ' vol. Iii. 25, in afootnote. "--"My Life, " ii. 13.