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

ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE

LETTERS AND REMINISCENCES

[Illustration: A. R. WALLACE (1913)]

Alfred Russel Wallace

Letters and Reminiscences

By James Marchant

_With Two Photogravures and Eight Half-tone Plates_

IN TWO VOLUMES

Volume II

CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD

London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne

1916

CONTENTS OF VOLUME II

PART III

I. WALLACE'S WORKS ON BIOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

II. CORRESPONDENCE ON BIOLOGY, GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (1864-98)

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 II

A. R. WALLACE (1913) _Photogravure Frontispiece_

MRS. A. R. WALLACE (ABOUT 1895)

THE STUDY AT "OLD ORCHARD"

A. R. WALLACE ADMIRING EREMURUS ROBUSTUS (ABOUT 1905)

GRAVE OF ALFRED RUSSEL AND ANNIE WALLACE

WALLACE AND DARWIN MEDALLIONS IN THE NORTH AISLE OF THE CHOIR OFWESTMINSTER ABBEY

Alfred Russel Wallace

Letters and Reminiscences

PART III

I. --Wallace's Works on Biology and Geographical Distribution

 "I have long recognised how much clearer and deeper your insight into matters is than mine. "

 "I sometimes marvel how truth progresses, so difficult is it for one man to convince another, unless his mind is vacant. "

 "I grieve to differ from you, and it actually terrifies me, and makes me constantly distrust myself. I fear we shall never quite understand each other. "

 --DARWIN TO WALLACE. 

During the period covered by the reception, exposition, and gradualacceptance of the theory of Natural Selection, both Wallace and Darwinwere much occupied with closely allied scientific work. 

The publication in 1859 of the "Origin of Species"[1] marked a distinctperiod in the course of Darwin's scientific labours; his previouspublications had, in a measure, prepared the way for this, and thosewhich immediately followed were branches growing out from the main lineof thought and argument contained in the "Origin, " an overflow of the"mass of facts" patiently gathered during the preceding years. WithWallace, the end of the first period of his literary work was completedby the publication of his two large volumes on "The GeographicalDistribution of Animals, " towards which all his previous thought andwritings had tended, and from which, again, came other valuable worksleading up to the publication of "Darwinism" (1889). 

It will be remembered that Darwin and Wallace, on their respectivereturns to England, after many years spent in journeyings by land andsea and in laborious research, found the first few months fully occupiedin going over their large and varied collections, sorting and arrangingwith scrupulous care the rare specimens they had taken, and indiscovering the right men to name and classify them into correct groups. 

At this point it will be useful to arrange Darwin's writings under threeheads, namely: (1) His zoological and geological books, including "TheVoyage of the _Beagle_" (published in 1839), "Coral Reefs" (1842), and"Geological Observations on South America" (1846). In this year he alsobegan his work on Barnacles, which was published in 1854; and inaddition to the steady work on the "Origin of Species" from 1837onwards, his observations on "Earthworms, " not published until 1881, formed a distinct phase of his study during the whole of these years(1839-59). (2) As a natural sequence we have "Variations of Animals andPlants under Domestication" (1868), "The Descent of Man" (1871), and"The Expression of the Emotions" (1872). (3) What may be termed hisbotanical works, largely influenced by his evolutionary ideas, whichinclude "The Fertilisation of Orchids" (1862), "Movements and Habits ofClimbing Plants" (1875), "Insectivorous Plants" (1876), "The DifferentForms of Flowers and Plants of the same Species" (1877), and "The Powerof Movement in Plants" (1880). 

A different order, equally characteristic, is discovered in Wallace'swritings, and it is to be noted that while Darwin devoted himselfentirely to scientific subjects, Wallace diverged at intervals fromnatural science to what may be termed the scientific consideration ofsocial conditions, in addition to his researches into spiritualisticphenomena. 

The many enticing interests arising out of the classifying of his birdsand insects led Wallace to the conclusion that it would be best topostpone the writing of his book on the Malay Archipelago until he couldembody in it the more generally important results derived from thedetailed study of certain portions of his collections. Thus it was notuntil seven years later (1869) that this complete sketch of his travels"from the point of view of the philosophic naturalist" appeared. 

Between 1862 and 1867 he wrote a number of articles which were publishedin various journals and magazines, and he read some important papersbefore the Linnean, Entomological, and other learned Societies. Theseincluded several on physical and zoological geography; six on questionsof anthropology; and five or six dealing with special applications ofNatural Selection. As these papers "discussed matters of considerableinterest and novelty, " such a summary of them may be given as will serveto indicate their value to natural science. 

The first of them, read before the Zoological Society in January, 1863, gave some detailed information about his collection of birds broughtfrom Buru. In this he showed that the island was originally one of theMoluccan group, as every bird found there which was not widelydistributed was either identical with or closely allied to Moluccanspecies, while none had special affinities with Celebes. It was clear, then, that this island formed the most westerly outlier of the Moluccangroup. 

The next paper of importance, read before the same Society in November(1863), was on the birds of the chain of islands extending from Lombokto the great island of Timor. This included a list of 186 species ofbirds, of which twenty-nine were altogether new. A special feature ofthe paper was that it enabled him to mark out precisely the boundaryline between the Indian and Australian zoological regions, and to tracethe derivation of the rather peculiar fauna of these islands, partlyfrom Australia and partly from the Moluccas, but with a strong recentmigration of Javanese species due to the very narrow straits separatingmost of the islands from each other. In "My Life" some interestingtables are given to illustrate how the two streams of immigrationentered these islands, and further that "as its geological structureshows . .. Timor is the older island and received immigrants fromAustralia at a period when, probably, Lombok and Flores had not comeinto existence or were unhabitable. .. . We can, " he says, "feel confidentthat Timor has not been connected with Australia, because it has none ofthe peculiar Australian mammalia, and also because many of the commonestand most widespread groups of Australian birds are entirely wanting. "[2]

Two other papers, dealing with parrots and pigeons respectively(1864-5), were thought by Wallace himself to be among the most importantof his studies of geographical distribution. Writing of them he says:"These peculiarities of distribution and coloration in two such verydiverse groups of birds interested me greatly, and I endeavoured toexplain them in accordance with the laws of Natural Selection. "

In March, 1864, having begun to make a special study of his collectionof butterflies, he prepared a paper for the Linnean Society on "TheMalayan Papilionidæ, as illustrating the Theory of Natural Selection. "The introductory portion of this paper appeared in the first edition ofhis volume entitled "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection"(1870), but it was omitted in later editions as being too technical forthe general reader. From certain remarks found here and there, both in"My Life" and other works, butterflies would appear to have had aspecial charm and attraction for Wallace. Their varied and gorgeouscolourings were a ceaseless delight to his eye, and when describing themone feels the sense of pleasure which this gave him, together with therecollection of the far-off haunts in which he had first discoveredthem. 

This series of papers on birds and insects, with others on the physicalgeography of the Archipelago and its various races of man, furnished allthe necessary materials for the general sketch of the natural history ofthese islands, and the many problems arising therefrom, which made the"Malay Archipelago" the most popular of his books. In addition to hisown personal knowledge, however, some interesting comparisons are drawnbetween the accounts given by early explorers and the impressions lefton his own mind by the same places and people. On the publication ofthis work, in 1869, extensive and highly appreciative reviews appearedin all the leading papers and journals, and to-day it is still lookedupon as one of the most trustworthy and informative books of travel. 

When the "Malay Archipelago" was in progress, a lengthy article on"Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (which formed thefoundation for "Island Life" twelve years later) appeared in the_Quarterly Review_ (April, 1869). Several references in this to the"Principles of Geology"--Sir Charles Lyell's great work--gave muchsatisfaction both to Lyell and to Darwin. The underlying argument was acombination of the views held by Sir Charles Lyell and Mr. Crollrespectively in relation to the glacial epoch, and the great effect ofchanged distribution of sea and land, or of differences of altitude, andhow by combining the two a better explanation could be arrived at thanby accepting each theory on its own basis. 

His next publication of importance was the volume entitled"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, " consisting of tenessays (all of which had previously appeared in various periodicals)arranged in the following order:

1. On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New Species. 

2. On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the OriginalType. 

3. Mimicry, and other Protective Resemblances among Animals. 

4. The Malayan Papilionidæ. 

5. Instinct in Man and Animals. 

6. The Philosophy of Birds' Nests. 

7. A Theory of Birds' Nests. 

8. Creation by Law. 

9. The Development of Human Races under the Law of Natural Selection. 

10. The Limits of Natural Selection as applied to Man. 

His reasons for publishing this work were, first, that the first twopapers of the series had gained him the reputation of being anoriginator of the theory of Natural Selection, and, secondly, that therewere a few important points relating to the origin of life andconsciousness and the mental and moral qualities of man and other viewson which he entirely differed from Darwin. 

Though in later years Wallace's convictions developed considerably withregard to the spiritual aspect of man's nature, he never deviated fromthe ideas laid down in these essays. Only a very brief outline mustsuffice to convey some of the most important points. 

In the childhood of the human race, he believed, Natural Selection wouldoperate mainly on man's body, but in later periods upon the mind. Henceit would happen that the physical forms of the different races wereearly fixed in a permanent manner. Sharper claws, stronger muscles, swifter feet and tougher hides determine the survival value of loweranimals. With man, however, the finer intellect, the readieradaptability to environment, the greater susceptibility to improvement, and the elastic capacity for co-ordination, were the qualities whichdetermined his career. Tribes which are weak in these qualities give wayand perish before tribes which are strong in them, whatever advantagesthe former may possess in physical structure. The finest savage hasalways succumbed before the advance of civilisation. "The Red Indiangoes down before the white man, and the New Zealander vanishes inpresence of the English settler. " Nature, careless in this stage ofevolution about the body, selects for survival those varieties ofmankind which excel in mental qualities. Hence it has happened that thephysical characteristics of the different races, once fixed in veryearly prehistoric times, have never greatly varied. They have passed outof the range of Natural Selection because they have become comparativelyunimportant in the struggle for existence. 

After going into considerable detail of organic and physicaldevelopment, he says: "The inference I would draw from this class ofphenomena is, that a superior intelligence has guided the development ofman in a definite direction, and for a special purpose, just as manguides the development of many animal and vegetable forms. " Thus heforeshadows the conclusion, to be more fully developed in "The World ofLife" (1910), of an over-ruling God, of the spiritual nature of man, andof the other world of spiritual beings. 

An essay that excited special attention was that on Mimicry. The two onBirds' Nests brought forth some rather heated correspondence fromamateur naturalists, to which Wallace replied either by adducingconfirmation of the facts stated, or by thanking them for theinformation they had given him. 

With reference to the paper on Mimicry, it is interesting to note thatthe hypothesis therein adopted was first suggested by H. W. Bates, Wallace's friend and fellow-traveller in South America. The essay underthis title dealt with the subject in a most fascinating manner, and wasprobably the first to arouse widespread interest in this aspect ofnatural science. 

The next eight years saw the production of many important and valuableworks, amongst which the "Geographical Distribution of Animals" (1876)occupies the chief place. This work, though perhaps the least known tothe average reader, was considered by Wallace to be the most importantscientific work he ever attempted. From references in letters writtenduring his stay in the Malay Archipelago, it is clear that the subjecthad a strong attraction for him, and formed a special branch of studyand observation many years before he began to work it out systematicallyin writing. His decision to write the book was the outcome of asuggestion made to him by Prof. A. Newton and Dr. Sclater about 1872. Inaddition to having already expressed his general views on this subjectin various papers and articles, he had, after careful consideration, come to adopt Dr. Sclater's division of the earth's surface into sixgreat zoological regions, which he found equally applicable to birds, mammalia, reptiles, and other great divisions; while at the same timeit helped to explain the apparent contradictions in the distribution ofland animals. Some years later he wrote:

In whatever work I have done I have always aimed at systematicarrangement and uniformity of treatment throughout. But here the immenseextent of the subject, the overwhelming mass of detail, and above allthe excessive diversities in the amount of knowledge of the differentclasses of animals, rendered it quite impossible to treat all alike. Mypreliminary studies had already satisfied me that it was quite uselessto attempt to found any conclusions on those groups which werecomparatively little known, either as regards the proportion of speciescollected and described, or as regards their systematic classification. It was also clear that as the present distribution of animals isnecessarily due to their past distribution, the greatest importance mustbe given to those groups whose fossil remains in the more recent strataare the most abundant and the best known. These considerations led me tolimit my work in its detailed systematic groundwork, and study of theprinciples and law of distribution, to the mammalia and birds, and toapply the principles thus arrived at to an explanation of thedistribution of other groups, such as reptiles, fresh-water fishes, landand fresh-water shells, and the best-known insect Orders. 

There remained another fundamental point to consider. Geographicaldistribution in its practical applications and interest, both tostudents and to the general reader, consists of two distinct divisions, or rather, perhaps, may be looked at from two points of view. In thefirst of these we divide the earth into regions and sub-regions, studythe causes which have led to the difference in their animal productions, give a general account of these, with the amount of resemblance to anddifference from other regions; and we may also give lists of thefamilies and genera inhabiting each, with indications as to which arepeculiar and which are also found in adjacent regions. This aspect ofthe study I term zoological geography, and it is that which would be ofmost interest to the resident or travelling naturalist, as it would givehim, in the most direct and compact form, an indication of the numbersand kinds of animals he might expect to meet with. [3]

The keynote of the general scheme of distribution, as set forth in thesetwo volumes, may be expressed as an endeavour to compare the extinct andexisting fauna of each country and to trace the course by which what isnow peculiar to each region had come to assume its present character. The main result being that all the higher forms of life seem to haveoriginally appeared in the northern hemisphere, which has sent outmigration after migration to colonise the three southern continents; andalthough varying considerably from time to time in form and extent, eachhas kept essentially distinct, while at the same time receivingperiodically wave after wave of fresh animal life from the northward. 

This again was due to many physical causes such as peninsulas partingfrom continents as islands, islands joining and making new continents, continents breaking up or effecting junction with or being isolated fromone another. Thus Australia received the germ of her present abundantfauna of pouched mammals when she was part of the Old-World continent, but separated from that too soon to receive the various placentalmammals which have, except in her isolated area, superseded those olderforms. So, also, South America, at one time unconnected with NorthAmerica, developed her great sloths and armadilloes, and, on fusing withthe latter, sent her megatheriums to the north, and received mastodonsand large cats in exchange. 

Some of the points, such for instance as the division of the sub-regionsinto which each greater division is separated, gave rise toconsiderable controversy. Wallace's final estimate of the work stands:"No one is more aware than myself of the defects of the work, aconsiderable portion of which are due to the fact that it was written aquarter of a century too soon--at a time when both zoological andpalæontological discovery were advancing with great rapidity, while newand improved classifications of some of the great classes and orderswere in constant progress. But though many of the details given in thesevolumes would now require alteration, there is no reason to believe thatthe great features of the work and general principles established by itwill require any important modification. "[4]

About this time he wrote the article on "Acclimatisation" for the"Encyclopædia Britannica"; and another on "Distribution-Zoology" for thesame work. As President of the Biological Section of the BritishAssociation he prepared an address for the meeting at Glasgow; wrote anumber of articles and reviews, as well as his remarkable book on"Miracles and Modern Spiritualism. " In 1878 he published "TropicalNature, " in which he gave a general sketch of the climate, vegetation, and animal life of the equatorial zone of the tropics from his ownobservations in both hemispheres. The chief novelty was, according tohis own opinion, in the chapter on "climate, " in which he endeavoured toshow the exact causes which produce the difference between the uniformclimate of the equatorial zone, and that of June and July in England. Although at that time _we_ receive actually more of the light and heatof the sun than does Java or Trinidad in December, yet these places havethen a mean temperature very much higher than ours. It contained also achapter on humming-birds, as illustrating the luxuriance of tropicalnature; and others on the colours of animals and of plants, and onvarious biological problems. [5]

"Island Life"[6] (published 1880) was begun in 1877, and occupied thegreater part of the next three years. This had been suggested by certainnecessary limitations in the writing of "The Geographical Distributionof Animals. " It is a fascinating account of the relations of islands tocontinents, of their unwritten records of the distribution of plant andanimal life in the morning time of the earth, of the causes and resultsof the glacial period, and of the manner of reckoning the age of theworld from geological data. It also included several new features ofnatural science, and still retains an important place in scientificliterature. No better summary can be given than that by the authorhimself:

In my "Geographical Distribution of Animals" I had, in the first place, dealt with the larger groups, coming down to families and genera, buttaking no account of the various problems raised by the distribution ofparticular _species_. In the next place, I had taken little account ofthe various islands of the globe, excepting as forming sub-regions orparts of sub-regions. But I had long seen the great interest andimportance of these, and especially of Darwin's great discovery of thetwo classes into which they are naturally divided--oceanic andcontinental islands. I had already given lectures on this subject, andhad become aware of the great interest attaching to them, and the greatlight they threw upon the means of dispersal of animals and plants, aswell as upon the past changes, both physical and means of dispersal andcolonisation of animals is so connected with, and often dependent on, that of plants, that a consideration of the latter is essential to anybroad views as to the distribution of life upon the earth, while theythrow unexpected light upon those exceptional means of dispersal which, because they are exceptional, are often of paramount importance inleading to the production of new species and in thus determining thenature of insular floras and faunas. 

Having no knowledge of scientific botany, it needed some courage, or, assome may think, presumption, to deal with this aspect of the problem;but . .. I had long been excessively fond of plants, and . .. Interestedin their distribution. The subject, too, was easier to deal with, onaccount of the much more complete knowledge of the detailed distributionof plants than of animals, and also because their classification was ina more advanced and stable condition. Again, some of the mostinteresting islands of the globe had been carefully studied botanicallyby such eminent botanists as Sir Joseph Hooker for the Galapagos, NewZealand, Tasmania, and the Antarctic islands; Mr. H. C. Watson for theAzores; Mr. J. G. Baker for Mauritius and other Mascarene islands; whilethere were floras by competent botanists of the Sandwich Islands, Bermuda and St. Helena. .. . 

But I also found it necessary to deal with a totally distinct branch ofscience--recent changes of climate as dependent on changes of theearth's surface, including the causes and effects of the glacial epoch, since these were among the most powerful agents in causing the dispersalof all kinds of organisms, and thus bringing about the actualdistribution that now prevails. This led me to a careful study of Mr. James Croll's remarkable works on the subject of the astronomical causesof the glacial and interglacial periods. .. . While differing on certaindetails, I adopted the main features of his theory, combining with itthe effects of changes in height and extent of land which form animportant adjunct to the meteorological agents. .. . 

Besides this partially new theory of the causes of glacial epochs, thework contained a fuller statement of the various kinds of evidenceproving that the great oceanic basins are permanent features of theearth's surface, than had before been given; also a discussion of themode of estimating the duration of geological periods, and someconsiderations leading to the conclusion that organic change is now lessrapid than the average, and therefore that less time is required forthis change than has hitherto been thought necessary. I was also, Ibelieve, the first to point out the great difference between the moreancient continental islands and those of more recent origin, with theinteresting conclusions as to geographical changes afforded by both;while the most important novelty is the theory by which I explained theoccurrence of northern groups of plants in all parts of the southernhemisphere--a phenomenon which Sir Joseph Hooker had pointed out, buthad then no means of explaining. [7]

In 1878 Wallace wrote a volume on Australasia for Stanford's "Compendiumof Geography and Travel. " A later edition was published in 1893, whichcontained in addition to the physical geography, natural history, andgeology of Australia, a much fuller account of the natives of Australia, showing that they are really a primitive type of the great Caucasianfamily of mankind, and are by no means so low in intellect as had beenusually believed. This view has since been widely accepted. 

Having, towards the close of 1885, received an invitation from theLowell Institute, Boston, U. S. A. , to deliver a course of lectures in theautumn and winter of 1886, Wallace decided upon a series which wouldembody those theories of evolution with which he was most familiar, witha special one on "The Darwinian Theory" illustrated by a set of originaldiagrams on variation. These lectures eventually became merged into thewell-known book entitled "Darwinism. "

On the first delivery of his lecture on the "Darwinian Theory" atBoston it was no small pleasure to Wallace to find the audience bothlarge and attentive. One of the newspapers expressed the publicappreciation in the following truly American fashion: "The firstDarwinian, Wallace, did not leave a leg for anti-Darwinism to stand onwhen he had got through his first Lowell Lecture last evening. It was amasterpiece of condensed statement--as clear and simple as compact--amost beautiful specimen of scientific work. Dr. Wallace, though not anorator, is likely to become a favourite as a lecturer, his manner is sogenuinely modest and straightforward. "

Wherever he went during his tour of the States this lecture more thanall others attracted and pleased his audiences. Many who had theopportunity of conversing with him, and others by correspondence, confessed that they had not been able to understand the "Origin ofSpecies" until they heard the facts explained in such a lucid manner byhim. It was this fact, therefore, which led him, on his return home inthe autumn of 1887, to begin the preparation of the book ("Darwinism")published in 1889. The method he chose was that of following as closelyas possible the lines of thought running through the "Origin ofSpecies, " to which he added many new features, in addition to layingspecial emphasis on the parts which had been most generallymisunderstood. Indeed, so fairly and impartially did he set forth thegeneral principles of the Darwinian theory that he was able to say:"Some of my critics declare that I am more Darwinian than Darwinhimself, and in this, I admit, they are not far wrong. "

His one object, as set out in the Preface, was to treat the problem ofthe origin of species from the standpoint reached after nearly thirtyyears of discussion, with an abundance of new facts and the advocacy ofmany new and old theories. As it had frequently been considered aweakness on Darwin's part that he based his evidence primarily onexperiments with domesticated animals and cultivated plants, Wallacedesired to secure a firm foundation for the theory in the variation oforganisms in a state of nature. It was in order to make these factsintelligible that he introduced a number of diagrams, just as Darwin wasaccustomed to appeal to the facts of variation among dogs and pigeons. 

Another change which he considered important was that of taking thestruggle for existence first, because this is the fundamental phenomenonon which Natural Selection depends. This, too, had a further advantagein that, after discussing variations and the effects of artificialselection, it was possible at once to explain how Natural Selectionacts. 

The subjects treated with novelty and interest in their importantbearings on the theory of Natural Selection were: (1) A proof that all_specific_ characters are (or once have been) either useful inthemselves or correlated with useful characters (Chap. VI. ); (2) a proofthat Natural Selection can, in certain cases, increase the sterility ofcrosses (Chap. VII. ); (3) a fuller discussion of the colour relations ofanimals, with additional facts and arguments on the origin of sexualdifferences of colour (Chaps. VIII. -X. ); (4) an attempted solution ofthe difficulty presented by the occurrence of both very simple andcomplex modes of securing the cross-fertilisation of plants (Chap. XI. );(5) some fresh facts and arguments on the wind-carriage of seeds, andits bearing on the wide dispersal of many arctic and alpine plants(Chap. XII. ); (6) some new illustrations of the non-heredity of acquiredcharacters, and a proof that the effects of use and disuse, even ifinherited, must be overpowered by Natural Selection (Chap. XIV. ); and(7) a new argument as to the nature and origin of the moral andintellectual faculties of man (Chap. XV. ). 

"Although I maintain, and even enforce, " wrote Wallace, "my differencesfrom some of Darwin's views, my whole work tends forcibly to illustratethe overwhelming importance of Natural Selection over all other agenciesin the production of new species. I thus take up Darwin's earlierposition, from which he somewhat receded in the later editions of hisworks, on account of criticisms and objections which I have endeavouredto show are unsound. Even in rejecting that phase of sexual selectiondepending on female choice, I insist on the greater efficacy of NaturalSelection. This is pre-eminently the Darwinian doctrine, and I thereforeclaim for my book the position of being the advocate of pure Darwinism. "

In concluding this section which, like a previous one, touches upon theintimate relations between Darwin and Wallace, and the points on whichthey agreed or differed, it is well, as the differences have beenexaggerated and misunderstood, to bear in mind his own declaration:"None of my differences from Darwin imply any real divergence as to theoverwhelming importance of the great principle of natural selection, while in several directions I believe that I have extended andstrengthened it. "[8]

With these explanatory notes the reader will now be able to follow thetwo groups of letters on Natural Selection, Geographical Distribution, and the Origin of Life and Consciousness which follow. 

PART III (_Continued_)

II. --Correspondence on Biology, Geographical Distribution, etc. 

[1864-93]

 * * * * *

H. SPENCER TO A. R. WALLACE

_29 Bloomsbury Square, W. C. May 19, 1864. _

My dear Sir, --When I thanked you for your little pamphlet[9] the otherday, I had not read it. I have since done so with great interest. Itsleading idea is, I think, undoubtedly true, and of much importancetowards an interpretation of the facts. Though I think that there aresome purely physical modifications that may be shown to result from thedirect influence of civilisation, yet I think it is quite clear, as youpoint out, that the small amounts of physical differences that havearisen between the various human races are due to the way in whichmental modifications have served in place of physical ones. 

I hope you will pursue the inquiry. It is one in which I have adirect interest, since I hope, hereafter, to make use of itsresults. --Sincerely yours, HERBERT SPENCER

 * * * * *

SIR C. LYELL TO A. R. WALLACE

_53 Harley Street. May 22, [1864]. _

My dear Sir, --I have been reading with great interest your paper on theOrigin of the Races of Man, in which I think the question between thetwo opposite parties is put with such admirable clearness and fairnessthat that alone is no small assistance towards clearing the way to atrue theory. The manner in which you have given Darwin the whole creditof the theory of Natural Selection is very handsome, but if anyone elsehad done it without allusion to your papers it would have been wrong. .. . With many thanks for your most admirable paper, believe me, my dear Sir, ever very truly yours, CHA. LYELL. 

 * * * * *

SIR C. LYELL TO A. R. WALLACE

_73 Harley Street. March 19, 1867. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, --I am citing your two papers in my second volume ofthe new edition of the "Principles"--that on the Physical Geography ofthe Malay Archipelago, 1863, and the other on Varieties of Man in ditto, 1864. I am somewhat confounded with the marked line which you drawbetween the two provinces on each side of the Straits of Lombok. Itseems to me that Darwin and Hooker have scarcely given sufficient weightto the objection which it affords to some of their arguments. First, inregard to continental extension, if these straits could form such abarrier, it would seem as if nothing short of a land communication coulddo much towards fusing together two distinct faunas and floras. But herecomes the question--are there any land-quadrupeds in Bali or in Lombok?I think you told me little was known of the plants, but perhaps you knowsomething of the insects. It is impossible that birds of long flightcrossing over should not have conveyed the seeds and eggs of someplants, insects, mollusca, etc. Then the currents would not be idle, andduring such an eruption as that of Tomboro in Sumbawa all sorts ofdisturbances, aerial, aquatic and terrestrial, would have scatteredanimals and plants. 

When I first wrote, thirty-five years ago, I attached great importanceto preoccupancy, and fancied that a body of indigenous plants alreadyfitted for every available station would prevent an invader, especiallyfrom, a quite foreign province, from having a chance of making good hissettlement in a new country. But Darwin and Hooker contend thatcontinental species which have been improved by a keen and widecompetition are most frequently victorious over an insular or morelimited flora and fauna. Looking, therefore, upon Bali as an outpost ofthe great Old World fauna, it ought to beat Lombok, which onlyrepresents a less rich and extensive fauna, namely the Australian. 

You may perhaps answer that Lombok is an outpost of an army that mayonce have been as multitudinous as that of the old continent, but thelarger part of the host have been swamped in the Pacific. But they saythat European forms of animals and plants run wild in Australia and NewZealand, whereas few of the latter can do the same in Europe. In my mapthere is a small island called Nousabali; this ought to make the meansof migration of seeds and animals less difficult. I cannot find that yousay anywhere what is the depth of the sea between the Straits of Lombok, but you mention that it exceeds 100 fathoms. I am quite willing to inferthat there is a connection between these soundings and the line ofdemarcation between the two zoological provinces, but must we supposeland communication for all birds of short flight? Must we unite SouthAmerica with the Galapagos Islands? Can you refer me to any papers byyourself which might enlighten me and perhaps answer some of thesequeries? I should have thought that the intercourse even of savagetribes for tens of thousands of years between neighbouring islands wouldhave helped to convey in canoes many animals and plants from oneprovince to another so as to help to confound them. Your hypothesis ofthe gradual advance of two widely separated continents towards eachother seems to be the best that can be offered. You say that a rise ofa hundred fathoms would unite the Philippine Islands and Bali to theIndian region. Is there, then, a depth of 600 feet in that narrow straitof Bali, which seems in my map only two miles or so in breadth?

I have [been] confined to the house for a week by a cold or I shouldhave tried to see you. I am afraid to go out to-day. --Believe me evermost truly yours, CHA. LYELL. 

 * * * * *

SIR C. LYELL TO A. R. WALLACE

_73 Harley Street. April 4, 1867. _

My dear Mr. Wallace, --I have been reading over again your paperpublished in 1855 in the _Annals_ on "The Law which has regulated theIntroduction of New Species"; passages of which I intend to quote, notin reference to your priority of publication, but simply because thereare some points laid down more clearly than I can find in the work ofDarwin itself, in regard to the bearing of the geological and zoologicalevidence on geographical distribution and the origin of species. I havebeen looking into Darwin's historical sketch thinking to find someallusion to your essay at page xx. , 4th ed. , when he gets to 1855, but Ican find no allusion to it. Yet surely I remember somewhere a passage inwhich Darwin says in print that you had told him that in 1855 you meantby such expressions as "species being created on the type ofpre-existing ones closely allied, " and by what you say of modifiedprototypes, and by the passage in which you ask "what rudimentary organsmean if each species has been created independently, " etc. , that newspecies were created by variation and in the way of ordinary generation. 

Your last letter was a great help to me, for it was a relief to findthat the Lombok barrier was not so complete as to be a source ofdifficulty. I have also to thank you for your papers, one of which I hadread before in the _Natural History Review_, but I am very glad of aseparate copy. I am rather perplexed by Darwin speculating on thepossibility of New Zealand having once been united with Australia (p. 446, 4th Ed. ). The puzzle is greater than I can get over, even lookingupon it as an oceanic island. Why should there have been no mammalia, rodents and marsupials, or only one mouse? Even if the Glacial periodwas such that it was enveloped in a Greenlandic winding-sheet, therewould have been some Antarctic animals? It cannot be modern, seeing theheight of those alps. It may have been a set of separate smallerislands, an archipelago since united into fewer. No savages could haveextirpated mammalia, besides we should have found them fossil in thesame places with all those species of extinct Dinornis which have cometo light. Perhaps you will say that the absence of mammalia in NewCaledonia is a corresponding fact. 

This reminds me of another difficulty. On the hypothesis of the coralislands being the last remnants of a submerged continent, ought they notto have in them a crowd of peculiar and endemic types, each rivallingSt. Helena, instead of which I believe they are very poor [in] peculiargenera. Have they all got submerged for a short time during the ups anddowns to which they have been subjected, Tahiti and some others havingbeen built up by volcanic action in the Pliocene period? Madeira and theCanaries were islands in the Upper Miocene ocean, and may therefore wellhave peculiar endemic types of very old date, and destroyed elsewhere. Ihave just got in Wollaston's "Coleoptera Atlantidum, " and shall be gladto lend it you when I have read the Introduction. He goes in forcontinental extension, which only costs him two catastrophes by whichthe union and disunion with the nearest mainland may readily beaccomplished. .. . --Believe me ever most truly yours, CHA. LYELL. 

 * * * * *

SIR C. LYELL TO A. R. WALLACE

_73 Harley Street. May 2, 1867. _

My dear Sir, --I forgot to ask you last night about an ornithologicalpoint which I have been discussing with the Duke of Argyll. In ChapterV. Of his "Reign of Law" (which I should be happy to lend you, if youhave time to look at it immediately) he treats of humming-birds, sayingthat Gould has made out about 400 species, every one of them verydistinct from the other, and only one instance, in Ecuadór, of a specieswhich varies in its tail-feathers in such a way as to make it doubtfulwhether it ought to rank as a species, an opinion to which Gouldinclines, or only as a variety or incipient species, as the Duke thinks. For the Duke is willing to go so far towards the transmutation theory asto allow that different humming-birds may have had a common ancestralstock, provided it be admitted that a new and marked variety appears atonce with the full distinctness of sex so remarkable in that genus. 

According to his notion, the new male variety and the female must bothappear at once, and this new race or species must be regarded as an"extraordinary birth. " My reason for troubling you is merely to learn, since you have studied the birds of South America, and I hope collectedsome humming-birds, whether Gould is right in saying that there are somany hundred very distinct species without instances of marked varietiesand transitional forms. If this be the case, would it not present uswith an exception to the rule laid down by Darwin and Hooker that when agenus is largely represented in a continuous tract of land the speciesof that genus tend to vary?

I have inquired of Sclater and he tells me that he has a considerabledistrust of Gould's information on this point, but that he has nothimself studied humming-birds. 

In regard to shells, I have always found that dealers have a positiveprejudice against intermediate forms, and one of the most philosophicalof them, now no more, once confessed to me that it was very much againsthis trade interest to give an honest opinion that certain varieties werenot real species, or that certain forms, made distinct genera by someconchologists, ought not so to rank. Nine-tenths of his customers, iftold that it was not a good genus or good species, would say, "Then Ineed not buy it. " What they wanted was names, not things. Of coursethere are genera in which the species are much better defined than inothers, but you would explain this, as Darwin and Hooker do, by thegreater length of time during which they have existed, or the greateractivity of changes, organic and inorganic, which have taken place inthe region inhabited by the generic or family type in question. Themanufactory of new species has ceased, or nearly so, and in that case Isuppose a variety is more likely to be one of the transitional linkswhich has not yet been extinguished than the first step towards a newpermanent race or allied species. .. . 

Your last letter will be of great use to me. I had cited the case ofbeetles recovering from immersion of hours in alcohol from my ownexperience, but am glad it strikes you in the same light. McAndrew toldme last night that the littoral shells of the Azores being European, orrather African, is in favour of a former continental extension, but Isuspect that the floating of seaweed containing their eggs may dispensewith the hypothesis of the submersion of 1, 200 miles of land onceintervening. I want naturalists carefully to examine floating seaweedand pumice met with at sea. Tell your correspondents to look out. Thereshould be a microscopic examination of both these means oftransport. --Believe me ever truly yours, CHA. LYELL. 

 * * * * *

SIR C. LYELL TO A. R. WALLACE

_73 Harley Street. July 3, 1867. _

My dear Mr. Wallace, --I was very glad, though I take in the _WestminsterReview_, to have a duplicate of your most entertaining and instructiveessay on Mimicry of Colours, etc. , which I have been reading with greatdelight, and I may say that both copies are in full use here. I think itis admirably written and most persuasive. --Believe me ever most trulyyours, CHA. LYELL. 

 * * * * *

TO HERBERT SPENCER

_Hurstpierpoint, Sussex. October 26, 1867. _

My dear Mr. Spencer, --After leaving you yesterday I thought a littleover your objections to the Duke of Argyll's theory of flight on theground that it does not apply to insects, and it seems to me thatexactly the same general principles do apply to insects as to birds. Iread over the Duke's book without paying special attention to that partof it, but as far as I remember, the case of insects offers nodifficulty in the way of applying his principles. If any wing were arigid plane surface, it appears to me that there are only two ways inwhich it could be made to produce flight. Firstly, on the principle thatthe resistance in a fluid, and I believe also in air, increases in agreater ratio than the velocity (? as the square), the descending strokemight be more rapid than the ascending one, and the resultant would bean upward or forward motion. Secondly, some kind of furling orfeathering by a rotatory motion of the wing might take place on raisingthe wings. I think, however, it is clear that neither of these actionsoccurs during the flight of insects. In both slow- and quick-flyingspecies there is no appearance of such a difference of velocity, and Iam not aware that anyone has attempted to prove that it occurs; and thefact that in so many insects the edges of the fore and hind wings areconnected together, while their insertions at the base are at somedistance apart, _entirely precludes a rotation of the wings_. The wholestructure and form of the wings of insects, moreover, indicate an actionin flight quite analogous to that of birds. I believe that a carefulexamination will show that the wings of almost all insects are slightlyconcave beneath. Further, they are all constructed with a strong andrigid anterior margin, while the outer and hinder margins areexceedingly thin and flexible. Yet further, I feel confident (and afriend here agrees with me) that they are much more rigid against_upward_ than against _downward_ pressure. Now in most insects (take abutterfly as an example) the body is weighted behind the insertion ofthe wings by the long and heavy abdomen, so as to produce an obliqueposition when freely suspended. There is also much more wing surfacebehind than before the fulcrum. Now if such an insect produces bymuscular action a regular flapping of the wings, flight must result. Atthe downward stroke the pressure of the air against the hind wings wouldraise them all to a nearly horizontal position, and at the same timebend up their posterior margins a little, producing an upward and onwardmotion. At the upward stroke the pressure on the hind wings woulddepress them considerably into an oblique position, and from their greatflexibility in that direction would bend down their hind margins. Theresultant would be a slightly downward and considerably onward motion, the two strokes producing that undulating flight so characteristic ofbutterflies, and so especially observable in the broad-winged tropicalspecies. Now all this is quite conformable to the action of a bird'swing. The rigid anterior margin, the slender and flexible hind margin;the greater resistance to upward than to downward pressure, and theslight concavity of the under surface, are all characters common to thewings of birds and most insects, and, considering the totally differentstructure and homologies of the two, I think there is at least an _apriori_ case for the function they both subserve being dependent uponthese peculiarities. If I remember rightly, it is on these principlesthat the Duke of Argyll has explained the flight of birds, in which, however, there are of course some specialities depending on the moreperfect organisation of the wing, its greater mobility and flexibility, its capacity for enlargement and contraction, and the peculiarconstruction and arrangement of the feathers. These, however, arematters of detail; and there are no doubt many and important differencesof detail in the mode of flight of the different types of insects whichwould require a special study of each. It appeared to me that the Dukeof Argyll had given that special study to the flight of birds, anddeserved praise for having done so successfully, although he may nothave quite solved the whole problem, or have stated quite accurately thecomparative importance of the various causes that combine to effectflight. 

--Believe me yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A. R. WALLACE

_57 Queen's Gardens, Bayswater, W. December 5, 1867. _

My dear Mr. Wallace, --I did not answer your last letter, being busy ingetting out my second edition of "First Principles. "

I was quite aware of the alleged additional cause of flight which youname, and do not doubt that it is an aid. But I regard it simply as anaid. If you will move an outstretched wing backwards and forwards withequal velocity, I think you will find that the difference of resistanceis nothing like commensurate with the difference in size between themuscles that raise the wings and the muscles that depress them. It seemsto me quite out of the question that the principles of flight arefundamentally different in a bat and a bird, which they must be if theDuke of Argyll's interpretation is correct. I write, however, not somuch to reply to your argument as to correct a misapprehension which myexpressions seem to have given you. The objections are not made byTyndall or Huxley; but they are objections made by me, which I stated tothem, and in which they agreed--Tyndall expressing the opinion that Iought to make them public. I name this because you may otherwise someday startle Tyndall or Huxley by speaking to them of _their_ objections, and giving me as the authority for so affiliating them. --Very trulyyours, HERBERT SPENCER. 

 * * * * *

SIR C. LYELL TO A. R. WALLACE

_73 Harley Street, London, W. November, 1867. _

Dear Wallace, --You probably remember an article by Agassiz in anAmerican periodical, the _Christian Observer_, on the diversity of humanraces, etc. , to prove that each distinct race was originally created foreach zoological and botanical province. But while he makes out a goodcase for the circumscription of the principal races to distinctprovinces, he evades in a singular manner the community of the RedIndian race to North and South America. He takes pains to show that thesame American race pervades North and South America, or at least allAmerica south of the Arctic region. This was Dr. Morton's opinion, andis, I suppose, not to be gainsaid. In other words, while the Papuan, Indo-Malayan, Negro and other races are strictly limited each of them toa particular region of mammalia, the Red Indian type is common toSclater's Neo-arctic and Neo-tropical regions. Have you ever consideredthe explanation of this fact on Darwinian principles? If there were notbarbarous tribes like the Fuegians, one might imagine America to havebeen peopled when mankind was somewhat more advanced and more capable ofdiffusing itself over an entire continent. But I cannot well understandwhy isolation such as accompanies a very low state of social progressdid not cause the Neo-tropical and Neo-arctic regions to produce byvarieties and Natural Selection two very different human races. May itbe owing to the smaller lapse of time, which time, nevertheless, wassufficient to allow of the spread of the representatives of one and thesame type from Canada to Cape Horn? Have you ever touched on thissubject, or can you refer me to anyone who has?--Believe me ever mosttruly yours, CHA. LYELL. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR C. LYELL

1867. 

Dear Sir Charles, --Why the colour of man is sometimes constant overlarge areas while in other cases it varies, we cannot certainly tell;but we may well suppose it to be due to its being more or lesscorrelated with constitutional characters favourable to life. By far themost common colour of man is a warm brown, not very different from thatof the American Indian. White and black are alike deviations from this, and are probably correlated with mental and physical peculiarities whichhave been favourable to the increase and maintenance of the particularrace. I shall infer, therefore, that the brown or red was the originalcolour of man, and that it maintains itself throughout all climates inAmerica because accidental deviations from it have not been accompaniedby any useful constitutional peculiarities. It is Bates's opinion thatthe Indians are recent immigrants into the tropical plains of SouthAmerica, and are not yet fully acclimatised. --Yours faithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

SIR C. LYELL TO A. R. WALLACE

_73 Harley Street. March 13, 1869. _

Dear Wallace, -- . .. I am reading your new book, [10] of which you kindlysent me a copy, with very great pleasure. Nothing equal to it has comeout since Darwin's "Voyage of the _Beagle_. " . .. The history of the Miasis very well done. I am not yet through the first volume, but my wife isdeep in the second and much taken with it. It is so rare to be able todepend on the scientific knowledge and accuracy of those who have somuch of the wonderful to relate. .. . --Believe me ever most truly yours, CHA. LYELL. 

 * * * * *

CANON KINGSLEY TO A. R. WALLACE

_Eversley Rectory, Winchfield. May 5, 1869. _

My dear Sir, --I am reading--or rather have all but read--your newbook, [10] with a delight which I cannot find words to express save thosewhich are commonplace superlatives. Let me felicitate you on having, atlast, added to the knowledge of our planet a chapter which has not itsequal (as far as I can recollect) since our friend Darwin's "Voyage ofthe _Beagle_. " Let me, too, compliment you on the modesty and generositywhich you have shown, in dedicating your book to Darwin, and speaking ofhim and his work as you have done. Would that a like unselfish chivalrywere more common--I do not say amongst scientific men, for they have itin great abundance, but--in the rest of the community. 

May I ask--as a very great favour--to be allowed to call on you some dayin London, and to see your insects? I and my daughter are soon, I hope, going to the West Indies, for plants and insects, among other things;and the young lady might learn much of typical forms from one glance atyour treasures. 

I send this letter by our friend Bates--being ignorant of youraddress. --Believe me, my dear Sir, ever yours faithfully, C. KINGSLEY. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS A. BUCKLEY[11]

_Holly House, Barking, E. February 2, 1871. _

Dear Miss Buckley, --I have read Darwin's first volume, [12] and like itvery much. It is overwhelming as proving the origin of man from somelower form, but that, I rather think, hardly anyone doubts now. 

He is very weak, as yet, on my objection about the "hair, " but promisesa better solution in the second volume. 

Have you seen Mivart's book, "Genesis of Species"? It is exceedinglyclever, and well worth reading. The arguments against Natural Selectionas the exclusive mode of development are some of them exceedinglystrong, and very well put, and it is altogether a most readable andinteresting book. 

Though he uses some weak and bad arguments, and underrates the power ofNatural Selection, yet I think I agree with his conclusion in the main, and am inclined to think it is more philosophical than my own. It is abook that I think will please Sir Charles Lyell. --Believe me, yours verytruly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS A. BUCKLEY

_Holly House, Barking, E. March 3, 1871. _

Dear Miss Buckley, --Thanks for your note. I am hard at work criticisingDarwin. I admire his Moral Sense chapter as much as anything in thebook. It is both original and the most satisfactory of all thetheories, if not quite satisfactory. .. . --Believe me yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --Darwin's book on the whole is wonderful! There are plenty ofpoints open to criticism, but it is a marvellous contribution to thehistory of the development of the forms of life. 

 * * * * *

SIR C. LYELL TO A. R. WALLACE

_February 15, 1876. _

Dear Wallace, --I have read the Preface, [13] and like and approve of itmuch. I do not believe there is a word which Darwin would wish altered. It is high time this modest assertion of your claims as an independentoriginator of Natural Selection should be published. --Ever most truly, CHA. LYELL. 

 * * * * *

SIR J. HOOKER TO A. R. WALLACE

_Royal Gardens, Kew. August 2, 1880. _

My dear Wallace, --I think you have made an immense advance to ourknowledge of the ways and means of distribution, and bridged many greatgaps. [14] Your reasoning seems to me to be sound throughout, though I amnot prepared to receive it in all its details. 

I am disposed to regard the Western Australian flora as the latest inpoint of origin, and I hope to prove it by development, and by theabsence of various types. If Western Australia ever had an old flora, Iam inclined to suppose that it has been destroyed by the invasion ofEastern types after the union with East Australia. My idea is that thesetypes worked round by the south, and altered rapidly as they proceededwestward, increasing in species. Nor can I conceive the Western Island, when surrounded by sea, harbouring a flora like its present one. 

I have been disposed to regard New Caledonia and the New Hebrides as theparent country of many New Zealand and Australian forms of vegetation, but we do not know enough of the vegetation of the former to warrant theconclusion; and after all it would be but a slight modification of yourviews. 

I very much like your whole working of the problem of the isolation andconnection of New Zealand and Australia _inter se_ and with thecountries north of them, and the whole treatment of that respectingnorth and south migration over the globe is admirable. .. . --Ever mosttruly yours, J. D. HOOKER. 

 * * * * *

SIR J. HOOKER TO A. R. WALLACE

_Royal Gardens, Kew. November 10, 1880. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, --I have been waiting to thank you for "Island Life"till I should have read it through as carefully as I am digesting thechapters I have finished; but I can delay no longer, if only to say thatI heartily enjoy it, and believe that you have brushed away more cobwebsthat have obscured the subject than any other, besides giving a vastdeal that is new, and admirably setting forth what is old, so as tothrow new light on the whole subject. It is, in short, a first-ratebook. I am making notes for you, but hitherto have seen no defect ofimportance except in the matter of the Bahamas, whose flora is Floridan, not Cuban, in so far as we know it. .. . --Very truly yours, JOS. D. HOOKER. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR W. THISELTON-DYER

_Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. January 7, 1881. _

Dear Mr. Thiselton-Dyer, --If I had had your lecture before me whenwriting the last chapters of my book I should certainly have quoted youin support of the view of the northern origin of the Southern flora bymigration along existing continents. On reading it again I am surprisedto find how often you refer to this; but when I read it on its firstappearance I did not pay special attention to this point except to notethat your views agreed more closely with those I had advanced, derivedfrom the distribution of animals, than those of any previous writer onbotanical distribution. When, at a much later period, on coming to theend of my work, I determined to give a chapter to the New Zealand florain order to see how far the geological and physical relations betweenNew Zealand and Australia would throw light on its origin, I went for myfacts to the works of Sir Joseph Hooker and Mr. Bentham, and also toyour article in the "Encyclopædia Britannica, " and worked out myconclusions solely from these, and from the few facts referring to themigration of plants which I had collected. Had I referred again to yourlecture I should certainly have quoted the cases you give (in a note, p. 431) of plants extending along the Andes from California to Peru andChile, and vice versa. Whatever identity there is in our views wastherefore arrived at independently, and it was an oversight on my partnot referring to your views, partly due to your not having made them amore prominent feature of your very interesting and instructive lecture. Working as I do at home, I am obliged to get my facts from the few booksI can get together; and I only attempted to deal with these greatbotanical questions because the facts seemed sufficiently broad anddefinite not to be much affected by errors of detail or recent additionsto our knowledge, and because the view which I took of the past changesin Australia and New Zealand seemed calculated to throw so much lightupon them. Without such splendid summaries of the relations of theSouthern floras as are given in Sir J. Hooker's Introductions, I shouldnot have touched the subject at all; and I venture to hope that you orsome of your colleagues will give us other such summaries, brought downto the present date, of other important floras--as, for example, thoseof South Africa and South Temperate America. 

Many thanks for additional peculiar British plants. When I hear what Mr. Mitten has to say about the mosses, etc. , I should like to send acorrected list to _Nature_, which I shall ask you to be so good as togive a final look over. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --Mr. Darwin strongly objects to my view of the migration of plantsalong mountain-ranges, rather than along lowlands during cold periods. This latter view seems to me as difficult and inadequate as mine does tohim. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

Wallace was in frequent correspondence with Professor Raphael Meldola, the eminent chemist, a friend both of Darwin and of Wallace, a studentof Evolution, and a stout defender of Darwinism. I received from himmuch help and advice in connection with this work, and had he liveduntil its completion--he died, suddenly, in 1914--my indebtedness to himwould have been even greater. 

The following letter to Meldola refers to a suggestion that the whitecolour of the undersides of animals might have been developed byselection through the _physical_ advantage gained from the protection ofthe vital parts by a _lighter_ colour and therefore by a surface of lessradiative activity. The idea was that there would be less loss of animalheat through such a white coating. We were at that time unaware ofThayer's demonstration of the value of such colouring for the purposesof concealment among environment. Wallace accepted Thayer's view at oncewhen it was subsequently put forward; as do most naturalists at thepresent time. 

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Frith Hill, Godalming. April 8, 1885. _

My dear Meldola, --Your letter in _Nature_ last week "riz my dander, " asthe Yankees say, and, for once in a way, we find ourselves deadlyenemies prepared for mortal combat, armed with steel (pens) and preparedto shed any amount of our own--ink. Consequently I rushed into the fraywith a letter to _Nature_ intended to show that you are as wrong (aswicked) as are the Russians in Afghanistan. Having, however, the mostperfect confidence that the battle will soon be over, . .. --Yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The following letter refers to the theory of physiological selectionwhich had recently been propounded by Romanes, and which Prof. Meldolahad criticised in _Nature_, xxxix. 384. 

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Frith Hill, Godalming. August 28, 1886. _

My dear Meldola, --I have just read your reply to Romanes in _Nature_, and so far as your view goes I agree, but it does not go far enough. Professor Newton has called my attention to a passage in Belt's"Nicaragua, " pp. 207-8, in which he puts forth very clearly exactly yourview. I find I had noted the explanation as insufficient, and I hearthat in Darwin's copy there is "No! No!" against it. It seems, however, to me to summarise _all_ that is of the slightest value in Romanes'wordy paper. I have asked Newton (to whom I had lent it) to forward toyou at Birmingham a proof of my paper in the _Fortnightly_, and I shallbe much obliged if you will read it carefully, and, if you can, "hold abrief" for me at the British Association in this matter. You will seethat a considerable part of my paper is devoted to a demonstration ofthe fallacy of that part of "Romanes" which declares species to bedistinguished generally by useless characters, and also that"simultaneous variations" do not usually occur. 

On the question of sterility, which, as you well observe, is the core ofthe question, I think I show that it could not work in the way Romanesputs it. The objection to Belt's and your view is, also, that it wouldnot work unless the "sterility variation" was correlated with the"useful variation. " You assume, I think, this correlation, when youspeak of two of your varieties, B. And K. , being _less fertile with theparent form_. Without correlation they could not be so, only some few ofthem. Romanes always speaks of his physiological variations as beingindependent, "primary, " in which case, as I show, they could hardly eversurvive. At the end of my paper I show a correlation which is probablygeneral and sufficient. 

In criticising Romanes, however, at the British Association, I want tocall your special attention to a point I have hardly made clear enoughin my paper. Romanes always speaks of the "physiological variety" as ifit were like any other _simple_ variety, and could as easily (he saysmore easily) be increased. Whereas it is really complex, requiring aremarkable correlation between different sets of individuals which henever recognises. To illustrate what I mean, let me suppose a case. Letthere occur in a species three individual physiological varieties--A, Band C--each being infertile with the bulk of the species, but quitefertile with some small part of it. Let A, for example, be fertile withX, Y and Z. Now I maintain it to be in the highest degree improbablethat B, a quite distinct individual, with distinct parents originatingin a distinct locality, and perhaps with a very different constitution, merely because it also is sterile with the bulk of the species, shouldbe fertile with the very same individuals, X, Y, Z, that A is fertilewith. It seems to me to be at least 100 to 1 that it will be fertilewith some other quite distinct set of individuals. And so with C, andany other similar variety. I express this by saying that each has its"sexual complements, " and that the complements of the one are almostsure not to be the complements of the other. Hence it follows that A, B, C, though differing in the same character of general infertility withthe bulk of the species, will really be three distinct varietiesphysiologically, and can in no way unite to form a single physiologicalvariety. This enormous difficulty Romanes apparently never sees, butargues as if all individuals that are infertile with the bulk of thespecies must be or usually are fertile with the same set of individualsor with each other. This I call a monstrous assumption, for which not aparticle of evidence exists. Take this in conjunction with my argumentfrom the severity of the struggle for existence and the extremeimprobability of the respective "sexual complements" coming together atthe right time, and I think Romanes' ponderous paper is disposed of. 

I wrote my paper, however, quite as much to expose the great presumptionand ignorance of Romanes in declaring that Natural Selection is _not_ atheory of the origin of species--as it is calculated to do much harm. See, for instance, the way the Duke of Argyll jumped at it like a troutat a fly!--Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The earlier part of the next letter refers to "The Experimental Proof ofthe Protective Value of Colour and Markings in Insects in reference totheir Vertebrate Enemies, " in the _Proceedings of the Zoological Societyof London_, 1887, p. 191. 

TO PROF. POULTON

_Frith Hill, Godalming. October 20, 1887. _

My dear Poulton, --It is very interesting to me to see how very generallythe facts are in accordance with theory, and I am only surprised thatthe exceptions and irregularities are not more numerous than they arefound to be. The only difficult case, that of _D. Euphorbiæ_, is dueprobably to incomplete knowledge. Are lizards and sea-birds the only, oreven the chief, possible enemies of the species? They evidently do notprevent its coming to maturity in considerable abundance, and it istherefore no doubt preserved from its chief enemies during its variousstages of growth. 

The only point on which I differ from you--as you know--is youracceptance, as proved, of the theory of sexual colour selection, andyour speaking of insects as having a sense of "the beautiful" in colour, as if that were a known fact. But that is a wide question, requiringfull discussion. --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR FRANCIS DARWIN

_Frith Hill, Godalming. November 20, 1887. _

Dear Mr. Darwin, --Many thanks for the copy of your father's "Life andLetters, " which I shall read with very great interest (as will all theworld). I was not aware before that your father had been sodistressed--or rather disturbed--by my sending him my essay fromTernate, and I am very glad to feel that his exaggerated sense of honourwas quite needless so far as I was concerned, and that the incident didnot in any way disturb our friendly relations. I always felt, and feelstill, that people generally give me far too much credit for my meresketch of the theory--so very small an affair as compared with the vastfoundation of fact and experiment on which your father worked. --Believeme yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER (_née_ BUCKLEY)

_Frith Hill, Godalming. February 16, 1888. _

My dear Mrs. Fisher, --I know nothing of the physiology of ferns andmosses, but as a matter of fact I think they will be found to increaseand diminish together all over the world. Both like moist, equableclimates and shade, and are therefore both so abundant in oceanicislands, and in the high regions of the tropics. 

I am inclined to think that the reason ferns have persisted so long incompetition with flowering plants is the fact that they thrive best inshade, flowers best in the light. In our woods and ravines the flowersare mostly spring flowers, which die away just as the foliage of thetrees is coming out and the shade deepens; while ferns are often dormantat that time, but grow as the shade increases. 

Why tree-ferns should not grow in cold countries I know not, except thatit may be the winds are too violent and would tear all the fronds offbefore the spores were ripe. Everywhere they grow in ravines, or inforests where they are sheltered, even in the tropics. And they are notgenerally abundant, but grow in particular zones only. In all the Amazonvalley I don't remember ever having seen a tree-fern. .. . 

I too am struggling with my "Popular Sketch of Darwinism, " and am justnow doing a chapter on the great "hybridity" question. I really think Ishall be able to arrange the whole subject more intelligibly than Darwindid, and simplify it immensely by leaving out the endless discussion ofcollateral details and difficulties which in the "Origin of Species"confuse the main issue. .. . 

The most remarkable steps yet made in advance are, I think, the theoryof Weismann of the continuity of the germ plasm, and its corollary thatacquired modifications are never inherited! and Patrick Geddes'sexplanation of the laws of growth in plants on the theory of theantagonism of vegetative and reproductive growth. .. . --Yours verysincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Frith Hill, Godalming. March 20, 1888. _

My dear Meldola, --I have been working away at my hybridity chapters, [15]and am almost disposed to cry "Eureka!" for I have got light on theproblem. When almost in despair of making it clear that NaturalSelection could act one way or the other, I luckily routed out an oldpaper that I wrote twenty years ago, giving a demonstration of theaction of Natural Selection. It did not convince Darwin then, but it hasconvinced me now, and I think it can be proved that in some cases (andthose I think most probable) Natural Selection will accumulatevariations in infertility between incipient species. Many other causesof infertility co-operate, and I really think I have overcome thefundamental difficulties of the question and made it a good deal clearerthan Darwin left it. .. . I think also it completely smashes upRomanes. --Yours faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The next letter relates to a question which Prof. Meldola raised as towhether, in view of the extreme importance of "divergence" (in theDarwinian sense) for the separation and maintenance of specific types, it might not be possible that sterility, when of advantage as a check tocrossing, had in itself, as a physiological character, been broughtabout by Natural Selection, just as extreme fecundity had been broughtabout (by Natural Selection) in cases where such fecundity was ofadvantage. 

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Frith Hill, Godalming. April 12, 1888. _

My dear Meldola, --Many thanks for your criticism. It is a perfectlysound one as against my view being a _complete explanation_ of thephenomena, but that I do not claim. And I do not see any chance of therequired facts being forthcoming for many years to come. Experiments inthe hybridisation of animals are so difficult and tedious that evenDarwin never undertook any, and the only people who could and ought tohave done it--the Zoological Society--will not. There is one point, however, I think you have overlooked. You urge the improbability of therequired infertility being correlated with the particular variationswhich characterised each incipient species. But the whole point of myargument is, that the physiological adjustments producing fertility areso delicate that they are disturbed by almost any variation or change ofconditions--except in the case of domestic animals, which have beendomesticated because they are not subject to this disturbance. The wholefirst half of the chapter is to bring out this fact, which Darwin hasdwelt upon, and it certainly does afford a foundation for the assumptionthat usually, and in some considerable number of individuals, variationin nature, accompanied by somewhat changed conditions of life, isaccompanied by, and probably correlated with, some amount ofinfertility. No doubt this assumption wants proving, but in the meantimeI am glad you think that, granting the assumption, I have shown thatNatural Selection is able to accumulate sterility variations. 

That is certainly a step in advance, and we cannot expect to do morethan take very short theoretical steps till we get more facts to restupon. If you should happen to come across any facts which seem to bearupon it, pray let me know. I can find none but those I have referred to. 

I have just finished a chapter on male ornament and display, which Itrust will help to clear up that point--Believe me yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO DR. W. B. HEMSLEY

_Frith Hill, Godalming. August 26, 1888. _

Dear Mr. Hemsley, --You are aware that Patrick Geddes proposes to excludeNatural Selection in the origination of thorns and spines, which heimputes to "diminishing vegetativeness" or "ebbing vitality of thespecies. " It has occurred to me that insular floras should afford a testof the correctness of this view, since in the absence of mammalia theprotection of spines would be less needed. 

Your study of these floras will no doubt enable you to answer a fewquestions on this point. Spines and thorns are, I believe, usuallyabundant in arid regions of continents, especially in South Africa, where large herbivorous mammals abound. Now, if the long-continuedpresence of these mammals is a factor in the production of spines byNatural Selection, they should be wholly or comparatively absent inregions equally arid where there are no mammals. The Galapagos seem tobe such a case--also perhaps some of the Sandwich Islands, and generallythe extra-tropical volcanic islands. Also Australia comparatively, andthe highlands of Madagascar. 

Of course, the endemic species must be chiefly considered, as they havehad time to be modified by the conditions. If you can give me the facts, or your general impression from your study of these floras, I shall bemuch obliged. I see, of course, many other objections to Geddes'stheory, but this seems to offer a crucial test. --Believe me yours verytruly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO DR. W. B. HEMSLEY

_Frith Hill, Godalming. September 13, 1888. _

Dear Mr. Hemsley, --Many thanks for your interesting letter. The factsyou state seem quite to support the usual view, that thorns and spineshave been developed as a protection against other animals. The few spinyplants in New Zealand may be for protection against land molluscs, ofwhich there are several species as large as any in the tropics. Ofcourse in Australia we should expect only a comparative scarcity ofspines, as there are many herbivorous marsupials in thecountry. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The next and several of the succeeding letters refer to the translationsof Weismann's "Essays upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems"(Oxford, 1889), and to "Darwinism" (London, 1889). 

TO PROF. POULTON

_Frith Hill, Godalming. November 4, 1888. _

My dear Mr. Poulton, --I returned you the two first of Weismann's essays, with a few notes and corrections in pencil on that on "Duration ofLife. " Looking over some old papers, I have just come across a shortsketch on two pages, on "The Action of Natural Selection in producingOld Age, Decay and Death, " written over twenty years ago. [16] I had thesame general idea as Weismann, but not that beautiful suggestion of theduration of life, in each case, being the _minimum_ necessary for thepreservation of the species. _That_ I think masterly. The paper on"Heredity" is intensely interesting, and I am waiting anxiously for theconcluding part. I will refer to these papers in notes in my book, though perhaps yours will be out first. .. . --Yours faithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Frith Hill, Godalming. November 8, 1888. _

Dear Mr. Poulton, --I return herewith (but separately) the "proofs" Ihave of Weismann's Essays. The last critical one is rather heavy, andadds nothing of importance to the earlier one on Duration of Life. Ienclose my "Note" on the subject, which was written, I think, about1867, certainly before 1870. You will see it was only a few ideas jotteddown for further elaboration and then forgotten. I see however it _does_contain the germ of Weismann's argument as to duration of life beingdetermined by the time of securing continuance of the species. --Yoursfaithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Frith Hall, Godalming. January 20, 1889. _

My dear Mr. Poulton, --My attention has been called by Mr. Herdman, inhis Inaugural Address to the Liverpool Biological Society, to Galton'spaper on "Heredity, " which I read years ago but had forgotten. I havejust read it again (in the _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, Vol. V. , p. 329, Jan. , 1876), and I find a remarkable anticipation ofWeismann's theories which I think should be noticed in a preface to thetranslation of his book. [17] He argues that it is the undeveloped germsor gemmules of the fertilised ovum that form the sexual elements of theoffspring, and thus heredity and atavism are explained. He also arguesthat, as a corollary, "acquired modifications are barely if at allinherited in the correct sense of the word. " He shows the imperfectionof the evidence on this point, and admits, just as Weismann does, theheredity of changes in the parent like alcoholism, which, by permeatingthe whole tissues, may _directly_ affect the reproductive elements. Infact, all the main features of Weismann's views seem to be hereanticipated, and I think he ought to have the credit of it. 

Being no physiologist, his language is not technical, and for thisreason, and the place of publication perhaps, his remarkable paperappears to have been overlooked by physiologists. 

I think you will find the paper very suggestive, even supplying somepoints overlooked by Weismann. --Yours faithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Hamilton House, The Croft, Hastings. February 19, 1889. _

Dear Mr. Poulton, --Do you happen to have, or can you easily refer to, Grant Allen's small books of collected papers under such titles as"Vignettes from Nature, " "The Evolutionist at Large, " "Colin Clout'sCalendar, " and another I can't remember? In one of them is a paper onthe Origin of Wheat, in which he puts forth the theory that the grasses, etc. , are degraded forms which were once insect-fertilised, summing uphis views in the phrase, "Wheat is a degraded lily, " or something likethat. Now Henslow, in his "Floral Structures, "[18] adopts the sametheory for all the wind-fertilised or self-fertilised flowers, and hetells me that he is _alone_ in the view. I believe the view is a trueone, and I want to give G. Allen the credit of first starting it, andwant to see how far he went. If you have or can get this work of hiswith that paper, can you lend it me for a few days? I know not who towrite to for it, as botanists of course ignore it, and G. Allen himselfis, I believe, in Algeria. .. . --Yours faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A. R. WALLACE

_38 Queen's Gardens, Lancaster Gate, W. May 18, 1889. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, --A few days ago there reached me a copy of your newbook, "Darwinism, " for which, along with this acknowledgment, I send mythanks. In my present state of health I dare not read, and fear I shallbe unable to profit by the accumulation of evidence you have broughttogether. I see sundry points on which I might raise discussions, butbeyond the fact that I am at present unable to enter into them, I doubtwhether they would be of any use. I regret that you have used the title"Darwinism, " for notwithstanding your qualification of its meaning youwill, by using it, tend greatly to confirm the erroneous conceptionalmost universally current. --Truly yours, HERBERT SPENCER. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. November 28, 1889. _

My dear Mr. Poulton, --I have much pleasure in sending you Cope'sbook[19] (with the review of "Darwinism"), which I hope you will keep aslong as you like, till you have mastered all its obscurities of styleand eccentricities of argument. I think you will find a good deal in itto criticise, and it will be well for you to know what the leader of theNeo-Lamarckians regards as the foundation-stones of his theory. Igreatly enjoyed my visit to Oxford, and only regretted that I could notleave more time for personal talk with yourself, for I am so deplorablyignorant of modern physiology that I am delighted to get intelligibleexplanations of its bearings on the subjects that most interest me inscience. I quite see all its importance in investigations of themechanism of colours, but there is so much still unknown that it will bevery hard to convince me that there is no other possible explanation ofthe peacock's feather than the "continued preference by the females" forthe most beautiful males, in _this one point_, "during a long line ofdescent"--as Darwin says! I expect, however, great light from your newbook. .. . --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

SIR FRANCIS GALTON TO A. R. WALLACE

_42 Rutland Gate, S. W. May 24, 1890. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, --I send the paper with pleasure, and am glad that youwill read it, and I hope then see more clearly than the abstract couldshow the grounds of my argument. 

These finger-marks are most remarkable things. Of course I have made outmuch more about them since writing that memoir. Indeed I have anotherpaper on them next Thursday at the Royal Society, but that only refersto ways of cataloguing them, either for criminal administration, or whatI am more interested in, viz. Racial and hereditary inquiry. 

What I have done in this way is not ready for publication, but I maymention (privately, please) that these persistent marks, which seemfully developed in the sixth month of foetal life, and appear under thereservations and in the evidence published in the memoir to bepractically _quite_ unchanged during life, are _not_ correlated withany ordinary characteristic that I can discover. They are the same inthe lowest idiots as in ordinary persons. (I took the impressions ofsome 80 of these, so idiotic that they mostly could not speak, or evenstand, at the great Darenth Asylum, Dartford. ) They are the same inclod-hoppers as in the upper classes, and _yet_ they are as hereditaryas other qualities, I think. Their tendency to symmetrical distributionon the two hands is _marked_, and symmetry _is_ a form of kinship. Myargument is that sexual selection can have had nothing to do with thepatterns, neither can any other form of selection due to vigour, wits, and so forth, because they are not correlated with them. They just gotheir own gait, uninfluenced by anything that we can find or reasonablybelieve in, of a _naturally selective influence_, in the plain meaningof the phrase. --Very sincerely yours, FRANCIS GALTON. 

 * * * * *

TO THEO. D. A. COCKERELL

_Parkstone, Dorset. March 10, 1891. _

Dear Mr. Cockerell, -- . .. Your theory to account for the influence of afirst male on progeny by a second seems very probable--and in fact if, as I suppose, spermatozoa often enter ova without producing completefertilisation, it must be so. _That_ would be easily experimented on, with fowls, dogs, etc. , but I do not remember the fact having beenobserved except with horses. It ought to be common, when females haveyoung by successive males. --Yours faithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The next letter relates to a controversy with Romanes concerning HerbertSpencer's argument about Co-adaptation which Romanes had urged insupport of Neo-Lamarckism as opposed to Natural Selection. Prof. Meldolaendeavoured to show that the difficulties raised by Spencer andsupported by Romanes had no real weight because the possibility ofso-called "co-adaptations" being developed _successively_ in the orderof evolution had not been reckoned with. There was no real divergencebetween Wallace and Prof. Meldola on this matter when they subsequentlydiscussed it. The correspondence is in _Nature_, xliii. 557, andsubsequently. _See also_ "Darwin and After Darwin, " by Romanes, 1895, ii. 68. 

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Parkstone, Dorset, April 25, 1891. _

My dear Meldola, --You have now put your foot in it! Romanes _agrees_with you! Henceforth he will claim you as a disciple, converted by hisarguments!

There was one admission in your letter I was very sorry to see, becauseit cannot be strictly true, and is besides open to muchmisrepresentation. I mean the admission that Romanes pounces upon in hissecond paragraph. Of course, the number of individuals in a speciesbeing finite, the chance of four coincident variations occurring in anyone individual--each such variation being separately very common--cannotbe anything like "infinity to one. " Why, then, do you concede it mostfully?--the result being that Romanes takes you to concede that it isinfinity to one against the coincident variations occurring in "_anyindividuals_. " Surely, with the facts of coincident independentvariation we now possess, the occurrence of three, four, or five, coincident variations cannot be otherwise than frequent. As a fact, morethan half the whole population of most species seems to vary to aperceptible and measurable, and therefore sufficient, amount in scoresof ways. Take a species with a million pairs of individuals--half ofthese vary sufficiently, either + or -, in the four acquired charactersA, B, C, D: what will be the proportion of individuals that vary + inthese four characters according to the law of averages? Will it not beabout 1 in 64? If so it is ample--in many cases--for Natural Selectionto work on, because in many cases less than 1/64 of offspring survives. 

On Romanes' view of the impossibility of Natural Selection doinganything alone, because the required coincident variations do not occur, the occurrence of a "strong man" or a racehorse that beats all otherseasily must be impossible, since in each of these cases there must bescores of coincident favourable variations. 

Given sufficient variation, I believe divergent modification of aspecies in two lines could easily occur, even if free intercrossingoccurred, because, the numbers varying being a large proportion of thewhole, the numbers which bred like with like would he sufficient tocarry on the two lines of divergence, those that intercrossed andproduced less perfectly adapted offspring being eliminated. Of coursesome amount of segregate breeding does always occur, as Darwin alwaysmaintained, but, as he also maintained, it is not absolutely essentialto evolution. Romanes argues as if "free intercrossing" meant that nonewould pair like with like! I hope you will have another slap at him, andwithdraw or explain that unlucky "infinity to one, " which is Romanes'sheet-anchor. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. June 16, 1892. _

My dear Mr. Poulton, --Many thanks for sending me Weismann's additionalEssays, [20] which I look forward to reading with much pleasure. I have, however, read the first, and am much disappointed with it. It seems tome the _weakest and most inconclusive_ thing he has yet written. At p. 17 he states his theory as to degeneration of eyes, and again, on p. 18, of anthers and filaments; but in both cases he fails to _prove_ it, andapparently does not see that his panmixia, or "cessation of selection, "cannot possibly produce _continuous_ degeneration culminating in thetotal or almost total disappearance of an organ. Romanes and others havepointed out this weakness in his theory, but he does not notice it, andgoes on calmly throughout the essay to _assume_ that mere panmixia mustcause progressive degeneration to an unlimited extent; whereas all itcan do is to effect a reduction to the average of the total populationon which selection has been previously worked. He says "individuals withweak eyes would not be eliminated, " but omits to notice that individualswith strong eyes would also "not be eliminated, " and as there is noreason alleged why variations in _all directions_ should not occur asbefore, the free intercrossing would tend to keep up a mean conditiononly a little below that which was kept up by selection. It is clearthat some form of selection must always co-operate in degeneration, suchas economy of growth, which he hardly notices except as a possible butnot a necessary factor, or actual injuriousness. It appears to me thatwhat is wanted is to take a number of typical cases, and in each of themshow how Natural Selection comes in to carry on the degeneration begunby panmixia. Weismann's treatment of the subject is merely begging thequestion. --Yours faithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. August 29, 1892. _

My dear Mr. Poulton, --As to panmixia you have quite misunderstood myposition. By the "mean condition, " I do not mean the "mean" during thewhole course of development of the organ, as you seem to take it. Thatwould indeed be absurd. I do mean the "mean" of the whole series ofindividual variations now occurring, during a period sufficient tocontain all or almost all the variations to which the species is _now_subject. Take, for instance, such a case as the wings of the swallow, onthe full development of which the life of the bird depends. Manyindividuals no doubt perish for lack of wing-power, due to deficiency insize or form of wing, or in the muscles which move it. The extremelimits of variation would be seen probably if we examined every swallowthat had reached maturity during the last century. The average of allthose would perhaps be 5 or 10 per cent. Below the average of those thatsurvive to become the parents of the next generation in any year; andwhat I maintain is, that panmixia alone could not reduce a swallow'swings below this first average. Any further reduction must be due eitherto some form of selection or to "economy of growth"--which is also, fundamentally, a form of selection. So with the eyes of cave animals, panmixia could only cause an imperfection of vision equal to the averageof those variations which occurred, say, during a century before theanimal entered the cave. It could only produce more effect than this ifthe effects of disuse are hereditary--which is a non-Weismanniandoctrine. I think this is also the position that Romanes took. --Yoursfaithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. J. W. MARSHALL

_Parkstone, Dorset. September 23, 1892. _

My dear Marshall, --I am glad you enjoyed Mr. Hudson's book. Hisobservations are inimitable--and his theories and suggestions, if notalways the best, at least show thought on what he has observed. 

I was most pleased with his demonstration as to the supposed instinctsof young birds and lambs, showing clearly that the former at all eventsare not due to inherited experience, as Darwin thought. The whole book, too, is pervaded by such a true love of nature and such a perception ofits marvels and mysteries as to be unique in my experience. The modernscientific morphologists seem so wholly occupied in tracing out themechanism of organisms that they hardly seem to appreciate theoverwhelming marvel of the powers of life, which result in suchinfinitely varied structures and such strange habits and so-calledinstincts. The older I grow the more marvellous seem to me the merevariety of form and habit in plants and animals, and the unerringcertitude with which from a minute germ the whole complex organism isbuilt up, true to the type of its kind in all the infinitude of details!It is this which gives such a charm to the watching of plantsgrowing, and of kittens so rapidly developing their senses andhabitudes!. .. --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. February 1, 1893. _

My dear Poulton, --Thanks for the separate copy of your great paper oncolours of larva, pupa, etc. [21] I have read your conclusions and lookedover some of the experiments, and think you have now pretty well settledthat question. 

I am reading through the new volume of the Life of Darwin, and am struckwith the curious example his own case affords of non-heredity ofacquired variations. He expresses his constant dread--one of thetroubles of his life--that his children would inherit his bad health. It seems pretty clear, from what F. Darwin says in the new edition, thatDarwin's constant nervous stomach irritation was caused by his fiveyears sea-sickness. It was thoroughly established before, and in theearly years of, his marriage, and, on his own theory his children oughtall to have inherited it. Have they? You know perhaps better than I do, whether any of the family show any symptoms of that particular form ofillness--and if not it is a fine case!--Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

Wallace was formally admitted to the Royal Society in June, 1893. Thepostscript of the following letter refers to his cordial reception bythe Fellows. 

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Parkstone, Dorset. June 10, 1893. _

My dear Meldola, --As we had no time to "discourse" on Thursday, I willsay a few words on the individual adaptability question. We have to dealwith facts, and facts certainly show that, in many groups, there is agreat amount of adaptable change produced in the individual by externalconditions, and that that change is not inherited. I do not see thatthis places Natural Selection in any subordinate position, because thisindividual adaptability is evidently advantageous to many species, andmay itself have been produced or increased by Natural Selection. When aspecies is subject to great changes of conditions, either locally or atuncertain times, it may be a decided advantage to it to becomeindividually adapted to that change while retaining the power to revertinstantly to its original form when the normal conditions return. Butwhenever the changed conditions are permanent, or are such thatindividual adaptation cannot meet the requirements, then NaturalSelection rapidly brings about a permanent adaptation which isinherited. In plants these two forms of adaptation are well marked andeasily tested, and we shall soon have a large body of evidence upon it. In the higher animals I imagine that individual adaptation is small inamount, as indicated by the fact that even slight varieties often breedtrue. 

In Lepidoptera we have the two forms of colour-adaptability clearlyshown. Many species are, in all their stages, permanently adapted totheir environment. Others have a certain power of individual adaptation, as of the pupæ to their surroundings. If this last adaptation werestrictly inherited it would be positively injurious, since the progenywould thereby lose the power of individual adaptability, and thus weshould have light pupæ on dark surroundings, and vice versa. Each kindof adaptation has its own sphere, and it is essential that the oneshould be non-inheritable, the other heritable. The whole thing seems tome quite harmonious and "as it should be. "

Thiselton-Dyer tells me that H. Spencer is dreadfully disturbed on thequestion. He fears that acquired characters may not be inherited, inwhich case the foundation of his whole philosophy is undermined!--Yoursvery truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --I am afraid you are partly responsible for that kindly meant buttoo personal manifestation which disturbed the solemnity of the RoyalSociety meeting on Thursday!. .. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. September 25, 1893. _

My dear Poulton, --I suppose you were not at Nottingham and did not getthe letter, paper, and photographs I sent you there, but to be openedby the Secretary of Section D in case you were not there. It was about awonderful and perfectly authenticated case of a woman who dressed thearm of a gamekeeper after amputation, and six or seven months afterwardshad a child born without the forearm on the right side, exactlycorresponding in _form_ and _length_ of stump to that of the man. Photographs of the man, and of the boy seven or eight years old, weretaken _by the physician of the hospital_ where the man's arm was cutoff, and they show a most striking correspondence. These, with my shortpaper, appear to have produced an effect, for a committee of Section Dhas been appointed to collect evidence on this and othermatters. .. . --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. November 17, 1893. _

My dear Poulton, --The letter I wrote to you at Nottingham was returnedto me here (after a month), so I did not think it worth while to send itto you again, though it did contain my congratulations on yourappointment, [22] which I now repeat. As you have not seen the paper Isent to the British Association, I will just say that I should not havenoticed the subject publicly but, after a friend had given me thephotographs (sent with my paper), I came across the following statementin the new edition of Chambers' Encyclopædia, art. Deformities (by Prof. A. Hare): "In an increasing proportion of cases which are carefullyinvestigated, it appears that maternal impressions, the result of shockor unpleasant experiences, may have a considerable influence inproducing deformities in the offspring. " In consequence of this I sentthe case which had been furnished me, and which is certainly about aswell attested and conclusive as anything can be. The facts are these:

A gamekeeper had his right forearm amputated at the North DevonInfirmary. He left before it was healed, thinking his wife could dressit, but as she was too nervous, a neighbour, a young recently marriedwoman, a farmer's wife, still living, came and dressed it every day tillit healed. About six months after she had a child born _without righthand and forearm_, the stump exactly corresponding in length to that ofthe gamekeeper. Dr. Richard Budd, M. D. , F. R. C. P. , [23] of Barnstaple, thephysician to the infirmary, when the boy was five or six years old, himself took a photograph of the boy and the gamekeeper side by side, showing the wonderful correspondence of the two arms. I have these facts_direct from Dr. Budd_, who was personally cognisant of the wholecircumstances. A few years after, in November, 1876, Dr. Budd gave anaccount of the case and exhibited the photographs to a large meeting atthe College of Physicians, and I have no doubt it is _one_ of the casesreferred to in the article I have quoted, though Dr. Budd thinks it hasnever been published. It will be at once admitted that this is not achance coincidence, and that all theoretical difficulties must give wayto such facts as this, . .. Of course it by no means follows that similarcauses should in all cases produce similar effects, since theidiosyncrasy of the mother is no doubt an important factor; but wherethe combined coincidences are so numerous as in this case--_place, time, person_ and exact correspondence of _resulting deformity_--some causalrelation must exist. --Believe me yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

PART III (_Concluded_)

III. --Correspondence on Biology, Geographical Distribution, etc. 

[1894--1913]

 * * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A. R. WALLACE

_Queen's Hotel, Cliftonville, Margate. August 10, 1894. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, --Though we differ on some points we agree on many, andone of the points on which we doubtless agree is the absurdity of LordSalisbury's representation of the process of Natural Selection basedupon the improbability of two varying individuals meeting. Hisnonsensical representation of the theory ought to be exposed, for itwill mislead very many people. I see it is adopted by the _Pall Mall_. Ihave been myself strongly prompted to take the matter up, but it isevidently your business to do that. Pray write a letter to the _Times_explaining that selection or survival of the fittest does notnecessarily take place in the way he describes. You might set out byremarking that whereas he begins by comparing himself to a volunteercolonel reviewing a regiment of regulars, he very quickly changes hisattitude and becomes a colonel of regulars reviewing volunteers andmaking fun of their bunglings. He deserves a-severe castigation. Thereare other points on which his views should be rectified, but this is theessential point. 

It behoves you of all men to take up the gauntlet he has throwndown. --Very truly yours, HERBERT SPENCER. 

 * * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A. R. WALLACE

_Queen's Hotel, Cliftonville, Margate, Aug. 19, 1894. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, --I cannot at all agree with you respecting therelative importance of the work you are doing and that which I wantedyou to do. Various articles in the papers show that Lord Salisbury'sargument is received with triumph, and, unless it is disposed of, itwill lead to a public reaction against the doctrine of evolution atlarge, a far more serious evil than any error which you propose torectify among biologists. Everybody will look to you for a reply, and ifyou make no reply it will be understood that Lord Salisbury's objectionis valid. As to the non-publication of your letter in the _Times_, thatis absurd, considering that your name and that of Darwin are constantlycoupled together. --Truly yours, HERBERT SPENCER. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. September 8, 1894. _

My dear Poulton, --I was glad to see your exposure of another AmericanNeo-Lamarckian in _Nature_. [24] It is astonishing how utterly illogicalthey all are! I was much pleased with your point of the adaptationssupposed to be produced by the inorganic environment when they arerelated to the organic. It is I think new and very forcible. For nearlya month I have been wading through Bateson's book, [25] and writing acriticism of it, and of Galton, who backs him up with his idea of"organic stability. " . .. Neither he nor Galton appears to have anyadequate conception of what Natural Selection is, or how impossible itis to escape from it. They seem to think that, given a stablevariation, Natural Selection must hide its diminished head!

Bateson's preface, concluding reflections, etc. , are often quiteamusing. .. . He is so cocksure he has made a great discovery--which isthe most palpable of mare's nests. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --I allude of course to his grand argument--"environment_continuous_--species _discontinuous_--therefore _variations_ whichproduce species must be also _discontinuous_"! (Bateson--Q. E. D. ). 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. February 19, 1895. _

My dear Poulton, --I have read your paper on "Theories of Evolution"[26]with great pleasure. It is very clear and very forcible, and I shouldthink must have opened the eyes of some of your hearers. Your casesagainst Lamarckism were very strong, and I think quite conclusive. Thereis one, however, which seems to me weak--that about the claws oflobsters and the tails of lizards moving and acting when detached fromthe body. It may be argued, fairly, that this is only an incidentalresult of the extreme muscular irritability and contractibility of theorgans, which might have been caused on Lamarckian as well as on theDarwinian hypothesis. The running of a fowl after its head is choppedoff is an example of the same kind of thing, and this is certainly notuseful. The detachment itself of claw and tail is no doubt useful andadaptive. 

When discussing the objection as to failures not being found fossil, there are two additional arguments to those you adduce: (1) Everyfailure has been, first, a success, or it could not have come intoexistence (as a species); and (2) the hosts of huge and veryspecialised animals everywhere recently extinct are clearly failures. They were successes as long as the struggle was with animal competitorsonly, physical conditions being highly favourable. But, when physicalconditions became adverse, as by drought, cold, etc. , they failed andbecame extinct. The entrance of new enemies from another area mightequally render them failures. As to your question about myself andDarwin, I had met him once only for a few minutes at the British Museumbefore I went to the East. .. . --Yours very faithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. CLEMENT REID

_Parkstone, Dorset. November 18, 1894. _

My dear Clement Reid, -- . .. The great, the grand, and long-expected, theprophesied discovery has at last been made--Miocene or Old Pliocene Manin India!!! Good worked flints found _in situ_ by the palæontologist tothe Geological Survey of India! It is in a ferruginous conglomeratelying beneath 4, 000 feet of Pliocene strata and containing hippotherium, etc. But perhaps you have seen the article in _Natural Science_describing it, by Rupert Jones, who, very properly, accepts it! Ofcourse we want the bones, but we have got the flints, and they mayfollow. Hurrah for the missing link! Excuse more. --Yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The next letter relates to the rising school of biologists who, inopposition to Darwin's views, held that species might arise by what wasat the time termed "discontinuous variation. "

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_February 4, 1895. _

My dear Professor Meldola, --I hope to have copies of my "Evolution"article in a few days, and will send you a couple. The article was inprint last September, but, being long, was crowded out month aftermonth, and only now got in by being cut in two. I think I havedemolished "discontinuous variation" as having any but the mostsubordinate part in evolution of species. 

Congratulations on Presidency of the Entomological Society. 

A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. March 15, 1895. _

My dear Poulton, --I have now nearly finished reading Romanes, but do notfind it very convincing. There is a large amount of special pleading. Ontwo points only I feel myself hit. My doubt that Darwin really meantthat _all_ the individuals of a species could be similarly modifiedwithout selection is evidently wrong, as he adduces other quotationswhich I had overlooked. The other point is, that my suggestedexplanation of sexual ornaments gives away my case as to the utility ofall specific characters. It certainly does as it stands, but I nowbelieve, and should have added, that all these ornaments, where theydiffer from species to species, are also recognition characters, and assuch were rendered stable by Natural Selection from their firstappearance. 

I rather doubt the view you state, and which Gulick and Romanes makemuch of, that a portion of a species, separated from the main body, willhave a different average of characters, unless they are a local racewhich has already been somewhat selected. The large amount of variation, and the regularity of the curve of variation, whenever about 50 or 100individuals are measured in the same locality, shows that the bulk of aspecies are similar in amount of variation everywhere. But when aportion of a species begins to be modified in adaptation to newconditions, distinction of some kind is essential, and therefore anyslight difference would be increased by selection. I see no reason tobelieve that species (usually) have been isolated first and modifiedafterwards, but rather that new species usually arise from species whichhave a wide range, and in different areas need somewhat differentcharacters and habits. Then _distinctness_ arises both by adaptation andby development of recognition marks to minimise intercrossing. 

I wonder Darwin did not see that if the unknown "constant causes" hesupposes can modify all the individuals of a species, eitherindifferently, usefully, or hurtfully, and that these characters soproduced are, as Romanes says, very, very numerous in all species, andare sometimes the only specific characters, then the Neo-Lamarckians arequite right in putting Natural Selection as a very secondary andsubordinate influence, since all it has to do is to weed out the hurtfulvariations. 

Of course, if a species with warning colours were, in part, completelyisolated, and its colours or markings were accidentally different fromthe parent form, whatever set of markings and colours it had would be, Iconsider, rendered stable for recognition, and also for protection, since if it varied too much the young birds and other enemies would takea heavier toll in learning it was uneatable. It might then be said thatthe character by which this species differs from the parent species is auseless character. But surely this is not what is usually meant by a"useless character. " This is highly useful in itself, though thedifference from the other species is not useful. If they were in contactit would be useful, as a distinction preventing intercrossing, and solong as they are not brought together we cannot really tell if it is aspecies at all, since it might breed freely with the parent form andthus return back to one type. The "useless characters" I have always hadin mind when arguing this question are those which are or are supposedto be absolutely useless, not merely relatively as regards thedifference from an allied species. I think this is an importantdistinction. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A. R. WALLACE

_64 Avenue Road, Regent's Park, London, N. W. September 28, 1895_

Dear Mr. Wallace, --As I cannot get you to deal with Lord Salisbury Ihave decided to do it myself, having been finally exasperated into doingit by this honour paid to his address in France--the presentation of atranslation to the French Academy. The impression produced upon somemillions of people in England cannot be allowed to be thus furtherconfirmed without protest. 

One of the points which I propose to take up is the absurd conceptionLord Salisbury sets forth of the process of Natural Selection. When youwrote you said you had dealt with it yourself in your volume onDarwinism. I have no doubt that it is also in some measure dealt with byDarwin himself, by implication or incidentally. You of course knowDarwin by heart, and perhaps you would be kind enough to save me thetrouble of searching by indicating the relevant passages both in hisbooks and in your own. My reading power is very small, and it tries meto find the parts I want by much reading. --Truly yours, HERBERT SPENCER. 

 * * * * *

To the following letter from Mr. Gladstone, Wallace attached this pencilnote: "In 1881 I put forth the first idea of mouth-gesture as a factorin the origin of language, in a review of E. B. Tylor's 'Anthropology, 'and in 1895 I extended it into an article in the _Fortnightly Review_, and reprinted it with a few further corrections in my 'Studies, ' underthe title 'The Expressiveness of Speech or Mouth-Gesture as a Factor inthe Origin of Language. ' In it I have developed a completely newprinciple in the theory of the origin of language by showing that everymotion of the jaws, lips and tongue, together with inward or outwardbreathing, and especially the mute or liquid consonants ending wordswhich serve to indicate abrupt or continuous motion, have correspondingmeanings in so many cases as to show a fundamental connection. I thusenormously extended the principle of onomatopoeia in the origin of vocallanguage. As I have been unable to find any reference to this importantfactor in the origin of language, and as no competent writer has pointedout any fallacy in it, I think I am justified in supposing it to be newand important. Mr. Gladstone informed me that there were many thousandsof illustrations of my ideas in Homer. "--A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

W. E. GLADSTONE TO A. R. WALLACE

_Hawarden Castle, Chester. October 18, 1895. _

Dear Sir, --Your kindness in sending me your most interesting articledraws on you the inconvenience of an acknowledgment. 

My pursuits in connection with Homer, especially, have made me aconfident advocate of the doctrine that there is, within limits, aconnection in language between sound and sense. 

I would consent to take the issue simply on English words beginning with_st_. You go upon a kindred class in _sn_. I do not remember a perfectly_innocent_ word, a word habitually used _in bonam partem_, and beginningwith _sn_, except the word "snow, " and "snow, " as I gather from_Schnee_, is one of the worn-down words. 

May I beg to illustrate you once more on the ending in _p_. I take ourold schoolboy combinations: hop, skip and jump. Each motion an endingmotion; and to each word closed with _p_ compare the words _run, rennen, courir, currere. _

But I have now a new title to speak. It is deafness; and I know fromdeafness that I run a worse chance with a man whose mouth is coveredwith beard and moustache. 

A young relation of mine, slightly deaf, was sorely put to it in anUniversity examination because one of his examiners was _secretal_ inthis way. 

I will not trouble you further except to express, with misgiving, adoubt on a single point, the final _f_. 

In driving with Lord Granville, who was deaf but not very deaf, I hadoccasion to mention to him the Duke of _Fife_, I used every effort, butin no way could I contrive to make him hear the word. 

I break my word to add one other particular. Out of 27, 000 odd lines inHomer, every one of them expressed, in a sense, heavy weight or force;the blows of heavy-armed men on the breastplates of foes . .. [illegible]and the like. --With many thanks, I remain yours very faithfully, W. E. GLADSTONE. 

P. S. --I should say that the efficacy of lip-expression, undeniably, ismost subtle, and defies definite description. 

 * * * * *

TO DR. ARCHDALL REID

_Parkstone, Dorset. April 19, 1896. _

Dear Sir, --I am sorry I had not space to refer more fully to yourinteresting work. [27] The most important point on which I think yourviews require emendation is on _instinct_. I see you quote Spalding'sexperiments, but these have been quite superseded and shown to beseriously incorrect by Prof. Lloyd Morgan. A paper by him in the_Fortnightly Review_ of August, 1893, gives an account of hisexperiments, and he read a paper on the same subject at the BritishAssociation last year. He is now preparing a volume on the subjectwhich will contain the most valuable series of observations yet made onthis question. Another point of some importance where I cannot agreewith you is your treating dipsomania as a disease, only to be eliminatedby drunkenness and its effects. It appears to me to be only a vicioushabit or indulgence which would cease to exist in a state of society inwhich the habit were almost universally reprobated, and the means forits indulgence almost absent. But this is a matter of comparativelysmall importance. --Believe me yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO DR. ARCHDALL REID

_Parkstone. April 28, 1896. _

Dear Sir, --"We can but reason from the facts we know. " We know a gooddeal of the senses of the higher animals, very little of those ofinsects. If we find--as I think we do--that all cases of supposed"instinctive knowledge" in the former turn out to be merely intuitivereactions to various kinds of stimulus, combined with very rapidlyacquired experience, we shall be justified in thinking that the actionsof the latter will some day be similarly explained. When Lloyd Morgan'sbook is published we shall have much information on this question. (_See_ "Natural Selection and Tropical Nature, " pp. 91-7. )--Yours truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Parkstone, Dorset. October 12, 1896. _

My dear Meldola, --I got Weismann's "Germinal Selection" two or threemonths back and read it very carefully, and on the whole I admire itvery much, and think it does complete the work of ordinary variation andselection. Of course it is a pure hypothesis, and can never perhaps bedirectly proved, but it seems to me a reasonable one, and it enables usto understand two groups of facts which I have never been able to workout satisfactorily by the old method. These two facts are: (1) thetotal, or almost total, disappearance of many useless organs, and (2)the continuous development of secondary sexual characters beyond anyconceivable utility, and, apparently, till checked by inutility. Itexplains both these. Disuse alone, as I and many others have alwaysargued, cannot do the first, but can only cause _regression to themean_, with perhaps some further regression from economy of material. 

As to the second, I have always felt the difficulty of accounting forthe enormous development of the peacock's train, the bird of paradiseplumes, the long wattle of the bell bird, the enormous tail-feathers ofthe Guatemalan trogon, of some humming-birds, etc. Etc. Etc. Thebeginnings of all these I can explain as recognition marks, and thisexplains also their distinctive character in allied species, but it doesnot explain their growing on and on far beyond what is needful forrecognition, and apparently till limited by absolute hurtfulness. It isa relief to me to have "germinal selection" to explain this. 

I do not, however, think it at all necessary to explain adaptations, however complex. Variation is so general and so large, in dominantspecies, and selection is so tremendously powerful, that I believe allneedful adaptation may be produced without it. But, if it exists, itwould undoubtedly hasten the process of such adaptation and wouldtherefore enable new places in the economy of nature to be more rapidlyfilled up. 

I was thinking of writing a popular exposition of the new theory for_Nature_, but have not yet found time or inclination for it. I beganreading "Germinal Selection" with a prejudice against it. That prejudicecontinued through the first half, but when I came to the idea itself, and after some trouble grasped the meaning and bearing of it, I saw thework it would do and was a convert at once. It really has no relation toLamarckism, and leaves the non-heredity of acquired characters exactlywhere it was. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The next letter relates to the great controversy then being carried onwith respect to Weismann's doctrine of the non-inheritance of "acquired"characters, which doctrine implied complete rejection of the last traceof Lamarckism from Darwinian evolution. Wallace ultimately accepted theWeismannian teaching. Darwin had no opportunity during his lifetime ofconsidering this question, which was raised later in an acute form byWeismann. 

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Parkstane, Dorset. January 6, 1897. _

My dear Meldola, --The passage to which you refer in the "Origin" (top ofp. 6) shows Darwin's firm belief in the "heredity of acquiredvariations, " and also in the importance of definite variations, that is, "sports, " though elsewhere he almost gives these up in favour ofindefinite variations; and this last is now the view of all Darwinians, and even of many Lamarckians. I therefore always now assume this asadmitted. Weismann's view as to "possible variations" and "impossiblevariations" on p. 1 of "Germinal Selection" is misleading, because itcan only refer to "sports" or to "cumulative results, " not to"individual variations" such as are the material Natural Selection actson. Variation, as I understand it, can only be a slight modification inthe offspring of that which exists in the parent. The question whetherpigs could possibly develop wings is absurd, and altogether beside thequestion, which is, solely, so far as direct evidence goes, as to themeans by which the change from one species to another closely alliedspecies has been brought about. Those who want to begin by discussingthe causes of change from a dog to a seal, or from a cow to a whale, arenot worth arguing with, as they evidently do not comprehend the A, B, Cof the theory. 

Darwin's ineradicable acceptance of the theory of heredity of theeffects of climate, use and disuse, food, etc. , on the individual led tomuch obscurity and fallacy in his arguments, here and there. --Yours verysincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON _Parkstone, Dorset. February 14, 1897. _

My dear Poulton, --Thanks for copy of your British AssociationAddress, [28] which I did not read in _Nature_, being very busy justthen. I have now read it with much pleasure, and think it a very usefuland excellent discussion that was much needed. There is, however, oneimportant error, I think, which vitiates a vital part of the argument, and which renders it possible so to reduce the time indicated by geologyas to render the accordance of Geology and Physics more easy to effect. The error I allude to was made by Sir A. Geikie in his PresidentialAddress[29] which you quote. Immediately it appeared I wrote to himpointing it out, but he merely acknowledged my letter, saying he wouldconsider it. To me it seems a most palpable and extraordinary blunder. The error consists in taking the rate of deposition as the same as therate of denudation, whereas it is about twenty times as great, perhapsmuch more--because the area of deposition is at least twenty times lessthan that of denudation. In order to equal the area of denudation, itwould require that _every_ bed of _every_ formation should have onceextended over the _whole area_ of all the land of the globe! Thedeposition in narrow belts along coasts of all the matter brought downby rivers, as proved by the _Challenger_, leads to the same result. Inmy "Island Life, " 2nd Edit. , pp. 221-225, I have discussed this wholematter, and on reading it again I can find no fallacy in it. I have, however, I believe, overestimated the time required for deposition, which I believe would be more nearly one-fortieth than one-twentieththat of mean denudation; because there is, I believe, also a greatoverestimate of the maximum of deposition, because it is partly made upof beds which may have been deposited simultaneously. Also the maximumthickness is probably double the mean thickness. 

The mean rate of denudation, both for European rivers and for all therivers that have been measured, is a foot in three million years, whichis the figure that should be taken in calculations. --Believe me yoursvery truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Parkstone, Dorset. April 27, 1897. _

My dear Meldola, -- . .. I thought Romanes' article in reply to Spencerwas very well written and wonderfully clear for him, and I agree withmost of it, except his high estimate of Spencer's co-adaptationargument. It is quite true that Spencer's biology rests entirely onLamarckism, so far as heredity of acquired characters goes. I have beenreading Weismann's last book, "The Germ Plasm. " It is a wonderfulattempt to solve the most complex of all problems, and is almostunreadable without some practical acquaintance with germs and theirdevelopment. --Believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. June 13, 1897. _

My dear Poulton, -- . .. The rate of deposition might be modified in anarchipelago, but would not necessarily be less than now, on the_average_. On the ocean side it might be slow, but wherever there werecomparatively narrow straits between the islands it might be even fasterthan now, because the area of deposition would be strictly limited. Inthe seas between Java and Borneo and between Borneo and Celebes thedeposition _may be_ above the average. Again, during the development ofcontinents there were evidently extensive mountain ridges and masseswith landlocked seas, or inland lakes, and in all these deposition wouldbe rapid. Anyhow, the fact remains that there is no necessary equalitybetween rates of denudation and deposition (in thickness) as Geikie has_assumed_. 

I was delighted with your account of Prichard's wonderful anticipationof Galton and Weismann! It is so perfect and complete. .. . It is mostremarkable that such a complete statement of the theory and such athorough appreciation of its effects and bearing should have been solong overlooked. I read Prichard when I was very young, and have neverseen the book since. His facts and arguments are really useful ones, andI should think Weismann must be delighted to have such a supporter comefrom the grave. His view as to the supposed transmission of disease isquite that of Archdall Reid's recent book. He was equally clear as toSelection, and had he been a _zoologist_ and _traveller_ he might haveanticipated the work of both Darwin and Weismann!

To bring out such a book as his "Researches" when only twenty-seven, anda practising physician, shows what a remarkable man he was. --Believe meyours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Parkstone, Dorset. July 8, 1897. _

My dear Meldola, -- . .. I am now reading a wonderfully interestingbook--O. Fisher's "Physics of the Earth's Crust. " It is really a grandbook, and, though full of unintelligible mathematics, is so clearlyexplained and so full of good reasoning on all the aspects of this mostdifficult question that it is a pleasure to read it. It was especially apleasure to me because I had just been writing an article on thePermanence of the Oceanic Basins, at the request of the Editor of_Natural Science_, who told me I was not orthodox on the point. But Ifind that Fisher supports the same view with very great force, and itstrikes me that if weight of argument and number of capable supporterscreate orthodoxy in science, it is the other side who are not orthodox. I have some fresh arguments, and I was delighted to be able to quoteFisher. It seems almost demonstrated now that Sir W. Thomson was wrong, and that the earth _has_ a molten interior and a very thin crust, and inno other way can the phenomena of geology be explained. .. . --Yours verytruly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR OLIVER LODGE

_Parkstone, Dorset. March 8, 1898. _

My dear Sir, --My own opinion has long been--and I have many times givenreasons for it--that there is always an ample amount of variation in alldirections to allow any useful modification to be produced, veryrapidly, as compared with the rate of those secular changes (climate andgeography) which necessitate adaptation; hence no guidance of variationin certain lines is necessary. For proof of this I would ask you to lookat the diagrams in Chapter III. Of my "Darwinism, " reading theexplanation in the text. The proof of such constant indefinitevariability has been much increased of late years, and if you considerthat instead of tens or hundreds of individuals, Nature has as manythousands or millions to be selected from, every year or two, it will beclear that the materials for adaptation are ample. 

Again, I believe that the time, even as limited by Lord Kelvin'scalculations, is ample, for reasons given in Chapter X. , "On the Earth'sAge, " in my "Island Life, " and summed up on p. 236. I therefore considerthe difficulty set forth on p. 2 of the leaflet you send is not a realone. To my mind, the development of plants and animals from low forms ofeach is fully explained by the variability proved to exist, with theactual rapid multiplication and Natural Selection. For this no otherintellectual agency is required. The problem is to account for theinfinitely complex constitution of the material world and its forceswhich rendered living organisms possible; then, the introduction ofconsciousness or sensation, which alone rendered the animal worldpossible; lastly, the presence in man of capacities and moral ideas andaspirations which could not conceivably be produced by variation andNatural Selection. This is stated at p. 473-8 of my "Darwinism, " and isalso referred to in the article I enclose (at p. 443) and which you neednot return. 

The subject is so large and complex that it is not to be wondered somany people still maintain the insufficiency of Natural Selection, without having really mastered the facts. I could not, therefore, answeryour question without going into some detail and giving references. .. . --Believe me yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. H. N. RIDLEY

_Parkstone, Dorset. October 3, 1898. _

My dear Mr. Ridley, -- . .. We are much interested now about De Rougemont, and I dare say you have seen his story in the _Wide World Magazine_, while in the _Daily Chronicle_ there have been letters, interviews anddiscussions without end. A few people, who think they know everything, treat him as an impostor; but unfortunately they themselves contradicteach other, and so far are proved to be wrong more often than DeRougemont. I firmly believe that his story is substantially true--makingallowance for his being a foreigner who learnt one system of measures, then lived thirty years among savages, and afterwards had to reproduceall his knowledge in English and Australian idioms. As an intelligentwriter in the _Saturday Review_ says, putting aside the sensationalillustrations there is absolutely nothing in his story but what is quite_possible_ and even _probable_. He must have reached Singapore the yearafter I returned home, and I dare say there are people there whoremember Jensen, the owner of the schooner _Veilland_, with whom hesailed on his disastrous pearl-fishing expedition. Jensen is said now tobe in British New Guinea, and has often spoken of his lost cargo ofpearls. ---- and ----, of the Royal Geographical Society, state thatthey are convinced of the substantial truth of the main outlines of hisstory, and after three interviews and innumerable questions aresatisfied of his _bona fides_--and so am I. --With best wishes, believeme to be yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

MR. SAMUEL WADDINGTON TO A. R. WALLACE

_7 Whitehall Gardens, London, S. W. February 19, 1901. _

Dear Sir, --I trust you will forgive a stranger troubling you with aletter, but a friend has asked me whether, as a matter of fact, Darwinheld that _all_ living creatures descended from one and the sameancestor, and that the pedigree of a humming-bird and that of ahippopotamus would meet if traced far enough back. Can you tell mewhether Darwin did teach this?

I should have thought that as life was developed once, it probably couldand would be developed many times in different places, as month aftermonth, and year after year went by; and that, from the very first, itprobably took many different forms and characters, in the same way ascrystals take different forms and shapes, even when composed of the samesubstance. From these many developments of "life" would descend as manyseparate lines of evolution, one ending in the humming-bird, another inthe hippopotamus, a third in the kangaroo, etc. , and their pedigrees(however far back they might be traced) would not join until theyreached some primitive form of protoplasm, --Yours faithfully, SAMUEL WADDINGTON. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. SAMUEL WADDINGTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. February 23, 1901. _

Dear Sir, --Darwin believed that all living things originated from "a fewforms or from one"--as stated in the last sentence of his "Origin ofSpecies. " But privately I am sure he believed in the _one_ origin. Ofcourse there is a possibility that there were several distinct originsfrom inorganic matter, but that is very improbable, because in that casewe should expect to find some difference in the earliest forms of thegerms of life. But there is no such difference, the primitive germ-cellsof man, fish or oyster being almost indistinguishable, formed ofidentical matter and going through identical primitive changes. 

As to the humming-bird and hippopotamus, there is no doubt whatever of acommon origin--if evolution is accepted at all; since both arevertebrates--a very high type of organism whose ancestral forms can betraced back to a simple type much earlier than the common origin ofmammals, birds and reptiles. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR FRANCIS DARWIN

_Parkstone, Dorset. July 3, 1901. _

Dear Mr. Darwin, --Thanks for the letter returned. I _do_ hold theopinion expressed in the last sentence of the article you refer to, andhave reprinted it in my volume of Studies, etc. But the stress must belaid on the word _proof_. I intended it to enforce the somewhat similaropinion of your father, in the "Origin" (p. 424, 6th Edit. ), where hesays, "Analogy may be a deceitful guide. " But I really do not go so faras he did. For he maintained that there was not any proof that theseveral great classes or kingdoms were descended from common ancestors. 

I maintain, on the contrary, that all without exception are now provedto have originated by "descent with modification, " but that there is noproof, and no necessity, that the very same causes which have beensufficient to produce all the species of a genus or Order were thosewhich initiated and developed the greater differences. At the same timeI do _not_ say they were not sufficient. I merely urge that there is adifference between proof and probability. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Broadstone, Wimborne. August 5, 1904. _

My dear Poulton, -- . .. What a miserable abortion of a theory is"Mutation, " which the Americans now seem to be taking up in place ofLamarckism, "superseded. " Anything rather than Darwinism! I am glad Dr. F. A. Dixey shows it up so well in this week's _Nature_, [30] but toomildly!--Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Broadstone, Wimborne. April 3, 1905. _

My dear Poulton, --Many thanks for copy of your Address, [31] which I haveread with great pleasure and will forward to Birch next mail. You have, I think, produced a splendid and unanswerable set of facts proving thenon-heredity of acquired characters. I was particularly pleased with theportion on "instincts, " in which the argument is especially clear andstrong. I am afraid, however, the whole subject is above and beyond theaverage "entomologist" or insect collector, but it will be of greatvalue to all students of evolution. It is curious how few even of themore acute minds take the trouble to reason out carefully the teachingof certain facts--as in the case of Romanes and the "variableprotection, " and as I showed also in the case of Mivart (and alsoRomanes and Gulick) declaring that isolation alone, without NaturalSelection, could produce perfect and well-defined species (see _Nature_, Jan. 12, 1899). .. . --Yours faithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR FRANCIS DARWIN

_Broadstone, Wimborne. October 29, 1905. _

Dear Mr. Darwin, --I return you the two articles on "Mutation" with manythanks. As they are both supporters of de Vries, I suppose they put hiscase as strongly as possible. Professor Hubrecht's paper is by far theclearest and the best written, and he says distinctly that de Vriesclaims that all new species have been produced by mutations, and none by"fluctuating variations. " Professor Hubrecht supports this and says thatde Vries has proved it! And all this founded upon a few "sports" fromone species of plant, itself of doubtful origin (variety or hybrid), andoffering phenomena in no way different from scores of other cultivatedplants. Never, I should think, has such a vast hypothetical structurebeen erected on so flimsy a basis!

The boldness of his statements is amazing, as when he declares (as if itwere a fact of observation) that fluctuating variability, though headmits it as the origin of all domestic animals and plants, yet "neverleads to the formation of species"! (Hubrecht, p. 216. ) There is onepoint where he so grossly misinterprets your father that I think you orsome other botanist should point it out. De Vries is said to quote from"Life and Letters, " II. , p. 83, where Darwin refers to "chancevariations"--explained three lines on as "the slight differencesselected by which a race or species is at length formed. " Yet de Vriesand Hubrecht claim that by "chance variations" Darwin meant "sports" or"mutations, " and therefore agrees with de Vries, while both omit torefer to the many passages in which, later, he gave less and less weightto what he termed "single large variations"--the same as de Vries'"mutations"!--Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR JOSEPH HOOKER

_Broadstone, Wimborne. November 10, 1905. _

My dear Sir Joseph, --I am writing to apologise for a great oversight. When I sent my publishers a list of persons who had contributed to "MyLife" in various ways, your name, which should have been _first_, wasstrangely omitted, and the omission was only recalled to me yesterday byreading your letters to Bates in Clodd's edition of his Amazon book, which I have just purchased. I now send you a copy by parcel-post, inthe hope that you will excuse the omission to send it sooner. 

Now for a more interesting subject, I was extremely pleased and evengreatly surprised, in reading your letters to Bates, to find that atthat early period (1862) you were already strongly convinced of threefacts which are absolutely essential to a comprehension of the method oforganic evolution, but which many writers, even now, almost whollyignore. They are (1) the universality and large amount of normalvariability, (2) the extreme rigour of Natural Selection, and (3) thatthere is no adequate evidence for, and very much against, theinheritance of acquired characters. 

It was only some years later, when I began to write on the subject andhad to think out the exact mode of action of Natural Selection, that Imyself arrived at (1) and (2), and have ever since dwelt upon them--inseason and out of season, as many will think--as being absolutelyessential to a comprehension of organic evolution. The third I did notrealise till I read Weismann, I have never seen the sufficiency ofnormal variability for the modification of species more strongly orbetter put than in your letters to Bates. Darwin himself never realisedit, and consequently played into the hands of the "discontinuousvariation" and "mutation" men, by so continually saying "_if_ theyvary"--"without variation Natural Selection can do nothing, " etc. 

Your argument that variations are not caused by change of environment isequally forcible and convincing. Has anybody answered de Vries yet?

F. Darwin lent me Prof. Hubrecht's review from the _Popular ScienceMonthly_, in which he claims that de Vries has proved that new specieshave always been produced from "mutations, " never through normalvariability, and that Darwin latterly agreed with him! This is to meamazing! The Americans too accept de Vries as a second Darwin!--Yoursvery sincerely, ALFRED E. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

SIR J. HOOKER TO A. R. WALLACE

_The Camp, Sunningdale. November 12, 1905. _

My dear Wallace, --My return from a short holiday at Sidmouth lastThursday was greeted by your kind and welcome letter and copy of your"Life. " The latter was, I assure you, never expected, knowing as I dothe demand for free copies that such a work inflicts on the writer. Infact I had put it down as one of the annual Christmas gifts of booksthat I receive from my own family. Coming, as it thus did, quiteunexpectedly, it is doubly welcome, and I do heartily thank you for thisproof of your greatly valued friendship. It will prove to be one of fourworks of greatest interest to me of any published since Darwin's"Origin, " the others being Waddell's "Lhasa, " Scott's "AntarcticVoyage, " and Mill's "Siege of the South Pole. "

I have not seen Clodd's edition of Bates's "Amazon, " which I have putdown as to be got, and I had no idea that I should have appeared in it. Your citation of my letters and their contents are like dreams to me;but to tell you the truth, I am getting dull of memory as well as ofhearing, and what is worse, in reading: what goes in at one eye goes outat the other. So I am getting to realise Darwin's consolation of oldage, that it absolves me from being expected to know, remember, orreason upon new facts and discoveries. And this must apply to your queryas to anyone having as yet answered de Vries. I cannot remember havingseen any answer; only criticisms of a discontinuous sort. I cannot for amoment entertain the idea that Darwin ever assented to the propositionthat new species have always been produced from mutation and neverthrough normal variability. Possibly there is some quibble on thedefinition of mutation or of variation. The Americans are prone tobelieve any new things, witness their swallowing the thornless cactusproduced by that man in California--I forget his name--which Kew exposedby asking for specimens to exhibit in the Cactus House. .. . --I am, mydear Wallace, sincerely yours, JOS. D. HOOKER. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. E. SMEDLEY

_Broadstone, Wimborne. January 31, 1906. _

Dear Mr. Smedley, --I have read Oliver Lodge's book in answer to Haeckel, but I do not think it very well done or at all clearly written or wellargued. A book[32] has been sent me, however, which is a masterpiece ofclearness and sound reasoning on such difficult questions, and is a farmore crushing reply to Haeckel than O. Lodge's. I therefore send you acopy, and feel sure you will enjoy it. It is a stiff piece of reasoning, and wants close attention and careful thought, but I think you will beable to appreciate it. In my opinion it comes as near to an intelligiblesolution of these great problems of the Universe as we are likely toget while on earth. It is a book to read and think over, and read again. It is a masterpiece. .. . --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Broadstone, Wimborne. July 27, 1907. _

My dear Poulton, --Thanks for your very interesting letter. I am glad tohear you have a new book on "Evolution"[33] nearly ready and that in ityou will do something to expose the fallacies of the Mutationists andMendelians, who pose before the world as having got _all_ wisdom, beforewhich we poor Darwinians must hide our diminished heads!

Wishing to know the best that could be said for these latter-dayanti-Darwinians, I have just been reading Lock's book on "Variation, Heredity, and Evolution. " In the early part of his book he gives atolerably fair account of Natural Selection, etc. But he gradually turnsto Mendelism as the "one thing needful"--stating that there can be "nosort of doubt" that Mendel's paper is the "most important" contributionof its size ever made to biological science!

"Mutation, " as a theory, is absolutely nothing new--only the assertionthat new species originate _always_ in sports, for which the evidenceadduced is the most meagre and inconclusive of any ever set forth withsuch pretentious claims! I hope you will thoroughly expose this absurdclaim. 

Mendelism is something new, and within its very limited range, important, as leading to conceptions as to the causes and laws ofheredity, but only misleading when adduced as the true origin of speciesin nature, as to which it seems to me to have no part. --Yours verytruly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Broadstone, Wimborne. November 26, 1907. _

My dear Poulton, --Many thanks for letting me see the proofs. [34] . .. Thewhole reads very clearly, and I am delighted with the way you expose theMendelian and Mutational absurd claims. That ought to really open theeyes of the newspaper men to the fact that Natural Selection andDarwinism are not only holding their ground but are becoming more firmlyestablished than ever by every fresh research into the ways and workingsof living nature. I shall look forward to great pleasure in reading thewhole book. I was greatly pleased with Archdall Reid's view of Mendelismin _Nature_. [35] He is a very clear and original thinker. 

I see in Essay X. You use in the title the term "defensive coloration. "Why this instead of the usual "protective"? Surely the whole function ofsuch colours and markings is to protect from attack--not to defend whenattacked. The latter is the function of stings, spines and hard coats. Ionly mention this because using different terms may lead to somemisconception. 

Your illustration of mutation by throwing colours on a screen, and theargument founded on it, I liked much. That reminds me that H. Spencer'sargument for inheritance of acquired variations--that co-ordination ofmany parts at once, required for adaptations, would be impossible bychance variations of those parts--applies with a hundredfold force tomutations, which are admittedly so much less frequent both in theirnumbers and the repetitions of them. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Broadstone, Wimborne. December 18, 1907. _

My dear Poulton, --The importance of Mendelism to Evolution seems to meto be something of the same kind, but very much less in degree andimportance, as Galton's fine discovery of the law of the average shareeach parent has in the characters of the child--one quarter, the fourgrandparents each one-sixteenth, and so on. That illuminates the wholeproblem of heredity, combined with individual diversity, in a waynothing else does. I almost wish you could introduce that!--Yours verytruly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO DR. ARCHDALL REID

_Broadstone, Wimborne. January 19, 1908. _

Dear Sir, -- . .. I was much pleased the other day to read, in a review ofMr. T. Rice Holmes's fine work on "Ancient Britain and the Invasions ofJulius Cæsar, " that the author has arrived by purely historical study atthe conclusion that we have not risen morally above our primitiveancestors. It is a curious and important coincidence. 

I myself got the germ of the idea many years ago, from a very acutethinker, Mr. Albert Mott, who gave some very original and thoughtfuladdresses as President of the Liverpool Philosophical Society, one ofwhich dealt with the question of savages being often, perhaps always, the descendants of more civilised races, and therefore affording noproof of progression. At that time (about 1860-70) I could not acceptthe view, but I have now come to think he was right. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. November 2, 1908. _

My dear Poulton, -- . .. You may perhaps have heard that I have beeninvited by the Royal Institution (through Sir W. Crookes) to give them alecture on the jubilee of the "Origin of Species" in January, After someconsideration I accepted, because I _think_ I can give a broad andgeneral view of Darwinism, that will finally squash up the Mutationistsand Mendelians, and be both generally intelligible and interesting. Sofar as I know this has never yet been done, and the Royal Institutionaudience is just the intelligent and non-specialist one I shall be gladto give it to if I can. 

I have been very poorly the last three weeks, but am now recovering myhealth and strength slowly. It will take me all my time the next twomonths to get this ready, and now I must write a letter in reply to theabsurd and gross misrepresentation of Prof. Hubrecht, as toimaginary differences between Darwin and myself, in the last_Contemporary_!--Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The next letter relates to Wallace's Friday evening Discourse at theRoyal Institution. His friends were afraid whether his voice could besustained throughout the hour--fears which were abundantly dispelled bythe actual performance. This was his last public lecture. 

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. December 20, 1908. _

My dear Meldola, --Thanks for your kind offer to read for me ifnecessary. But when Sir Wm. Crookes first wrote to me about it, heoffered to read all, or any parts of the lecture, if my voice did nothold out. I am very much afraid I cannot stand the strain of speakingbeyond my natural tone for an hour, or even for half that time--but Imay be able to do the opening and conclusion. .. . 

I am glad that you see, as I do, the utter futility of the claims of theMutationists. I may just mention them in the lecture, but I hope I haveput the subject in such a way that even "the meanest capacity" willsuffice to see the absurdity of their claims. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. January 26, 1909. _

My dear Poulton, --I had a delightful two hours at the Museum on Saturdaymorning, as Mr. Rothschild brought from Tring several of hisglass-bottomed drawers with his finest new New Guinea butterflies. They_were_ a treat! I never saw anything more lovely and interesting!. .. 

As to your very kind and pressing invitation, [36] I am sorry to beobliged to decline it. I cannot remain more than one day or night awayfrom home, without considerable discomfort, and all the attractions ofyour celebration are, to me, repulsions. .. . 

My lecture, even as it will be published in the _Fortnightly_, will befar too short for exposition of all the points I wish to discuss, and Ihope to occupy myself during this year in saying all I want to say in abook (of a wider scope) which is already arranged for. One of the greatpoints, which I just touched on in the lecture, is to show that all thatis usually considered the waste of Nature--the enormous number producedin proportion to the few that survive--was absolutely essential in orderto secure the variety and continuity of life through all the ages, andespecially of that one line of descent which culminated in man. That, Ithink, is a subject no one has yet dealt with. --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. March 1, 1909. _

Dear Poulton, -- . .. I am glad that Lankester has replied to the almostdisgraceful Centenary article in the _Times_. But it is an illustrationof the widespread mischief the Mutationists, etc. , are doing. I have nodoubt, however, it will all come right in the end, though the end may befar off, and in the meantime we must simply go on, and show, at everyopportunity, that Darwinism actually does explain the whole fields ofphenomena that they do not even attempt to deal with, or evenapproach. .. . --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. March 6, 1909. _

Dear Mrs. Fisher, -- . .. Another point I am becoming more and moreimpressed with is, a teleology of fundamental laws and forces renderingdevelopment of the infinity of life-forms possible (and certain) inplace of the old teleology applied to the production of each species. Such are the case of feathers reproduced annually, which I gave at endof lecture, and the still more marvellous fact of the caterpillar, oftenin two or three weeks of chrysalis life, having its whole internal, muscular, nervous, locomotive and alimentary organs decomposed andrecomposed into a totally different being--an absolute miracle if everthere is one, quite as wonderful as would be the production of a complexmarine organism out of a mass of protoplasm. Yet, because there hasbeen continuity, the difficulty is slurred over or thought to beexplained!--Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR W. T. THISELTON-DYER

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. June 22, 1909. _

Dear Sir William, --On Saturday, to my great pleasure, I received a copyof the Darwin Commemoration volume. I at once began reading your mostexcellent paper on the Geographical Distribution of Plants. It isintensely interesting to me, both because it so clearly brings outDarwin's views and so judiciously expounds his arguments--even when youintimate a difference of opinion--but especially because you bring outso clearly and strongly his views on the general permanence ofcontinents and oceans, which to-day, as much as ever, wants insistingupon. I may just mention here that none of the people who still insiston former continents where now are deep oceans have ever dealt with thealmost physical impossibility of such a change having occurred withoutbreaking the continuity of terrestrial life, owing to the mean depth ofthe ocean being at least six times the mean height of the land, and itsarea nearly three times, so that the whole mass of the land of theexisting continents would be required to build up even _one small_continent in the depths of the Atlantic or Pacific! I have demonstratedthis, with a diagram, in my "Darwinism" (Chap, XII. ), and it has neverbeen either refuted or noticed, but passed by as if it did not exist!Your whole discussion of Dispersal and Distribution is also admirable, and I was much interested with your quotations from Guppy, whose book Ihave not seen, but must read. 

Most valuable to me also are your numerous references to Darwin'sletters, so that the article serves as a compendious index to the fivevolumes, as regards this subject. 

Especially admirable is the way in which you have always kept Darwinbefore us as the centre of the whole discussion, while at the same timefairly stating the sometimes adverse views of those who differ from himon certain points. .. . --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

SIR W. T. THISELTON-DYER TO A. R. WALLACE

_The Ferns, Witcombe, Gloucester. June 25, 1909. _

Dear Dr. Wallace, --It is difficult for me to tell you how gratified I amby your extraordinarily kind letter. .. . The truth is that success waseasy. It has been my immense good fortune to know most of those whoplayed in the drama. The story simply wanted a straightforwardamanuensis to tell itself. But it is a real pleasure to me to know thatI have met with some measure of success. 

There are many essays in the book that you will not like any more than Ido. The secret of this lies in the fact, which you pointed out in yourmemorable speech at the Linnean Celebration, that no one but anaturalist can really understand Darwin. 

I did not go to Cambridge--I had my hands full here. I was not sorry forthe excuse. There seemed to me a note of insincerity about the wholebusiness. I am short-tempered. I cannot stand being told that the originof species has still to be discovered, and that specific differenceshave no "reality" (Bateson's Essay, p. 89). People are of course atliberty to hold such opinions, but decency might have presented anotheroccasion for ventilating them. --Yours sincerely, W. T. THISELTON-DYER. 

 * * * * *

SIR W. T. THISELTON-DYER TO A. R. WALLACE

_The Ferns, Witcombe, Gloucester. July 11, 1909. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, -- . .. I have just got F. Darwin's "Foundations. " Hetries to make out that his father could have dispensed with Malthus. Butthe selection death-rate in a slightly varying large population is _the_pith of the whole business. The Darwin-Wallace theory is, as you say, "the continuous adjustment of the organic to the inorganic world. " It iswhat mathematicians call "a moving equilibrium. " In fact, I have alwaysmaintained that it is a mathematical conception. 

It seemed to me there was a touch of insincerity about the wholecelebration, [37] as the younger Cambridge School as a whole do not evenbegin to understand the theory. .. . I take it that the reason is, as youpointed out, that none of them are naturalists. --Yours sincerely, W. T. THISELTON-DYER. 

 * * * * *

TO DR. ARCHDALL REID

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. December 28, 1909. _

Dear Dr. Archdall Reid, --Many thanks for your very interesting andcomplimentary letter. I am very glad to hear of your new book, which Idoubt not will be very interesting and instructive. The subjects youtreat are, however, so very complex, and require so much accurateknowledge of the facts, and so much sound reasoning upon them, that Icannot possibly undertake the labour and thought required before Ishould feel justified in expressing an opinion upon your treatment ofthem. .. . 

I rejoice to hear that you have exposed the fallacy of the claims of theMendelians. I have also tried to do so, but I find it quite impossiblefor me to follow their detailed studies and arguments. It wants amathematical mind, which I have not. 

But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to avery definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever tothe evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic tosuch evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it doesthe most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival andadaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by therarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever-varyingconditions. Moreover, when crossed they reproduce the same pair of typesin the same proportions as at first, and therefore without selection;they are antagonistic to evolution by continually reproducing injuriousor useless characters--which is the reason they are so rarely found innature, but are mostly artificial breeds or sports. My view is, therefore, that Mendelian characters are of the nature of abnormalitiesor monstrosities, and that the "Mendelian laws" serve the purpose ofeliminating them when, as usually, they are not useful, and thuspreventing them from interfering with the normal process of naturalselection and adaptation of the more plastic races. I am also glad tohear of your new argument for non-inheritance of acquiredcharacters. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR W. T. THISELTON-DYER

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne, February 8, 1911. _

Dear Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, --I thank you very much for taking so muchtrouble as you have done in writing your views of my new book. [38] I amglad to find that you agree with much of what I have said in the moreevolutionary part of it, and that you differ only on some of mysuggested interpretations of the facts. I have always felt thedisadvantage I have been under--more especially during the last twentyyears--in having not a single good biologist anywhere near me, with whomI could discuss matters of theory or obtain information as to matters offact. I am therefore the more pleased that you do not seem to have comeacross any serious misstatements in the botanical portions, as to whichI have had to trust entirely to second-hand information, often obtainedthrough a long and varied correspondence. 

As to your disagreement from me in the conclusions arrived at andstrenuously advocated in the latter portions of my work, I am notsurprised. I am afraid, now, that I have not expressed myselfsufficiently clearly as to the fundamental phenomena which seem to meabsolutely to necessitate a guiding mind and organising power. Hardlyone of my critics (I think absolutely not one) has noticed thedistinction I have tried and intended to draw between Evolution on theone hand, and the fundamental powers and properties of Life--growth, assimilation, reproduction, heredity, etc. --on the other. In Evolution Irecognise the action of Natural Selection as universal and capable ofexplaining all the facts of the continuous development of species fromspecies, "from amoeba to man. " But this, as Darwin, Weismann, Kerner, Lloyd-Morgan, and even Huxley have seen, has nothing whatever to do withthe basic mysteries of life--growth, etc. Etc. The chemists think theyhave done wonders when they have produced in their laboratories certainorganic substances--always by the use of other organic products--whichlife builds up within each organism, and from the few simple elementsavailable in air, earth, and water, innumerable structures--bone, horn, hair, skin, blood, muscle, etc. Etc. ; and these are not amorphous--merelumps of dead matter--but organised to serve certain definite purposesin each living organism. I have dwelt on this in my chapter on "TheMystery of the Cell. " Now I have been unable to find any attempt by anybiologist or physiologist to grapple with this problem. One and all, they shirk it, or simply state it to be insoluble. It is here that Istate guidance and organising power are essential. My littlephysiological parable or allegory (p. 296) I think sets forth thedifficulty fairly, though by no means adequately, yet not one of aboutfifty reviews I have read even mentions it. 

If you know of any writer of sufficient knowledge and mental power, whohas fully recognised and fairly grappled with this fundamental problem, I should be very glad to be referred to him. I have been able to find noapproach to it. Yet I am at once howled at, or sneered at, for pointingout the facts that such problems exist, that they are not in any waytouched by Evolution, but are far before it, and the forces, laws andagencies involved are those of existences possessed of powers, mentaland physical, far beyond those mere mechanical, physical, or chemicalforces we see at work in nature. .. . --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

SIR W. T. THISELTON-DYER TO A. R. WALLACE

_The Ferns, Witcombe, Gloucester. February 12, 1911. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, -- . .. You must let me correct you on one technicalpoint in your letter. It is no longer possible to say that chemistseffect the synthesis of organic products "by the use of other organicsubstances. " From what has been already effected, it cannot be doubtedthat eventually every organic substance will be built up from "the fewsimple elements available in air, earth and water. " I think you may takeit from me that this does not admit of dispute. .. . 

At any rate we are in agreement as to Natural Selection being capable ofexplaining evolution "from amoeba to man. "

It is generally admitted that that is a mechanical or scientificexplanation. That is to say, it invokes nothing but intelligible actionsand causes. 

De Vries, however, asserts that the Darwinian theory is _not_ scientificat all, and that is of course a position he has a right to take up. 

But if we admit that it is scientific, then we are precluded fromadmitting a "directive power. "

This was von Baer's position, also that of Kant and of Weismann. 

But von Baer remarks that the naturalist is not precluded from asking"whether the _totality_ of details leads him to a general and finalbasis of intentional design. " I have no objection to this, and offer itas an olive-branch which you can throw to your howling and sneeringcritics. 

As to "structures organised to serve certain definite purposes, " surelythey offer no more difficulty as regards "scientific" explanation thanthe apparatus by which an orchid is fertilised. 

We can work back to the amoeba to find ourselves face to face with ascarcely organised mass of protoplasm. And then we find ourselves faceto face with a problem which will, perhaps, for ever remain insolublescientifically. But as for that, so is the primeval material of which it(protoplasm) is composed. "Matter" itself is evaporating, for it isbeing resolved by physical research into something which is intangible. 

We cannot form the slightest idea how protoplasm came into existence. It is impossible to regard it as a mere substance. It is a mechanism. Although the chemist may hope to make eventually all the substanceswhich protoplasm fabricates, and will probably do so, he can only buildthem up by the most complicated processes. Protoplasm appears to be ableto manufacture them straight off in a way of which the chemist cannotform the slightest conception. This is one aspect of the mystery of_life_. Herbert Spencer's definition tells one nothing. 

Science can only explain nature as it reveals itself to the senses interms of consciousness. The explanation may be all wrong in the eyes ofomniscience. All one can say is that it is a practical working basis, and is good enough for mundane purposes. But if I am asked if I cansolve the riddle of the Universe I can only answer, No. Brunetière thenretorts that science is bankrupt. But this is equivocal. It only meansthat it cannot meet demands beyond its power to satisfy. 

I entirely sympathise with anyone who seeks an answer from some othernon-scientific source. But I keep scientific explanations and spiritualcraving wholly distinct. 

The whole point of evolution, as formulated by Lyell and Darwin, is toexplain phenomena by known causes. Now, directive power is not a knowncause. Determinism compels me to believe that every event is inevitable. If we admit a directive power, the order of nature becomes capriciousand unintelligible. Excuse my saying all this. But that is the dilemmaas it presents itself to _my_ mind. If it does not trouble other people, I can only say, so much the better for them. Briefly, I am afraid I mustsay that it is ultra-scientific. I think that would have been prettymuch Darwin's view. 

I do not think that it is quite fair to say that biologists shirk theproblem. In my opinion they are not called upon to face it. Bastian, Isuppose, believed that he had bridged the gulf between lifeless andliving matter. And here is a man, of whom I know nothing, who hasapparently got the whole thing cut and dried. --Yours sincerely, W. T. THISELTON-DYER. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. May 28, 1912. _

My dear Poulton, --Thanks for your paper on Darwin and Bergson. [39] Ihave read nothing of Bergson's, and although he evidently has much incommon with my own views, yet all vague ideas--like "an internaldevelopment force"--seem to me of no real value as an explanation ofNature. 

I claim to have shown the necessity of an ever-present Mind as theprimal cause both of all physical and biological evolution. This Mindworks by and through the primal forces of nature--by means of NaturalSelection in the world of life; and I do not think I could read a bookwhich rejects this method in favour of a vague "law of sympathy. " Hemight as well reject gravitation, electrical repulsion, etc. Etc. , asexplaining the motions of cosmical bodies. .. . --Yours very truly, ALFREDR. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. BEN R. MILLER

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset, January 18, 1913. _

Dear Sir, --Thanks for your kind congratulations, and for the smallpamphlet[40] you have sent me. I have read it with much interest, as thewriter was evidently a man of thought and talent. The first lecturecertainly gives an approach to Darwin's theory, perhaps nearer than anyother, as he almost implies the "survival of the fittest" as the causeof progressive modification. But his language is imaginative andobscure. He uses "education" apparently in the sense of what we shouldterm "effect of the environment. "

The second lecture is even a more exact anticipation of the modern viewsas to microbes, including their transmission by flies and other insectsand the probability that the blood of healthy persons contains asufficiency of destroyers of the pathogenic germs--such as the whiteblood-corpuscles--to preserve us in health. 

But he is so anti-clerical and anti-Biblical that it is no wonder hecould not get a hearing in Boston in 1847. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. April 2, 1913. _

My dear Poulton, --About two months ago an American . .. Sent me theenclosed booklet, [41] which he had been told was very rare, andcontained an anticipation of Darwinism. 

This it certainly does, but the writer was highly imaginative, and, likeall the other anticipators of Darwin, did not perceive the whole scopeof his idea, being, as he himself says, not sufficiently acquainted withthe facts of nature. 

His anticipations, however, of diverging lines of descent from a commonancestor, and of the transmission of disease germs by means of insects, are perfectly clear and very striking. 

As you yourself made known one of the anticipators of Darwin, whom hehimself had overlooked, you are the right person to make this known inany way you think proper. As you have so recently been in America, youmight perhaps ascertain from the librarian of the public library inBoston, or from some of your biological friends there, what is known ofthe writer and of his subsequent history. 

If the house at Down is ever dedicated to Darwin's memory it would seembest to preserve this little book there; if not you can dispose of it asyou think best. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --Two of my books have been translated into Japanese: will youascertain whether the Bodleian would like to have them?

 * * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON[42]

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset, June 3, 1913. _

My dear Poulton, --I am very glad you have changed your view about the"Sleeper" lectures being a "fake. " The writer was too earnest, and tooclear a thinker, to descend to any such trick. And for what? "Agnostic"is not in Shakespeare, but it may well have been used by someone beforeHuxley. The parts of your Address of which you send me slips areexcellent, and I am sure will be of great interest to your audience. Iquite agree with your proposal that the "Lectures" shall be given to theLinnean Society. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. E. SMEDLEY

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. August 26, 1913. _

Dear Mr. Smedley, --I am glad to see you looking so jolly. I return thephoto to give to some other friend. Mr. Marchant, the lecturer youheard, is a great friend of mine, but is now less dogmatic. ThePiltdown skull does not prove much, if anything!

The papers are wrong about me. I am not writing anything now; perhapsshall write no more. Too many letters and home business. Too muchbothered with many slight ailments, which altogether keep me busyattending to them. I am like Job, who said "the grasshopper was aburthen" to him! I suppose its creaking song. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. J. FARMER

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. 1913. _

Dear Sir, -- . .. I presume your question "Why?" as to the varying colourof individual hairs and feathers, and the regular varying of adjacenthairs, etc. , to form the surface pattern, applies to the ultimate causewhich enables those patterns to be hereditary, and, in the case ofbirds, to be reproduced after moulting yearly. 

The purpose, or end they serve, I have, I think, sufficiently dealt within my "Darwinism"; the method by which such useful tints and markingsare produced, because useful, is, I think, clearly explained by the lawof Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest, acting through theuniversal facts of heredity and variation. 

But the "why"--which goes further back, to the directing agency whichnot only brings each special cell of the highly complex structure of afeather into its exactly right position, but, further, carries pigmentsor produces surface striæ (in the case of the metallic or interferencecolours) also to their exactly right place, and nowhere else--is themystery, which, if we knew, we should (as Tennyson said of the flower inthe wall) "know what God and Man is. "

The idea that "cells" are all conscious beings and go to their rightplaces has been put forward by Butler in his wonderful book "Life andHabit, " and now even Haeckel seems to adopt it. All theories ofheredity, including Darwin's pangenesis, do not touch it, and it seemsto me as fundamental as life and consciousness, and to be absolutelyinconceivable by us till we know what life is, what spirit is, and whatmatter is; and it is probable that we must develop in the spirit worldsome few thousand million years before we get to this knowledge--ifthen!

My book, "Man's Place in the Universe, " shows, I think, indications ofthe vast importance of that Universe as the producer of Man which somany scientific men to-day try to belittle, because of what may be, inthe infinite!--Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

PART IV

Home Life

(By W. G. WALLACE and VIOLET WALLACE)

In our father's youth and prime he was 6 ft. 1 in. In height, withsquare though not very broad shoulders. At the time to which our firstclear recollections go back he had already acquired a slight stoop dueto long hours spent at his desk, and this became more pronounced withadvancing age; but he was always tall, spare and very active, and walkedwith a long easy swinging stride which he retained to the end of hislife. 

As a boy he does not appear to have been very athletic or muscularlystrong, and his shortsightedness probably prevented him from taking partin many of the pastimes of his schoolfellows. He was never a goodswimmer, and he used to say that his long legs pulled him down. He was, however, always a good walker and, until quite late in life, capable oftaking long country walks, of which he was very fond. 

He was very quick and active in his movements at times, and even when 90years of age would get up on a chair or sofa to reach a book from a highshelf, and move about his study with rapid strides to find some paper towhich he wished to refer. 

When out of doors he usually carried an umbrella, and in the garden astick, upon which he leaned rather heavily in his later years. His hairbecame white rather early in life, but it remained thick and fine to thelast, a fact which he attributed to always wearing soft hats. He hadfull beard and whiskers, which were also white. His eyes were blue andhis complexion rather pale. He habitually wore spectacles, and to us henever looked quite natural without them. Towards the end of his life hiseyes were subject to inflammation, and the glasses were blue. His hands, though large, were not clumsy, and were capable of very delicatemanipulation, as is shown by his skill in handling and preservinginsects and bird-skins, and also in sketching, where delicacy of touchwas essential. His handwriting is another example of this; it remainedclear and even to the end, in spite of the fact that he wrote all hisbooks, articles, and letters with his own hand until the last few years, when he occasionally had assistance with his correspondence; but hislast two books, "Social Environment" and "The Revolt of Democracy, "written when he was 90 years of age, were penned by himself, and theMSS. Are perfectly legible and regular. 

He was very domestic, and loved his home. His interest extended to theculinary art, and he was fond of telling us how certain things should becooked. This became quite a joke among us. He was very independent, andit never seemed to occur to him to ask to have anything done for him ifhe could do it himself--and he could do many things, such as sewing onbuttons and tapes and packing up parcels, with great neatness. Whenunpacking parcels he never cut the string if it could be untied, and hewould fold it up before removing the paper, which in its turn was alsoneatly folded. 

His clothes were always loose and easy-fitting, and generally of somequiet-coloured cloth or tweed. Out of doors he wore a soft black felthat rather taller than the clerical pattern, and a black overcoat unlessthe weather was very warm. He wore no ornaments of any kind, and eventhe silver watch-chain was worn so as to be invisible. He wore lowcollars with turned-down points and a narrow black tie, which was, however, concealed by his beard. He was not very particular about hispersonal appearance, except that he always kept his hair and beard wellbrushed and trimmed. 

[Illustration: MRS. A. R. WALLACE (about 1895)]

In our early days at Grays we children were allowed to run in and out ofhis study; but if he was busy writing at the moment we would look at abook until he could give us his attention. His brother in Californiasent him a live specimen of the lizard called the "horned toad, " andthis creature was kept in the study, where it was allowed to roam about, its favourite place being on the hearth. 

About this time he read "Alice through the Looking-glass, " which pleasedhim greatly; he was never tired of quoting from it and using some ofLewis Carroll's quaint words till it became one of our classics. 

Some of our earliest recollections are of the long and interesting walkswe took with our father and mother. He never failed to point outanything of interest and tell us what he knew about it, and would answerour numerous questions if possible, or put us off with some jokingreference to Boojums or Jabberwocks. We looked upon him as an infalliblesource of information, not only in our childhood, but to a large extentall his life. When exploring the country he scorned "trespass boards. "He read them "Trespassers will be persecuted, " and then ignored them, much to our childish trepidation. If he was met by indignant gamekeepersor owners, they were often too much awed by his dignified and commandingappearance to offer any objection to his going where he wished. He wasfond of calling our attention to insects and to other objects of naturalhistory, and giving us interesting lessons about them. He delighted innatural scenery, especially distant views, and our walks and excursionswere generally taken with some object, such as finding a bee-orchis ora rare plant, or exploring a new part of the country, or finding awaterfall. 

In 1876 we went to live at Dorking, but stayed there only a year or two. An instance of his love of mystifying us children may be given. It musthave been shortly after our arrival at Dorking that one day, having beenout to explore the neighbourhood, he returned about tea-time and said, "Where do you think I have been? To Glory!" Of course we were veryproperly excited, and plied him with questions, but we got nothing moreout of him then. Later on we were taken to see the wonderful placecalled "Glory Wood"; and it had surely gained in glory by suchpreparation. 

Sometimes it would happen that a scene or object would recall anincident in his tropical wanderings and he would tell us of the sightshe had seen. At the time he was greatly interested in botany, in whichhe was encouraged by our mother, who was an ardent lover of flowers; andto the end of his life he exhibited almost boyish delight when hediscovered a rare plant. Many walks and excursions were taken for thepurpose of seeing some uncommon plant growing in its natural habitat. When he had found the object of his search we were all called to see it. During his walks and holidays he made constant use of the one-inchOrdnance Maps, which he obtained for each district he visited, planningout our excursions on the map before starting. He had a gift for findingthe most beautiful walks by means of it. 

In 1878 we moved to Croydon, where we lived about four years. It was atthis time that he hoped to get the post of Superintendent of EppingForest. We still remember all the delights we children were promised ifwe went to live there. We had a day's excursion to see the Forest, hewith his map finding out the roads and stopping every now and then toadmire a fresh view or to explain what he would do if the opportunitywere given him. It was a very hot day, and we became so thirsty thatwhen we reached a stream, to our great joy and delight he took out ofhis pocket, not the old leather drinking-cup he usually carried, but along piece of black indiarubber tubing. We can see him now, quite aspleased as we were with this brilliant idea, letting it down into thestream and then offering us a drink! No water ever tasted so nice! Ourmother used to be a little anxious as to the quality of the water, buthe always put aside such objections by saying _running_ water was quitesafe, and somehow we never came to any harm through it. The same happyluck attended our cuts and scratches; he always put "stamp-paper" onthem, calling it plaster, and we knew of no other till years later. Heused the same thing for his own cuts, etc. , to the end of his life, withno ill effects. 

In 1881 we moved again, this time to Godalming, where he had built asmall house which be called "Nutwood Cottage. " After Croydon this was avery welcome change and we all enjoyed the lovely country round. Thegarden as usual was the chief hobby, and Mr. J. W. Sharpe, our old friendand neighbour in those days, has written his reminiscences of this timewhich give a very good picture of our father. They are as follows:

 * * * * *

About thirty-five years ago Dr. Wallace built a house upon a plot ofground adjoining that upon which our house stood. I was at that time anassistant master at Charterhouse School; and Dr. Wallace becameacquainted with a few of the masters besides myself. With two or threeof them he had regular weekly games of chess; for he was then and forlong afterwards very fond of that game; and, I understand, possessedconsiderable skill at it. A considerable portion of his spare time wasspent in his garden, in the management of which Mrs. Wallace, who hadmuch knowledge and experience of gardening, very cordially assisted him. Here his characteristic energy and restlessness were conspicuouslydisplayed. He was always designing some new feature, some alteration ina flower-bed, some special environment for a new plant; and always hewas confident that the new schemes would be found to have all theperfections which the old ones lacked. From all parts of the worldbotanists and collectors sent him, from time to time, rare or newlydiscovered plants, bulbs, roots or seeds, which he, with the help ofMrs. Wallace's practical skill, would try to acclimatise, and topersuade to grow somewhere or other in his garden or conservatory. Nothing disturbed his cheerful confidence in the future, and nothingmade him happier than some plan for reforming the house, the garden, thekitchen-boiler, or the universe. And, truth to say, he displayed greatingenuity in all these enterprises of reformation. Although they werenever in effect what they were expected to be by their ingenious author, they were often sufficiently successful; but, successful or not, he wasalways confident that the next would turn out to be all that he expectedof it. With the same confidence he made up his mind upon many adisputable subject; but, be it said, never without a laboriousexamination of the necessary data, and the acquisition of muchknowledge. In argument, of which intellectual exercise he was very fond, he was a formidable antagonist. His power of handling masses of detailsand facts, of showing their inner meanings and the principles underlyingthem, and of making them intelligible, was very great; and very few menof his time had it in equal measure. 

But the most striking feature in his conversation was his masterlyapplication of general principles: these he handled with extraordinaryskill. In any subject with which he was familiar, he would solve, orsuggest a plausible solution of, difficulty after difficulty byimmediate reference to fundamental principles. This would give to hisconclusions an appearance of inevitableness which usually overbore hisadversary, and, even if it did not convince him, left him without anyeffective reply. This, too, had a good deal to do, I am disposed toconjecture, with another very noticeable characteristic of his whichoften came out in conversation, and that was his apparently unfailingconfidence in the goodness of human nature. No man nor woman but he tookto be in the main honest and truthful, and no amount ofdisappointment--not even losses of money and property incurred throughthis faith in others' virtues--had the effect of altering this mentalhabit of his. 

His intellectual interests were very widely extended, and he onceconfessed to me that they were agreeably stimulated by novelty andopposition. An uphill fight in an unpopular cause, for preference athoroughly unpopular one, or any argument in favour of a generallydespised thesis, had charms for him that he could not resist. In hislater years, especially, the prospect of writing a new book, great orsmall, upon any one of his favourite subjects always acted upon him likea tonic, as much so as did the project of building a new house andlaying out a new garden. And in all this his sunny optimism and hisunfailing confidence in his own powers went far towards securing himsuccess. --J. W. S. 

 * * * * *

"Land Nationalisation" (1882), "Bad Times" (1885), and "Darwinism"(1889) were written at Godalming, also the series of lectures which hegave in America in 1886-7 and at various towns in the British Isles. Healso continued to have examination papers[43] to correct each year--anda very strenuous time that was. Our mother used to assist him in thiswork, and also with the indexes of his books. 

We now began to make nature collections, in which he took the keenestinterest, many holidays and excursions being arranged to further theseengrossing pursuits. One or two incidents occurred at "Nutwood" whichhave left clear impressions upon our minds. One day one of us broughthome a beetle, to the great horror of the servant. Passing at themoment, he picked it up, saying, "Why, it is quite a harmless littlecreature!" and to demonstrate its inoffensiveness he placed it on thetip of his nose, whereupon it immediately bit him and even drew blood, much to our amusment and his own astonishment. On another occasion hewas sitting with a book on the lawn under the oak tree when suddenly alarge creature alighted upon his shoulder. Looking round, he saw a finespecimen of the ring-tailed lemur, of whose existence in theneighbourhood he had no knowledge, though it belonged to some neighboursabout a quarter of a mile away. It seemed appropriate that the animalshould have selected for its attentions the one person in the districtwho would not be alarmed at the sudden appearance of a strange animalupon his shoulder. Needless to say, it was quite friendly. 

A year or so before we left Godalming he enlarged the house and alteredthe garden. But his health not having been very good, causing him a gooddeal of trouble with his eyes, and having more or less exhausted thepossibilities of the garden, he decided to leave Godalming and find anew house in a milder climate. So in 1889 he finally fixed upon a smallhouse at Parkstone in Dorset. 

Planning and constructing houses, gardens, walls, paths, rockeries, etc. , were great hobbies of his, and he often spent hours making scaledrawings of some new house or of alterations to an existing one, andscheming out the details of construction. At other times he would deviseschemes for new rockeries or waterworks, and he would always talk themover with us and tell us of some splendid new idea he had hit upon. AsMr. Sharpe has noted, he was always very optimistic, and if a scheme didnot come up to his expectations he was not discouraged but alwaysdeclared he could do it much better next time and overcome the defects. He was generally in better health and happier when some constructionalwork was in hand. He built three houses, "The Dell" at Grays, "NutwoodCottage" at Godalming, and the "Old Orchard" at Broadstone. The last heactually built himself, employing the men and buying all the materials, with the assistance of a young clerk of works; but though the enterprisewas a source of great pleasure, it was a constant worry. He alsodesigned and built a concrete garden wall, with which he was verypleased, though it cost considerably more than he anticipated. He hadnot been at Parkstone long before he set about the planning of"alterations" with his usual enthusiasm. We were both away from home atthis time, and consequently had many letters from him, of which one isgiven as a specimen. His various interests are nearly always referred toin these letters, and in not a few of them his high spirits showthemselves in bursts of exuberance which were very characteristicwhenever a new scheme was afoot. The springs of eternal youth were forever bubbling up afresh, so that to us he never grew old. One of usremembers how, when he must have been about 80, someone said, "What awonderful old man your father is!" This was quite a shock, for to us hewas not old. The letter referred to above is the following:

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Parkstone, Dorset, February 1, 1891. _

My dear Will, --Another week has passed away into eternity, another monthhas opened its eyes on the world, and still the illustrious Charles[bricklayer] potters about, still the carpenter plies the creaking sawand the stunning hammer, still the plumber plumbs and the bellhangerrattles, still the cisterns overflow and the unfinished drains sendforth odorous fumes, still the rains descend and all around the houseis a muddle of muck and mire, and still there is so much to do that welook forward to some far distant futurity, when all that we are nowsuffering will be over, and we may look back upon it as upon somestrange yet not altogether uninteresting nightmare!

Briefly to report progress. The new pipe-man has finished the bathroomand nearly done the bells, and we have had gas alight the last threedays. The balcony is finished, the bath and lavatory are closed up andwaiting for the varnishers. Charles has finished the roof, and thescaffolding is removed. But though two plumbers have tried all theirskill, the ball-cock in the cistern won't work, and when the water hasbeen turned on an hour it overflows. The gutters and pipes to roof arenot up, and the night before last a heavy flood of rain washed aquantity of muddy water into the back entrance, which flowed rightacross the kitchen into the back passage and larder, leaving a depositof alluvial mud that would have charmed a geologist. However, we havestopped that for the future by a drain under the doorstep. The newbreakfast-room is being papered and will look tidy soon. A man has beento measure for the stairs. The front porch door is promised forto-morrow, and the stairs, I suppose, in another week. A lot of freshpointing is to be done, and all the rain-water pipes and the rain-watercistern with its overflow pipes, and then the greenhouse, and then allthe outside painting--after which we shall rest for a month and then dothe inside papering; but whether that can be done before Easter seemsvery doubtful. .. . 

Our alterations still go on. The stairs just up--Friday night we had togo outside to get to bed, and Saturday and Sunday we _could_ get up, butover a chasm, and with alarming creaks. Now it is all firm, but nohandrail yet. Painters still at work, and whitewashers. Porchdoor up, with two birds in stained glass--looks fine--proposednew name, "Dicky-bird Lodge. " Bath fixed, but waiting to bevarnished--luxurious!. .. 

 * * * * *

Dr. Wallace had already received four medals from various scientificsocieties, and at our suggestion he had a case made to hold them all, which is referred to in the following letter. The two new medalsmentioned were those of the Royal Geographical and Linnean Societies. Heattached very little importance to honours conferred upon himself, except in so far as they showed acceptance of "the truth, " as he calledit. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS VIOLET WALLACE

_Parkstone, Dorset. April 3, 1892. _

My dear Violet, -- . .. I have got J. G. Wood's book on the horse. It isvery good; I think the best book he has written, as his heart wasevidently in it. .. . 

A dreadful thing has happened! Just as I have had my medal-case made, "regardless of expense, " they are going to give me another medal! Hadn'tI better decline it, with thanks? "No room for more medals"!!--Youraffectionate papa, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --A poor man came here last night (Saturday) with a basket ofprimrose roots--had carried them eight miles, couldn't sell one in Pooleor Parkstone--was 64 years old--couldn't get any work to do--had nohome, etc. So, though I do not approve of digging up primrose roots as atrade, I gave him 1s. 6d. For them, pitying him as one of the countlessvictims of landlordism. --A. R. W. 

A poor man was sentenced to fourteen days' hard labour last week forpicking snowdrops in Charborough Park. Shame!--A. R. W. , Pres. L. N. Society. 

 * * * * *

TO Miss VIOLET WALLACE

_Parkstone, Dorset. May 5, 1892. _

My dear Violet, --I have finished reading "Freeland. " It is very good--asgood a story as "Looking Backward, " but not quite so pleasantlywritten--rather heavy and Germanic in places. The results are much thesame as in "Looking Backward" but brought about in a different and veryingenious manner. It may be called "Individualistic Socialism. " I shallbe up in London soon, I expect, to the first Meetings of the Examinersin the great science of "omnium gatherum. "[44]--Your affec. Papa, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

While he lived at Parkstone our father built a small orchid house inwhich he cultivated a number of orchids for a few years, but theconstant attention which they demanded, together with the heatedatmosphere, were too much for him, and he was obliged to give them up. He was never tired of admiring their varied forms and colours, orexplaining to friends the wonderful apparatus by which many of them werefertilised. The following letter shows his enthusiasm for orchids:

TO Miss VIOLET WALLACE

_Parkstone, Dorset. November_ 25, 1894. 

My dear Violet, -- . .. I have found a doctor at Poole (Mr. Turner) whohas two nice orchid houses which he attends to entirely himself, and asI can thus get advice and sympathy from a fellow maniac (though he _is_a public vaccinator!) my love of orchids is again aroused to fever-heat, and I have made some alterations in the greenhouse which will betteradapt it for orchid growing, and have bought a few handsome kinds verycheap, and these give me a lot of extra work and amusement. .. . 

 * * * * *

TO HIS WIFE

_Hôtel du Glacier du Rhône. Wednesday evening, [July, 1895]. _

My dear Annie, --I send you now a box of plants I got on both sides ofthe Furka Pass yesterday, and about here to-day. The Furka Pass on bothsides is a perfect flower-garden, and the two sides have mostlydifferent species. The violets and anemones were lovely, and I have gottwo species of glorious gentians. .. . All the flowers in the box are verychoice species, and have been carefully dug up, and having seen how theygrow, I have been thinking of a plan of making a little bed for them onthe top of the new rockery where there is now nothing particular. Willyou please plant them out carefully in the zinc tray of peat andsphagnum that stands outside near the little greenhouse door? Just liftup the sphagnum and see if the earth beneath is moist, if not give it asoaking. Then put them all in, the short-rooted ones in the sphagnumonly, the others through into the peat. Then give them a good syringingand put the tray under the shelf outside the greenhouse, and cover withnewspaper for a day or two. After that I think they will do, keepingthem moist if the weather is dry. I am getting hosts of curiosities. To-day we found four or five species of willows from 1/4 in. To 2 in. High, and other rarities. .. . In haste for post and dinner. --Your everaffectionate

ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS VIOLET WALLACE

_Parkstone, Dorset. October 22, 1897. _

My dear Violet, --In your previous letter you asked me the conundrum, Whydoes a wagtail wag its tail? That's quite easy, on Darwinian principles. Many birds wag their tails. Some Eastern flycatchers--also black andwhite--wag their long tails up and down when they alight on the groundor on a branch. Other birds with long tails jerk them up in the air whenthey alight on a branch. Now these varied motions, like the motions ofmany butterflies, caterpillars, and many other animals, must have a useto the animal, and the most common, or rather the most probable, use is, either to frighten or to distract an enemy. If a hawk was very hungryand darted down on a wagtail from up in the air, the wagging tail wouldbe seen most distinctly and be aimed at, and thus the bird would bemissed or at most a feather torn out of the tail. The bird hunts forfood in the open, on the edges of ponds and streams, and would beespecially easy to capture, hence the wagging tail has been developed tobaffle the enemy. .. . 

 * * * * *

TO MISS VIOLET WALLACE

_Parkstone, Dorset. March 8, 1899. _

My dear Violet, -- . .. I have now finished reading the "Maha Bharata, "which is on the whole very fine--finer, I think, than the "Iliad. " Ihave read a good deal of it twice, and it will bear reading many times. It corresponds pretty nearly in date with the "Iliad, " the scenes itdescribes being supposed to be about B. C. 1500. Many of the ideas andmoral teachings are beautiful; equal to the best teaching and superiorto the general practice of to-day. I have made a lot of emendations andsuggestions, which I am going to send to the translator, as the proofshave evidently not been carefully read by any English literary man. 

About the year 1899 Dr. Wallace began to think of leaving Parkstone, partly for reasons of health and partly to get a larger garden, ifpossible. He spent three years in looking for a suitable spot in many ofthe southern counties, and we were all pressed to join in the search. Finally he found just the spot he wanted at Broadstone; only three milesaway. The following letters describe his final success--all writtenwith his usual optimism and high spirits:

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Parkstone, Dorset. October 26, 1901. _

My dear Will, --At length the long quest has come to an end, and I haveagreed to buy three acres of land at Broadstone. Ma and I have just beenover again this morning to consider its capabilities, and the exactboundaries that will be the most advantageous, as I have here the greatadvantage of choosing exactly what I will have. I only wish I couldafford five acres instead of three, or even ten; but the three willcontain the very eye of the whole. I enclose you a bit of the 6-inchordnance on which I have marked the piece I have finally fixed upon inred chalk. The attractive bit is the small enclosure of one acre, leftrather paler, which is an old orchard in a little valley slopingdownward to the S. S. E. There are, perhaps, a score of trees init--apples, pears, plums and cherries, I believe, and under them abeautiful green short turf like a lawn--kept so, I believe, by rabbits. From the top of this orchard is a fine view over moor and heather, thenover the great northern bay of Poole Harbour, and beyond to the PurbeckHills and out to the sea and the Old Harry headland. It is not veryhigh--about 140 feet, I think, but being on the edge of one of theplateaus the view is very effective. On the top to the left of the roadtrack is a slightly undulating grass field, of which I have a littleless than an acre. To the right of the fence, and coming down to thewood, is very rough ground densely covered with heather and dwarf gorse, a great contrast to the field. The wood on the right is mixed butchiefly oak, I think, with some large firs, one quite grand; while thewood on the left is quite different, having some very tall Spanishchestnuts loaded with fruit, some beeches, some firs--but I have nothad time yet to investigate thoroughly. Thus this little bit of threeacres has five subdivisions, each with a quite distinct character of itsown, and I never remember seeing such variety in such a small area. Thered wavy line is about where I shall have to make my road, for the placehas now no road, and I think I am very lucky in discovering it and ingetting it. Another advantage is in the land, which is varied to suitall crops. I fancy . .. I shall find places to grow most of my choiceshrubs, etc. , better than here. I expect bulbs of all kinds will growwell, and I mean to plant a thousand or so of snowdrops, crocuses, squills, daffodils, etc. , in the orchard, where they will look lovely. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Parkstone, Dorset. November 6, 1901. _

My dear Will, -- . .. I have taken advantage of a foggy cold day to traceyou a copy of the ground plan of the proposed house. .. . Of course thehouse will be much larger than we want, but I look to future value, andrather than build it smaller, to be enlarged afterwards, I would preferto leave the drawing-room and bedroom adjoining with bare walls insidetill they can be properly finished. The house-keeper's room would be anice dining-room, and the hall a parlour and drawing-room combined. Butthe outside must be finished, on account of the garden, creepers, etc. The S. E. Side (really about S. S. E. ) has the fine views. If you canarrange to come at Christmas we will have a picnic on the ground thefirst sunny day. I was all last week surveying--a very difficult job, tomark out exactly three acres so as to take in exactly as much of eachkind of ground as I wanted, and with no uninterrupted view over any oneof the boundary lines! I found the sextant, and it was very usefulsetting out the two right angles of the northern boundary. I have notgot possession yet, but hope to do so by next week. The house, wereckon, can be built for £1, 000 at the outside. .. . 

 * * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER

_Parkstone, Dorset. February 4, 1902. _

Dear Mrs. Fisher, -- . .. You will be surprised to hear that I have beenso rash as to buy land and to (propose to) build a house! Every othereffort to get a pleasant country cottage with a little land havingfailed, we discovered, accidentally, a charming spot only four milesfrom this house and half a mile from Broadstone Station, and havesucceeded in buying three acres, _chosen by myself_, from Lord Wimborneat what is really a reasonable price. In its contour, views, wood, andgeneral aspect of wild nature it is almost perfection; and Annie, Violet, and Will are all pleased and satisfied with it. It is on theslope of the Broadstone middle plateau, looking south over Poole Harbourwith the Purbeck Hills beyond, and a little eastward out to the sea. .. . The ground is good loam in the orchard, with some sand and clay in thefield, but this is so open to the sun and air that we are not afraid ofit, as the _house-site_ will be entirely concreted over, and I havearranged for a heating stove in a cellar, which will warm and dry thewhole basement. In a week or two we hope to begin building, so you mayfancy how busy I am, especially as we are building it without acontractor, with the help of a friend. .. . I go over two or three times aweek, as I have two gardeners at work. In the summer (should I be stillin the land of the living) I hope you will be able to come and see ourlittle estate, which is to be called by the descriptive name of "OldOrchard. " I have got a good architect to make the working drawings andhe has designed a very picturesque yet unpretentious house. --Yours verytruly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Parkstone, Dorset. March 2, 1902. _

My dear Will, --This week's progress has been fairly good although thewet after the frost has caused two falls in the cellar excavations, andwe have had to put drain pipes to carry water out, though not muchaccumulated. .. . During the week some horses in the field have not onlyeaten off the tops of the privet hedge, but have torn up some dozens ofthe plants by the roots, by putting their heads over the 4-foot wirefence. I am therefore obliged in self-defence to raise the post a foothigher and put barbed wire along the top of it. Some cows also got inour ground one day and ate off the tops of the newly planted laurels, which I am told they are very fond of, so I have got a chain and padlockfor our gate. .. . 

 * * * * *

We moved into the new house at Broadstone at the end of November, 1902, before it was quite finished, and here Dr. Wallace lived till the end ofhis life. The garden was an endless source of interest and occupation, being much larger than any he had had since leaving Grays. 

When writing he was not easily disturbed and never showed any impatienceor annoyance at any interruption. If interrupted by a question he wouldpause, pen in hand, and reply or discuss the matter and then resume hisunfinished sentence. 

[Illustration: THE STUDY AT "OLD ORCHARD"]

He seemed to have the substance of his writing in his mind before hecommenced, and did not often refer to books or to notes, though heusually had one or two books or papers on the table at hand, andsometimes he would jump up to get a book from the shelves to verify somefact or figure. When preparing for a new book or article he read a greatmany works and papers bearing on the subject. These were marked withnotes and references on the flyleaves; and often by pencil marks toindicate important passages, but he did not often make separate notes. He had a wonderful memory, and stored in his mind the facts andarguments he wished to use, or the places where they were to be found. He borrowed many books from libraries, and from these he sometimes madea few notes. He was not a sound sleeper, and frequently lay awake duringthe night, and then it was that he thought out and planned his work. Heoften told us with keen delight of some new idea or fresh argument whichhad occurred to him during these waking hours. 

After spending months, or sometimes years, in reading and digesting allthe literary matter he could obtain on a subject, --and forming a planfor the treatment of it, he would commence writing, and keep on steadilyfor five or six hours a day if his health permitted. He also wrote topeople all over the world to obtain the latest facts bearing on thesubject. 

In 1903 he began writing "Man's Place in the Universe. "

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Old Orchard. July 8, 1903. _

My dear Will, --I have just finished going over your notes andcorrections of the last four chapters. I can't think how I was so stupidto make the mistake in figures which you corrected. In almost all casesI have made some modification in accordance with your suggestions, andthe book will be much improved thereby. I have put in a new paragraphabout the stars in other parts than the Milky Way and Solar Cluster, butthere is really nothing known about them. I have also cut out the firstreference to Jupiter altogether. Of course a great deal is speculative, but any reply to it is equally speculative. The question is, whichspeculation is most in accordance with the known facts, and not withprepossessions only?

Considering that the book has all been read up and written in less thanthree months, it cannot be expected to be as complete and careful as ifthree years had been expended on it, but then it is fresher perhaps. Thebit about the pure air came to me while writing, and I let myself go. Why should I not try and do a little good and make people think a littleon such matters, when I have the chance of perhaps more readers than allmy other books?

As to my making too much of Man, of course that is the whole subject ofthe book! And I look at it differently from you, because I know _facts_about him you neither know nor believe _yet_. If you are once convincedof the facts and teachings of Spiritualism, you will think more as I do. 

 * * * * *

The following letter refers to his little book on Mars. 

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Broadstone, Wimborne. September 26, 1907. _

My dear Will, -- . .. After elaborate revision and correction I have sentmy MS. Of the little "Mars" book to Macmillans yesterday. .. . Will youread the whole proofs carefully, in the character of the "intelligentreader"? Your fresh eye will detect little slips, bad logic, toopositive statements, etc. , which I may have overlooked. It will only beabout 100 or 150 pages large type--and I want it to be really good, andfree from blunders that any fool can see. .. . 

 * * * * *

For some years now he had suffered from repeated attacks of asthma andbronchitis. He had tried the usual remedies for these complaints withoutany good results, and, though still able to write, had then no thoughtof beginning any large work; in fact, he considered he had but a fewmore years to live. When Mr. Bruce-Joy came to see him in order to modelthe portrait medallion, he mentioned in the course of conversation thathe had tried the Salisbury treatment with wonderful results. Our fatherwas at first incredulous, but decided to try it in a modified form. Hegave up all starchy foods and ate beef only, cooked in a special mannerto render it more digestible. He found such relief from this change ofdiet that from this time onwards he followed a very strict dailyroutine, which he continued to the end of his life with slightvariations. 

He made himself a cup of tea on a gas stove in his bedroom at 6 a. M. (the exact quantity of tea and water having been measured the previousevening), and boiled it in a small double saucepan for a definite timeby the watch. He always said this cup of tea tasted better than at anyother time of the day. He then returned to bed and slept till 8 a. M. During his last two or three years he suffered from rheumatism in hisshoulder and it took him a long time to dress, and he called in the aidof his gardener in the last year, who acted as his valet. While dressinghe prepared a cup of cocoa on the gas stove, which he carried into thestudy (next door) at 9 a. M. This was all he had for breakfast, and hetook it while reading the paper or his letters. 

Dinner at one o'clock was taken with his family, and he usually relatedany interesting or striking news he had read in the paper, or in hiscorrespondence, and commented upon it, or perhaps he would tell us ofsome new flower in the garden. 

He drank hot water with a little Canary sack and a dash of soda-water, to which he added a spoonful of plum jam. He was very fond of sweetthings, such as puddings, but he had to partake sparingly of them, andit was a great temptation when some dish of which he was particularlyfond was placed upon the table. 

After dinner he usually took a nap in the study before resuming work orgoing into the garden. 

Tea was at four o'clock, and consisted only of a cup of tea, which hemade himself in the study, unless there were visitors whom he wished tosee, when he would sometimes take it into the drawing-room and make itthere. 

After tea he again wrote, or took a turn in the garden if the weatherand season permitted. Latterly he spent a good part of the afternoon andevening reading and dozing on the sofa, and only worked at shortintervals when he felt equal to it. 

Supper, at seven, was a repetition of dinner, and he took it with us inthe dining-room. After supper he generally read a novel before the fireexcept in the very hottest weather, and he frequently dozed on and offtill he retired at eleven. He made himself a cup of cocoa whilepreparing for bed, and drank it just before lying down. 

For the last year or two it was a constant difficulty with him to secureenough nourishment without aggravating his ailments by indigestion. During this time he suffered continuous discomfort, though he seldomgave utterance to complaint or allowed it to affect the uniformequability of his temper. 

 * * * * *

In 1903 his daughter came to live with her parents, who generouslyallowed her to take three or four children as pupils. At first we fearedthey might bother our father, but he really enjoyed seeing them aboutand talking to them. He was always interested in any new child, and iffor a short time none were forthcoming, always lamented the fact. Atdinner the children would ask him all sorts of questions, very amusingones sometimes. They were also intensely interested in what he ate, andwatched with speechless wonder when they saw him eating orange, banana, and sugar with his meat. 

One of these early pupils, Reginald B. Rathbone, has sent reminiscenceswhich are so characteristic that we give them as they stand:

 * * * * *

"I have stayed at Dr. Wallace's house on three occasions; the first twowere when I was only about eight or nine years old, and my recollectionsof him at that time are therefore necessarily somewhat dim. Certainthings, however, have stuck in my memory. I went there quite prepared tosee a very venerable and imposing-looking old gentleman, and filled inadvance with much awe and respect for him. As regards his personalappearance I was by no mean disappointed, as his tall, slightly-stoopingfigure, long white hair and beard, and his spectacles fulfilled myhighest expectations, I remember being struck with the kindly look ofhis eyes, and indeed they did not belie his nature, for he alwaystreated me with great kindness, patience and indulgence, which issomewhat remarkable considering my age, and how exasperating I must havebeen sometimes. I soon began to regard him as a never-failing fount ofwisdom, and as one who could answer any question one liked to put tohim. Of this latter fact I was not slow to take advantage. I plied himwith every kind of question my imaginative young brain could conceive, usually beginning with 'why. '

"He nearly always gave me an answer, and what is more, a satisfactoryone, and well within the scope of my limited understanding. Thesedefinite, satisfactory answers of his used to afford me great pleasure, it being quite a new experience for me to have all my questions answeredfor me in this way. These answers, as I have said, were nearly alwaysforthcoming, though indeed, on one or two occasions, in answer to anespecially ridiculous query of mine he would answer, 'That is a veryfoolish question, Reggie. ' But this was very rare. 

"I remember taking a great interest in what Dr. Wallace ate. He had ahearty appetite, and was no believer in vegetarianism, for at lunch hisdiet consisted chiefly of cold beef, liberally seasoned with varioussauces and relishes, also vinegar. I used to gaze at these bottles withgreat admiration. Whenever there were peas he used to take largequantities of sugar with them. This greatly aroused my curiosity, and Iquestioned him about it. 'Why, ' said he, 'peas themselves contain sugar;it is, therefore, much more sensible to take sugar with them than salt. 'And he recounted an anecdote of how an eminent personage he had oncedined with had been waited on with great respect and attention by allpresent, but salt was offered to him with the peas. 'If you want to makeme quite happy, ' said the great man, 'you will give me some sugar withmy peas. ' His favourite drink, I remember, was Canary sack. 

"He had a strongly humorous side, and always enjoyed a good laugh. Asan instance of this, I will recount the following incident: When I hadreturned home after my first visit to 'The Old Orchard, ' my sister, three years older than myself, and I had a heated argument on thesubject of the number of stomachs in a cow. I insisted it was three;she, on the other hand, held that it was seven. After a long and fiercedispute, I exclaimed: 'Well, let us write to Dr. Wallace, and he willsettle it for us and tell us the real number. ' This we did, the brazenaudacity of the proceeding not striking us at the time. By return ofpost we received a letter which, alas! I have unfortunately notpreserved, but the substance of which I well remember. 'Dear Irene andReggie, ' it ran, 'Your dispute as to the number of stomachs which a cowpossesses can be settled and rectified by a simple mathematical processusually called subtraction, thus:

 Irene's Cow 7 stomachs Reggie's Cow 3 stomachs ---------- The Farmer's cow 4 stomachs. 

"Dr. Wallace then went on to explain the names and uses of the fourstomachs. 

"Two instances of his fun come to my mind as I write. 'Why, ' I asked, 'do you sometimes take off your spectacles to read the paper?' 'BecauseI can see better without 'em, ' he said. 'Then why, ' I asked again, 'doyou ever wear them?' 'Because I can see better with 'em, ' was the reply. The other instance relates to chloroform. He was describing the agoniessuffered by those who had to undergo amputation before the discovery ofanæsthetics, whereas nowadays, he said, 'you are put under chloroform, then wake up and find your arm cut off, having felt nothing. Or you wakeup and find your leg cut off. Or you wake up and find your head cutoff!' He then laughed heartily at his own joke. 

"These are just a few miscellaneous reminiscences, many of them no doubttrivial, but they may perhaps be not entirely devoid of interest, whenit is remembered that they are the impressions and recollections of onewho was then a boy of eight years old. "--B. B. K. 

 * * * * *

The year 1908 was very auspicious to Dr. Wallace. To begin with, it wasthe fiftieth anniversary of the reading of the Darwin and Wallace jointpapers on the Origin of Species before the Linnean Society, an eventwhich was commemorated in the way described elsewhere. 

In the autumn, and just as he was beginning to recover from a spell ofbad health, he was invited to give a lecture at the Royal Institution, the prospect of which seemed to have upon him a most stimulating effect;he at once began to think about a suitable subject. 

Following closely on this came the news that the Order of Merit was tobe conferred upon him. His letters to his son give the details of thiseventful period:[45]

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. October_ 28, 1908. 

My dear Will, -- . .. I have a rather surprising bit of news for you. WhenI was almost at my worst, feeling very bad, I had a letter inviting meto give an evening lecture at the Royal Institution, for their Jubileeof the "Origin of Species"! Of course I decided at once to decline asimpossible, etc. , having nothing new to say, etc. But a few hoursafterwards an idea suddenly came to me for a very fine lecture, if I canwork it out as I hope--and the more I thought over it the better itseemed. So, two days back, I wrote to Sir W. Crookes--the HonorarySecretary, who had written to me--accepting provisionally!. .. Here isanother "crowning honour"--the most unexpected of all!. .. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. December 2, 1908. _

My dear Will, -- . .. This morning the Copley Medals came, gold andsilver, smaller than any of the others, but very beautifully designed;the face has the Royal Society's arms, with Copley's name, and"Dignissimo, " and my name below. The reverse is the Royal Arms. By thesame post came a letter from the Lord Chancellor's Office informing me, to my great relief, that the King had been graciously pleased todispense with my personal attendance at the investiture of the Order ofMerit, . .. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. December 17, 1908. _

My dear Will, --The ceremony is over, very comfortably. I am duly"invested, " and have got two engrossed documents, both signed by theKing, one appointing me a member of the "Order of Merit" with all sortsof official and legal phrases, the other a dispensation from beingpersonally "invested" by the King--as Col. Legge explained, to safeguardme as having a right to the Order in case anybody says I was not"invested. " . .. Colonel Legge was a very pleasant, jolly kind of man, and he told us he was in attendance on the German Emperor when he wasstaying near Christchurch last summer, and went for many drives with theEmperor only, all about the country. .. . Col. Legge got here at 2. 40, andhad to leave at 3. 20 (at station), so we got a carriage from Wimborne tomeet the train and take him back, and Ma gave him some tea, and he saidhe had got a nice little place at Stoke Poges but with no view likeours, and he showed me how to wear the Order and was very pleasant: andwe were all pleased. .. . 

The next letter refers to the discovery of a rare moth and some beetlesin the root of an orchid. It was certainly a strange yet pleasantcoincidence that these creatures should find themselves in Dr. Wallace'sgreenhouse, where alone they would be noticed and appreciated assomething uncommon. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. February 23, 1909. _

My dear Will, -- . .. In my last letter I did not say anything about mymorning at the Nat. Hist. Museum. .. . What I enjoyed most was seeing somesplendid New Guinea butterflies which Mr. Rothschild[46] and hiscurator, Mr. Jordan, brought up from Tring on purpose to show me. Icould hardly have imagined anything so splendid as some of these. I alsosaw some of the new paradise birds in the British Museum. But Mr. Rothschild says they have five times as many at Tring, and much finerspecimens, and he invited me to spend a week-end at Tring and see theMuseum. So I may go, perhaps--in the summer. 

But I have a curious thing to tell you about insect collecting at "OldOrchard. " About five months back I was examining one of the clumps of anorchid in the glass case--which had been sent me from Buenos Ayres byMr. John Hall--when three pretty little beetles dropped out of it, onthe edge of the tank, and I only managed to catch two of them. They werepretty little Longicornes, about an inch long, but very slender andgraceful, though only of a yellowish-brown colour. I sent them up to theBritish Museum asking the name, and telling them they could keep them ifof any use. They told me they were a species of the large South Americangenus Ibidion, but they had not got it in the collection!

On the Sunday before Christmas Day I was taking my evening inspectionof the orchids, etc. , in the glass case when a largish insect flew by myface, and when it settled it looked like a handsome moth or butterfly. It was brilliant orange on the lower wings, the upper being shadedorange brown, very moth-like, but the antennæ were clubbed like abutterfly's. At first I thought it was a butterfly that mimicked a moth, but I had never seen anything like it before. 

Next morning I got a glass jar half filled with bruised laurel leaves, and Ma got it in, and after a day or two I set it, clumsily, and meantto take it to London, but had no small box to put it in. I told Mr. Rothschild about it, and he said it sounded like a Castnia--curiousSouth American moths very near to butterflies. So he got out the drawerwith them, but mine was not there; then he got another drawerhalf-empty, and there it was--only a coloured drawing, but exactly like. It had been described, but neither the Museum nor Mr. Rothschild had gotit! I had had the orchids nearly a year and a half, so it must havebeen, in the chrysalis all that time and longer, which Mr. Rothschildsaid was the case with the Castnias. On going home I searched, and foundthe brown chrysalis-case it had come out of among the roots of the sameorchid the little Longicornes had dropped from. It is, I am pretty sure, a Brazilian species, and I have written to ask Mr. Hall if he knowswhere it came from. I have sent the moth and chrysalis to Prof. Poulton(I had promised it to him at the lecture) for the Oxford collection, andhe is greatly pleased with it; and especially with its history--onequite small bit of an orchid, after more than a year in a greenhouse, producing a rare or new beetle and an equally rare moth!. .. 

I am glad to say I feel really better than any time the last tenyears. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

The Rev. O. Pickard-Cambridge has kindly written his reminiscence ofanother very curious coincidence connected with a natural historyobject. 

"Some years ago, on looking over some insect drawers in my collection, Mr. A. R. Wallace exclaimed, 'Why, there is my old Sarawak spider!''Well! that is curious, ' I replied, 'because that spider has caused memuch trouble and thought as to who might have caught it, and where; Ihad only lately decided to describe and figure it, even though I couldgive the name of neither locality nor finder, being, as it seemed to me, of a genus and species not as yet recorded; also I had, as you see, provisionally conferred your name upon it, although I had not theremotest idea that it had anything else to do with you. ' 'Well, ' saidMr. Wallace, 'if it is my old spider it ought to have my own privateticket on the pin underneath. ' 'It has a ticket, ' I replied, 'but it isunintelligible to me; the spider came to me among some other items bypurchase at the sale of Mr. Wilson Saunders' collections. ' 'If it ismine, ' said Wallace (examining it), 'the ticket should be so-and-so. Andit is! I caught this spider at Sarawak, and specially noted itsremarkable form. I remember it as if it were yesterday, and now I findit here, and you about to publish it as a new genus and species towhich, in total ignorance of whence it came or who caught it, you havegiven my name!' Thus it stands, and '_Friula Wallacii_, Camb. (familyGasteracanthidæ), taken by Alfred Russel Wallace at Sarawak, ' is the(unique as I believe) type specimen, in my collection. "--O. P. C. 

 * * * * *

Dr. Wallace was very fond of reading good novels, and usually spent anhour or two, before retiring to bed, with what he called a "gooddomestic story. " One of his favourite authors was Marion Crawford. Poetry appealed to him very strongly, and he had a good memory for hisfavourite verses, especially for those he had learned in his youth. Amongst his books were over fifty volumes of poetry. 

He liked to see friends or interesting visitors, but he was rathernervous with strangers until he became interested in what they had tosay. He enjoyed witty conversation, and especially a good story welltold. No one laughed more heartily than he when he was much amused, andhe would slap his hands upon his knees with delight. 

He was very accessible to anyone who might have something to say worthhearing, and he had a great many visitors, especially during the lastten years of his life. Many people distinguished in science, literature, or politics called upon him, and he always enjoyed these visits, and theexcitement of them seemed to have no bad effect upon him, even in thelast year, when we sometimes feared he might be fatigued by them. Inconsequence of his sympathy with many heterodox ideas he frequently hadvisits from "cranks" who wished to secure his support for some newtheory or "discovery. " He would listen patiently, perhaps ask a fewquestions, and then endeavour to point out their fallacies. He wouldamuse us afterwards by describing their "preposterous ideas, " and ifmuch bored, he would speak of them as "muffs. " He was loath to hurttheir feelings, but he generally ended by expressing his opinion quiteclearly, occasionally to their discomfiture. 

 * * * * *

Dr. Littledale has contributed some reminiscences which may beintroduced here. 

"When I first met Dr. Wallace the conversation turned on the types ofvisitors that came to see him, and he gave us an amusing account of twoyoung women who called on him to read through a most ponderous treatiserelating to the Universe (I think it was). At all events the treatiseproved, amongst other things, that Kepler's laws were all wrong. Dr. Wallace was very busy at the time, and politely declined to undertakethe task. I remember him well describing with his hands the size of thisenormous manuscript and laughing heartily as he detailed how the writerof the manuscript, the elder of the two sisters, persistently tried topersuade him that her theories were all absolutely proved in the work, while the younger sister acted as a sort of echo to her sister. Theclimax came in a fit of weeping, and, as Dr. Wallace described it, thewhole fabric of the universe was washed away in a flood of tears. 

"On one occasion, when I was asked by Mrs. Wallace to see Dr. Wallaceprofessionally, he was lying on the sofa in his study by the firewrapped up in rugs, having just got over a bad shivering attack orrigor. His temperature was 104° Fahr. , and all the other usual signs ofacute fever were present, but nothing to enable one to form a positiveopinion as to the cause. It must have been forty years since he had beenin the tropics, but I think he felt that it was an attack of malarialfever. Knowing my patient, my treatment consisted in asking what he wasgoing to do for himself. 'Well, ' he said, 'I am going to have a hot bathand then go to bed, and to-morrow I shall get up and go into the gardenas usual. ' And he was out in the garden next day when I went to see him. This was an instance, doubtless one of many, of the 'will to live, 'which carried him through a long life. 

"Once, when he was talking about the gaps in the evolution of life, viz. Between the inorganic and organic, between vegetable and animal, andbetween animal and man, I asked, 'Why postulate a beginning at all? Weare satisfied with illimitability at one end, why not at the other?''For the simple reason, ' he said, 'that the mind cannot comprehendanything that has never had a beginning. '

"What attracted me to him most, I think, was his remarkable simplicityof language, whatever the topic of conversation might be, and this notthe simplicity of the great mind bringing itself down to the level ofthe ordinary individual, but his customary mode of expression. I haveheard him say that he felt the need of the fluency of speech whichHuxley possessed, as he had to cast about for the expression that hewanted. This may have been the case when he was lecturing, but Icertainly never noticed it in conversation. "--H. E. L. 

 * * * * *

Dr. Wallace was always interested in young men and others who were goingabroad with the intention of studying Natural History, and gave themwhat advice and help he could. He much enjoyed listening to theaccounts given by travellers of the scenes, animals and plants andnative life they had seen, and deplored the so-called civilising of thenatives, which, in his opinion, generally meant their exploitation byEuropeans, leading to their deterioration and extermination. 

His nervousness with strangers sometimes led them to form quiteerroneous impressions. It occasionally found expression in a nervouslaugh which had nothing to do with amusement or humour, but was oftenheard when he was most serious and felt most deeply. One or twointerviewers described it as a "chuckle, " an expression which suggestedfeelings most opposite to those which he really experienced. 

Although he could draw and sketch well, he did not take much pleasure init, and only exercised his skill when there was a definite object inview. His sketches show a very delicate touch, and denote painstakingaccuracy, while some are quite artistic. He much preferred drawing withcompasses and squares, there being a practical object in his mind forwhich the plans or drawings were only the first steps. Even in hisninety-first year he found much enjoyment in drawing plans, and spentmany hours in designing alterations to a small cottage which hisdaughter had bought. 

He was interested in literary puzzles and humorous stories, and hepreserved in an old scrap-book any that appealed to him. He wouldsometimes read some of them on festive occasions, or when we hadchildren's parties, and sometimes he laughed so heartily himself that hecould not go on reading. 

In reviewing the years during which Dr. Wallace lived at Broadstone, thelast decade, when he was between eighty and ninety years of age, thisperiod seems to have been one of the most eventful, and as full of workand mental activity as any previous period. He never tired of hisgarden, in which he succeeded in growing a number of rare and curiousshrubs and plants. Our mother shared his delight and interest in thegarden, and knew a great deal about flowers. She had an excellent memoryfor their botanical names, and he often asked her the name of someplant which he was pointing out to a friend and which for the moment hehad forgotten. She was very fond of roses and of primroses, and therewas a fine display of these flowers at "Old Orchard. " She was successfulin "budding" and in hybridising roses, and produced several beautifulvarieties. She was proficient in raising seeds, and he sometimes placedsome which he received from abroad in her charge. 

When he first came to live at Broadstone he frequently took short walksto the post or to the bank, and sometimes went by train to Poole onbusiness, but he gradually went out less and less, till in the last fewyears he seldom went outside the garden, but strolled about looking atthe flowers or supervising the construction of a new bed or rockery. During his last years his gardener wheeled him about the garden in abath-chair when he did not feel strong enough to walk all the time. 

In 1913, after his last two small books were written, he did no morewriting except correspondence. This he attended to himself, except onone or two occasions when he was not very well or felt tired, when heasked one of us to answer a few letters for him. He took great interestin a small cottage which had recently been acquired on the Purbeck Hillsnear the sea, and in September, much against our wishes, he went therefor two nights, taking the gardener to look after him. Luckily theweather was fine, and the change and excitement seemed to do him good, and during the next month he was very bright and cheerful, though, assome of his letters to his old friend Dr. Richard Norris and to Dr. Littledale show, he had been becoming increasingly weak. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS NORRIS

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. December 10, 1912. _

My dear Miss Norris, --I am very sorry to hear that your father is sopoorly. The weather is terribly gloomy, and I have not been outside myrooms and greenhouse for more than an hour a week perhaps, for the lasttwo months, and feel the better for it. Just now I feel better than Ihave done for a year past, having at last, I think, hit upon a properdiet, though I find it very difficult to avoid eating or drinking toomuch of what I like best. .. . It is one of my fads that I hate to wasteanything, and it is that partly which makes it so difficult for me toavoid overeating. From a boy I was taught to leave no scraps on myplate, and from this excellent general rule of conduct I now suffer inmy old age!. .. --Yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO DR. LITTLEDALE

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. January 11, 1913. _

Dear Dr. Littledale, --Many thanks for your kind congratulations and goodwishes. [47] I am glad to say I feel still able to jog on a few yearslonger in this _very good_ world--for those who can make the best of it. 

I am now suffering most from "eczema, " which has settled in my legs, sothat I cannot stand or walk for any length of time. Perhaps that is anoutlet for something worse, as I still enjoy my meals, and usually feelas well as ever, though I have to be very careful as to _what_ Ieat. --With best wishes for your prosperity, yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO DR. NORRIS

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. October 4, 1913. _

My dear Dr. Norris, --Except for a continuous weakness I seem improving alittle in general health, and the chronic rheumatic pain in my rightshoulder has almost passed away in the last month (after about threeyears), and I can impute it to nothing but about a quarter of a pint aday of Bulmer's Cider! A most agreeable medicine! The irritability ofthe skin, however, continues, though the inflammation of the legs hassomewhat diminished. .. . 

My increasing weakness is now my most serious trouble, as it prevents mereally from doing any more work, and causes a large want of balance, andliability to fall down. Even moving about the room after books, etc. , dressing and undressing, make me want to lie down and rest. .. . 

With kind remembrances to your daughter, believe me yours verysincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

In disposition Dr. Wallace was cheerful, and very optimistic, andremarkably even-tempered. If irritated he quickly recovered, and soonforgot all about the annoyance, but he was always strongly indignant atany injustice to the weak or helpless. When worried by businessdifficulties or losses he very soon recovered his optimism, and seemedquite confident that all would come right (as indeed it generally did), and latterly he became convinced that all his past troubles were reallyblessings in disguise, without which as a stimulant he would have doneno useful work. 

His life was a happy one, and even the discomforts caused by hisailments, which were at times very acute for days together, neverprevented him from enjoying the contemplation of his flowers, nordisturbed the serenity of his temper, nor caused him to complain. 

Although rather delicate all his life, he rarely stayed in bed; in fact, only once in our memory, during an illness at Parkstone, did he do so, and then only for one day. 

On Saturday, November 1st (1913), he walked round the garden, and on thefollowing day seemed very bright, and enjoyed his dinner and supper, butabout nine o'clock he felt faint and shivered violently. We called inDr. Norman, who came in about an hour, and we heard them having a longtalk and even laughing, in the study. As the doctor left he said, "Wonderful man! he knows so much. I can do nothing for him. "

The next day he did not get up at the usual time, but we felt no anxietyuntil noon, when he still showed no inclination to rise. He appeared tobe dozing, and said he wanted nothing. From that time he gradually sankinto semi-consciousness, and at half-past nine in the morning of Friday, November 7th, quietly passed on to that other life in which he was sucha firm believer. 

PART V

Social and Political Views

 "When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are things to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honour are things to be ashamed of. "--CONFUCIUS. 

In the above sentences, written long before the dawn of Christiancivilisation, we have an apt summary of the social and political viewsof Alfred Russel Wallace. 

As we have stated in a previous chapter, it was during his short stay inLondon as a boy, when he was led to study the writings and methods ofRobert Owen, of New Lanark, that his mind first opened to theconsideration of the inequalities of our social life. 

During the six years which he spent in land-surveying he obtained a morepractical knowledge of the laws pertaining to public and privateproperty as they affected the lives and habits of both squire andpeasant. 

The village inn, or public-house, was then the only place where mencould meet to discuss topics of mutual interest, and it was there thatyoung Wallace and his brother spent some of their own leisure hourslistening to and conversing with the village rustics. The conversationwas not ordinarily of an educational character, but occasionallyexperienced farmers would discuss agricultural and land problems whichwere beginning to interest Wallace. 

In reading his books and essays written more than seventy years later, we are struck with the exceptional opportunities which he had ofcomparing social conditions, and commercial and individual prosperityduring that long period, and of witnessing the introduction of manyinventions. He used to enjoy recalling many of the discussions betweenintelligent mechanics which he heard of in his early days regarding theintroduction of the steam-engine. One and another declared that the gripof the engine on the rails would not be sufficient to draw heavy trucksor carriages; that the wheels, in fact, would whiz round instead ofgoing on, and that it would be necessary to sprinkle sand in front ofthe wheels, or make the tyres rough like files. About this time, too, there arose a keen debate upon the relative merits of the new railroadsand the old canals. Many thought that the former could never competewith the latter in carrying heavy goods; but facts soon provedotherwise, for in one district alone the traffic of the canal, withintwo years of the coming of the railway, decreased by 1, 000, 000 tons. 

It was during these years, and when he and his brother were making asurvey for the enclosure of some common lands near Llandrindod Wells, that Wallace finally became aware of the injustice towards the labouringclasses of the General Enclosure Act. 

In this particular locality the land to be enclosed consisted of a largeextent of moor, and mountain which, with other common rights, had formany years enabled the occupants of the scattered cottages around tokeep a horse, cow, or a few sheep, and thus make a fairly comfortableliving. Under the Act, the whole of this open land was divided among theadjacent landowners of the parish or manor, in proportion to the size orvalue of their estates. Thus, to those who actually possessed much, muchwas given; whilst to those who only nominally owned a little land, eventhat was taken away in return for a small compensation which was by nomeans as valuable to them as the right to graze their cattle. In spiteof the statement set forth in the General Enclosure Act--"Whereas it isexpedient to facilitate the enclosure and improvement of common andother lands now subject to the rights of property which obstructcultivation and the productive employment of labour, " Wallaceascertained many years later that no single part of the land so enclosedhad been cultivated by those to whom it was given, though certainportions had been let or sold at fabulous prices for building purposes, to accommodate summer visitors to the neighbourhood. Thus theunfortunate people who had formerly enjoyed home, health, andcomparative prosperity in the cottages scattered over this common landhad been obliged to migrate to the large towns, seeking for freshemployment and means of subsistence, or had become "law-createdpaupers"; whilst to crown all, the piece of common originally "reserved"for the benefit of the inhabitants had been turned into golf-links!

Again and again Wallace drew attention to the fundamental duties oflandownership, maintaining that the public, as a whole, had become soblinded by custom that no effectual social reform would ever beestablished unless some strenuous and unremitting effort was made torecover the land by law from those who had made the land laws and whohad niched the common heritage of humanity for their own privateaggrandisement. 

With regard to the actual value of land, Wallace pointed out that thelast valuation was made in the year 1692, and therefore, with theincrease of value through minerals and other products since then, thearrears of land tax due up to 1905 would amount to more than the valueof all the agricultural land of our country at the present time;therefore existing landlords, in clamouring for their alleged rights ofproperty, might find out that those "rights" no longer exist. 

Yet another point on which he insisted was the right of way throughfields or woodlands, and especially beside the sea. With the advent ofthe motor-car and other swift means of locomotion, the public roads areno longer safe and pleasurable for pedestrians; besides the iniquitousfact that hundreds are kept from enjoying the beauties of nature by theutterly selfish and useless reservations of such by-paths by thelandowner. 

"This all-embracing system of land-robbery, " again he writes, "for whichnothing is too great or too small; which has absorbed meadow and forest, moor and mountain, which has appropriated most of our rivers and lakesand the fish that live in them; making the agriculturist pay for hisseaweed manure and the fisherman for his bait of shell-fish; which hasdesolated whole counties to replace men by sheep or cattle, and hasdestroyed fields and cottages to make a wilderness for deer and grouse;which has stolen the commons and filched the roadside wastes; which hasdriven the labouring poor into the cities, and thus been the chief causeof the misery, disease, and early death of thousands . .. It is theadvocates of this inhuman system who, when a partial restitution oftheir unholy gains is proposed, are the loudest in their cries of'robbery'!

"But all the robbery, all the spoliation, all the legal and illegalfilching, has been on _their_ side. .. . They made the laws to legalisetheir actions, and, some day, we, the people, will make laws which willnot only legalise but justify our process of restitution. It willjustify it, because, unlike their laws, which always took from the poorto give to the rich--to the very class which made the laws--ours willonly take from the superfluity of the rich, _not_ to give to the poor orto any individuals, but to so administer as to enable every man to liveby honest work, to restore to the whole people their birthright in theirnative soil, and to relieve all alike from a heavy burden of unnecessaryand unjust taxation. _This_ will be the true statesmanship of thefuture, and it will be justified alike by equity, by ethics, and byreligion. "

These, then, are the facts and reasons upon which Dr. Wallace based hisstrenuous advocacy of Land Nationalisation. [48] It was only by slowdegrees that he arrived at some of the conclusions propounded in hislater years, but once having grasped their full importance to the socialand moral well-being of the community, he held them to the last. 

The first book which tended to fasten his attention upon these matterswas "Social Statics, " by Herbert Spencer, but in 1870 the publication ofhis "Malay Archipelago" brought him into personal contact with JohnStuart Mill, through whose invitation he became a member of the GeneralCommittee of the Land Tenure Reform Association. On the formation of theLand Nationalisation Society in 1880 he retired from the Association, and devoted himself to the larger issues which the new Society embraced. 

Soon after the latter Society was started, Henry George, the Americanauthor of "Progress and Poverty, " came to England, and Wallace had manyopportunities of hearing him speak in public and of discussing mattersof common interest in private. In spite of the ridicule poured uponHenry George's book by many eminent social reformers, Wallaceconsistently upheld its general principles. 

His second work on these various subjects was a small book entitled "BadTimes, " issued in 1885, in which he went deeply into the root causes ofthe depression in trade which had lasted since 1874. The facts theregiven were enlarged upon and continually brought up to date in his laterwritings. Articles which had appeared in various magazines were gatheredtogether and included, with those on other subjects, in "Studies, Scientific and Social. " His last three books, which include his ideas onsocial diseases and the best method of preventing them, were "TheWonderful Century, " "Social Environment and Moral Progress, " and "TheRevolt of Democracy"; the two last being issued, as we have seen, in1913, the year of his death. 

In "Social Environment and Moral Progress" the conclusion of hisvehement survey of our moral and social conditions was startling: "_Itis not too much to say that our whole system of Society is rotten fromtop to bottom, and that the social environment as a whole in relation toour possibilities and our claims is the worst that the world has everseen_. "

That terrible indictment was doubly underscored in his MS. 

What, in his mature judgment, were the causes and remedies? He set themout in this order:

1. The evils are due, broadly and generally, to our living under asystem of universal competition for the means of existence, the remedyfor which is equally universal co-operation. 

2. It may also be defined as a system of economic antagonism, as ofenemies, the remedy being a system of economic brotherhood, as of agreat family, or of friends. 

3. Our system is also one of monopoly by a few of all the means ofexistence--the land, without access to which no life is possible; andcapital, or the results of stored-up labour, which is now in thepossession of a limited number of capitalists, and therefore is also amonopoly. The remedy is freedom of access to land and capital for all. 

4. Also, it may be defined as social injustice, inasmuch as the few ineach generation are allowed to inherit the stored-up wealth of allpreceding generations, while the many inherit nothing. The remedy is toadopt the principle of equality of opportunity for all, or of universal_inheritance by the State in trust for the whole community_. 

"We have, " he finally concluded, "ourselves created an immoral orunmoral social environment. To undo its inevitable results we mustreverse our course. We must see that _all_ our economic legislation, _all_ our social reforms, are in the very opposite direction to thosehitherto adopted, and that they tend in the direction of one or other ofthe four fundamental remedies I have suggested. In this way only can wehope to change our existing immoral environment into a moral one, and_initiate a new era of Moral Progress. _" The "Revolt of Democracy"[49]was addressed directly to the Labour Party. And once again he drew avivid picture of how, during the whole of the nineteenth century, therewas a continuous advance in the application of scientific discovery tothe arts, especially to the invention and application of labour-savingmachinery; and how our wealth had increased to an equally marvellousextent. 

He pointed out that various estimates which had been made of theincrease in our wealth-producing capacity showed that, roughly speaking, the use of mechanical power had increased it more than a hundredfoldduring the century; yet the result had been to create a limited upperclass, living in unexampled luxury, while about one-fourth of the wholepopulation existed in a state of fluctuating penury, often sinking belowthe margin of poverty. Many thousands were annually drawn into this gulfof destitution, and died from direct starvation and premature exhaustionor from diseases produced by unhealthy employment. 

During this long period, however, although wealth and want had alikeincreased side by side, public opinion had not been sufficientlyeducated to permit of any effectual remedy being applied. The workersthemselves had failed to visualise its fundamental causes, land monopolyand the competitive system of industry giving rise to an ever-increasingprivate capitalism which, to a very large extent, had controlled theLegislature. All through the last century this rapid accumulation ofwealth due to extensive manufacturing industries led to a still greaterincrease of middlemen engaged in the distribution of the products, fromthe wealthy merchant to the various grades of tradesmen and smallshop-keepers who supplied the daily wants of the community. 

To those who lived in the midst of this vast industrial system, or werea part of it, it seemed natural and inevitable that there should be richand poor; and this belief was enforced on the one hand by the clergy, and on the other by political economists, so that religion and scienceagreed in upholding the competitive and capitalistic system of societyas the only rational and possible one. Hence it came to be believed thatthe true sphere of governmental action did not include the abolition ofpoverty. It was even declared that poverty was due to economic causesover which governments had no power; that wages were kept down by the"iron law" of supply and demand; and that any attempt to find a remedyby Acts of Parliament only aggravated the disease. During thePremiership of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman this attitude was, for thefirst time, changed. On numerous occasions Sir Henry declared that heheld it to be the duty of a government to deal with problems ofunemployment and poverty. 

In 1908 three great strikes, coming in rapid succession--those of theRailway and other Transport Unions, the Miners, and the London DockLabourers--brought home to the middle and upper classes, and to theGovernment, how completely all are dependent on the "working classes. "This and similar experiences showed us that when the organisation ofthe trade unions was more complete, and the accumulated funds of severalyears were devoted to this purpose, the bulk of the inhabitants ofLondon, and of other great cities, could be made to suffer a degree offamine comparable with that of Paris when besieged by the German army in1870. 

Wallace's watchword throughout these social agitations was "Equality ofOpportunity for All, " and the ideal method by which he hoped to achievethis end was a system of industrial colonisation in our own countrywhereby _all_ would have a fair, if not an absolutely equal, share inthe benefits arising from the production of their own labour, whetherphysical or mental. [50]

With regard to the education of the people, especially as astepping-stone to moral and intellectual reform, Wallace believed in thetraining of individual natural talent, rather than the present system ofgeneral education thrust upon every boy or girl regardless of theirvarying mental capacities. He also urged that the building-up of themind should be alternated with physical training in one or more usefultrades, so that there might be, not only at the outset, but also inlater life, a choice of occupation in order to avoid the excess ofunemployment in any one direction. 

In his opinion, one of the injurious results of our competitive system, having its roots, however, in the valuable "guilds" of a past epoch, wasthe almost universal restriction of our workers to only one kind oflabour. The result was a dreadful monotony in almost all spheres ofwork, the extreme unhealthiness of many, and a much larger amount ofunemployment than if each man or woman were regularly trained in two ormore occupations. In addition to two of what are commonly called trades, every youth should be trained for one day a week or one week in amonth, according to the demand for labour, in some of the variousoperations of farming or gardening. Not only would this improve thegeneral health of the workers, but it would also add much to theinterest and enjoyment of their lives. 

"There is one point, " he wrote, "in connection with this problem which Ido not think has ever been much considered or discussed. It is theundoubted benefit to all the members of a society of _the greatestpossible diversity of character_, as a means both towards the greatestenjoyment and interest of association, and to the highest ultimatedevelopment of the race. If we are to suppose that man might have beencreated or developed with none of those extremes of character which nowoften result in what we call wickedness, vice, or crime, there wouldcertainly have been a greater monotony in human nature, which would, perhaps, have led to less beneficial results than the variety whichactually exists may lead to. We are more and more getting to see thatvery much, perhaps all, the vice, crime, and misery that exists in theworld is the result, not of the wickedness of individuals, but of theentire absence of sympathetic training from infancy onwards. So far as Ihave heard, the only example of the effects of such a training on alarge scale was that initiated by Robert Owen at New Lanark, which, withmost unpromising materials, produced such marvellous results on thecharacter and conduct of the children as to seem almost incredible tothe numerous persons who came to see and often critically to examinethem. There must have been all kinds of characters in his schools, yet_none_ were found to be incorrigible, _none_ beyond control, _none_ whodid not respond to the love and sympathetic instruction of theirteachers. It is therefore quite possible that _all_ the evil in theworld is directly due to man, not to God, and that when we once realisethis to its full extent we shall be able, not only to eliminate almostcompletely what we now term evil, but shall then clearly perceive thatall those propensities and passions that under bad conditions of societyinevitably led to it, will under good conditions add to the variety andthe capacities of human nature, the enjoyment of life by all, and at thesame time greatly increase the possibilities of development of the wholerace. I myself feel confident that this is really the case, and thatsuch considerations, when followed out to their ultimate issues, afforda complete solution of the great problem of the ages--the origin ofevil. "[51]

Closely allied with the welfare of the child is another "reform" withwhich Wallace's name will long be associated. That is his strongdenunciation of Vaccination. For seven years he laboured to show medicaland scientific men that statistics proved beyond doubt the futility ofthis measure to prevent disease. A few were converted, but publicopinion is hard to move. 

In his ideal of the future, Dr. Wallace gave a large and honoured sphereto women. He considered that it was in the highest degree presumptuousand irrational to attempt to deal by compulsory enactments with the mostvital and most sacred of all human relationships, regardless of the factthat our present phase of social development is not only extremelyimperfect, but, as already shown, vicious and rotten to the core. Howcould it be possible to determine by legislation those relations of thesexes which shall be best alike for individuals and for the race in asociety in which a large proportion of our women are forced to work longhours daily for the barest subsistence, with an almost total absence ofthe rational pleasures of life, for the want of which thousands aredriven into uncongenial marriages in order to secure some amount ofpersonal independence or physical well-being. He believed that when menand women are, for the first time in the course of civilisation, equallyfree to follow their best impulses; when idleness and vicious andhurtful luxury on the one hand, and oppressive labour and the dread ofstarvation on the other, are alike unknown; when _all_ receive the bestand broadest education that the state of civilisation and knowledge willadmit; when the standard of public opinion is set by the wisest and thebest among us, and that standard is systematically inculcated in theyoung--then we shall find that a system of truly "Natural Selection" (aterm that Wallace preferred to "Eugenics, " which he utterly disliked)will come spontaneously into action which will tend steadily toeliminate the lower, the less developed, or in any way defective typesof men, and will thus continuously raise the physical, moral, andintellectual standard of the race. 

He further held that "although many women now remain unmarried fromnecessity rather than from choice, there are always considerable numberswho feel no strong impulse to marriage, and accept husbands to securesubsistence and a home of their own rather than from personal affectionor sexual emotion. In a state of society in which all women wereeconomically independent, where all were fully occupied with publicduties and social or intellectual pleasures, and had nothing to gain bymarriage as regards material well-being or social position, it is highlyprobable that the numbers of unmarried from choice would increase. Itwould probably come to be considered a degradation for any woman tomarry a man whom she could not love and esteem, and this reason wouldtend at least to delay marriage till a worthy and sympathetic partnerwas encountered. " But this choice, he considered, would be furtherstrengthened by the fact that, with the ever-increasing approach toequality of opportunity for every child born in our country, thatterrible excess of male deaths, in boyhood and early manhood especially, due to various preventable causes, would disappear, and change thepresent majority of women to a majority of men. This would lead to agreater rivalry for wives, and give to women the power of rejecting allthe lower types of character among their suitors. 

"It will be their special duty so to mould public opinion, through hometraining and social influence, as to render the women of the future theregenerators of the entire human race. " He fully hoped and believed thatthey would prove equal to the high and responsible position which, inaccordance with natural laws, they will be called upon to fulfil. 

 * * * * *

Mr. D. A. Wilson, who visited him in 1912, writes:

He surprised me by saying he was a Socialist--one does not expect a manlike him to label himself in any way. It appeared to be unconsciousmodesty, like a school-boy's, which made him willing to be labelled; butno label could describe him, and his mental sweep was unlimited. Although in his ninetieth year, he seemed to be in his prime. There wasno sign of age but physical weakness, and you had to make an effort attimes to remember even that. His eye kindled as he spoke, and more thanonce he walked about and chuckled, like a schoolboy pleased. 

An earnest expression like Carlyle's came over his countenance as hereprobated the selfish, wild-cat competition which made life harder andmore horrible to-day for a well-doing poor man in England than among theMalays or Burmese before they had any modern inventions. Co-operationwas the upward road for humanity. Men grew out of beasthood by it, andby it civilisation began. Forgetting it, men retrograded, subsidingswiftly, so that there were many individuals among us to-day who were inbody, mind, and character below the level of our barbarian ancestors orcontemporary "savages, " to say nothing of civilised Burmese or Malays. What he meant by Socialism can be seen from his books. Nothing in themsurprised me after our talk. His appreciation of Confucius, when Iquoted some things of the Chinese sage's which confirmed what he wassaying, was emphatic, and that and many other things showed thatSocialism to him implied the upward evolution of humanity. It wasbecause of the degradation of men involved that he objected to lettingindividuals grab the public property--earth, air and water. Monopolies, he thought, should at once revert to the public, and we had an argumentwhich showed that he had no objection to even artificial monopolies ifthey were public property. He defended the old Dutch Governmentmonopolies of spices, and declared them better than to-day's free trade, when cultivation is exploited by men who always tended to be meremoney-grabbers, selfish savages let loose. In answer I mentioned theabuses of officialdom, as seen by me from the inside in Burma, and heagreed that the mental and moral superiority of many kinds of Asiaticsto the Europeans who want to boss them made detailed Europeanadministration an absurdity. We should leave these peoples to develop intheir own way. Having conquered Burma and India, he proceeded, theEnglish should take warning from history and restrict themselves tokeeping the peace, and protecting the countries they had taken. Theyshould give every province as much home rule as possible and as soon aspossible, and study to avoid becoming parasites. --D. A. W. 

 * * * * *

We may fittingly conclude this brief summary of Wallace's social viewsand ideals by citing his own reply to the question: "Why am I aSocialist?" "I am a Socialist because I believe that the highest law formankind is justice. I therefore take for my motto, 'Fiat Justitia, RuatCoelum'; and my definition of Socialism is, 'The use, by everyone, ofhis faculties for the common good, and the voluntary organisation oflabour for the equal benefit of all. ' That is absolute social justice;that is ideal Socialism. It is, therefore, the guiding star for all truesocial reform. "

 * * * * *

He corresponded with Miss Buckley not only on scientific but also onpublic questions and social problems:

TO MISS BUCKLEY

_Rosehill, Dorking. Sunday, [? December, 1878]. _

Dear Miss Buckley, -- . .. How wonderfully the Russians have got on sinceyou left! A very little more and the Turkish Government might be turnedout of Europe--even now it might be with the greatest ease if ourGovernment would join in giving them the last kick. Whatever power theyretain in Europe will most certainly involve another war before twentyyears are over. --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS BUCKLEY

_Waldron Edge, Croydon. May 2, 1879. _

Dear Miss Buckley, -- . .. My "Reciprocity" article seems to have produceda slight effect on the _Spectator_, though it did snub me at first, butit is perfectly sickening to read the stuff spoken and written, inParliament and in all the newspapers, about the subject, all treatingour present practice as something holy and immutable, whatever badeffects it may produce, and though it is not in any way "free trade" andwould I believe have been given up both by Adam Smith and Cobden. --Yoursvery faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

He was always ready, even eager, to discuss his social and landnationalisation principles with his scientific friends, with members ofhis own family, and indeed with anyone who would lend a willing ear. 

HERBERT SPENCER TO A. R. WALLACE

_38 Queen's Gardens, Bayswater, W. April 25, 1881. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, --As you may suppose, I fully sympathise with thegeneral aims of your proposed Land Nationalisation Society; but forsundry reasons I hesitate to commit myself, at the present stage of thequestion, to a programme so definite as that which you send me. It seemsto me that before formulating the idea in a specific shape it is needfulto generate a body of public opinion on the general issue, and that itmust be some time before there can be produced such recognition of thegeneral principle involved as is needful before definite plans can beset forth to any purpose. .. . --Truly yours, HERBERT SPENCER. 

 * * * * *

HERBERT SPENCER TO A. R. WALLACE

_38 Queen's Gardens, Bayswater, W. July 6, 1881. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, --I have already seen the work you name, "Progress andPoverty, " having had a copy, or rather two copies, sent me. I gatheredfrom what little I glanced at that I should fundamentally disagree withthe writer, and have not read more. 

I demur entirely to the supposition, which is implied in the book, thatby any possible social arrangements whatever the distress which humanityhas to suffer in the course of civilisation could have been prevented. The whole process, with all its horrors and tyrannies, and slaveries, and wars, and abominations of all kinds, has been an inevitable oneaccompanying the survival and spread of the strongest, and theconsolidation of small tribes into large societies; and among otherthings the lapse of land into private ownership has been, like the lapseof individuals into slavery, at one period of the process altogetherindispensable. I do not in the least believe that from the primitivesystem of communistic ownership to a high and finished system of Stateownership, such as we may look for in the future, there could be anytransition without passing through such stages as we have seen and whichexist now. Argument aside, however, I should be disinclined to commitmyself to any scheme of immediate action, which, as I have indicated toyou, I believe at present premature. For myself I feel that I have toconsider not only what I may do on special questions, but also how theaction I take on special questions may affect my general influence; andI am disinclined to give more handles against me than are needful. Already, as you will see by the enclosed circular, I am doing in the wayof positive action more than may be altogether prudent. --Sincerelyyours, HERBERT SPENCER. 

 * * * * *

A. R. WALLACE TO MR. A. C. SWINTON

_Frith Hill, Godalming. December 23, 1885. _

My dear Swinton, -- . .. I have just received an invitation to go tolecture in Sydney on Sundays for three months, with an intimation thatother lectures can be arranged for in Melbourne and New Zealand. It istempting!. .. If I had the prospect of clearing £1, 000 by a lecturingcampaign I would go, though it would require a great effort. .. . I didnot think it possible even to contemplate going so far again, but thechance of earning a lot of money which would enable me to clear off thishouse and leave something for my family must be seriouslyconsidered. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS VIOLET WALLACE

_Parkstone, Dorset. May_ 10, 1891. 

My dear Violet, -- . .. I am quite in favour of a legal eight hours' day. Overtime need not be forbidden, but every man who works overtime shouldhave a legal claim to double wages for the extra hours. That would makeit cheaper for the master to employ two sets of men working each eighthours when they had long jobs requiring them, while for the necessitiesof finishing contracts, etc. , they could well afford to pay double forthe extra hours. "It would make everything dearer!" Of course it would!How else can you produce a more equal distribution of wealth than bymaking the rich and idle pay more and the workers receive more? "Theworkers would have to pay more, too, for everything they bought!" Trueagain, but what they paid more would not equal their extra earnings, because a large portion of the extra pay to the men will be paid by therich, and only the remainder paid by the men themselves. The eighthours' day and double pay for overtime would not only employ thousandsnow out of work, but would actually raise wages per hour and per day. This is clear, because wages are kept down wholly by the surplus supplyof labour in every trade. The moment the surplus is used up, or nearlyso, by more men being required on account of shorter hours, competitionamong the men becomes less; among the employers, for men, more: hencenecessarily higher wages all round. As to the bogey of foreigncompetition, it is a bogey only. All the political economists agree thatif wages are raised in all trades, it will not in the least affect ourpower to export goods as profitably as now. Look and see! And, secondly, the eight hours' movement is an international one, and will affect allalike in the end. 

There are some arguments for you! Poor unreasoning infant!!. .. 

 * * * * *

REV. AUGUSTUS JESSOPP TO A. R. WALLACE

_Scarning Rectory, East Dereham. August 25, 1893. _

My dear Mr. Wallace, --I have put off writing to thank you for your kindletter, and the book and pamphlets you were good enough to send me, because I hoped in acknowledgment to say I had read your little volumes, as I intend to. The fates have been against me, and I will delay nolonger thanking you for sending them to me. 

I do not believe in your theory of land nationalisation one bit! But Ilike to see all that such a man as you has to say on his side. 

In return I send you my view of the matter, which is just as likely toconvert you as your book is to convert me. 

I love a man with a theory, for I learn most from such a man, and when Ihave thought a thing out in my own mind and forgotten the argumentswhile I have arrived at a firm conviction as to the conclusion, it isrefreshing to be reminded of points and facts that have slipped awayfrom me!

It was a great pleasure and privilege to make your acquaintance theother day, and I hope we may meet again some day. --Very truly yours, AUGUSTUS JESSOPP. 

 * * * * *

REV. H. PRICE HUGHES TO A. R. WALLACE

_8 Taviton Street, Gordon Square, W. C. September 14, 1898. _

Dear Dr. Wallace, --I am always very glad when I hear from you. So far asyour intensely interesting volume has compelled some very prejudicedpeople to read your attack on modern delusions, it is a great gain, especially to themselves. I have read your tract on "Justice, notCharity, " with great pleasure and approval. The moment Mr. BenjaminKidd invented the striking term of "equality of opportunity" I adoptedit, and have often preached it in the pulpit and on the platform, justas you preach it in the tract before me. I fully agree that justice, notcharity, is the fundamental principle of social reform. There issomething very contemptible in the spiteful way in which many newspapersand magistrates are trying to aggravate the difficulties ofconscientious men who avail themselves of the conscience clause in thenew Vaccination Act. There is very much to be done yet before socialjustice is realised, but the astonishing manifesto of the Czar ofRussia, which I have no doubt is a perfectly sincere one, is arevelation of the extent to which social truth is leavening Europeansociety. Since I last wrote to you I have been elected President of theWesleyan Methodist Conference, which will give me a great deal ofspecial work and special opportunities also, I am thankful to say, ofpropagating Social Christianity, which in fact, and to a great extent inform, is what you yourself are doing. --Yours very sincerely, H. PRICE HUGHES. 

 * * * * *

TO ALFRED RUSSELL

_Parkstone, Dorset. May 11, 1900. _

Dear Sir, --I am not a vegetarian, but I believe in it as certain to beadopted in the future, and as essential to a higher social and moralstate of society. My reasons are:

(1) That far less land is needed to supply vegetable than to supplyanimal food. 

(2) That the business of a butcher is, and would be, repulsive to allrefined natures. 

(3) That with proper arrangements for variety and good cookery, vegetable food is better for health of body and mind. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. JOHN (LORD) MORLEY

_Parkstone, Dorset, October 20, 1900. _

Dear Sir, --I look upon you as the one politician left to us, who, by hisability and integrity, his eloquence and love of truth, his highstanding as a thinker and writer, and his openness of mind, is able tobecome the leader of the English people in their struggle for freedomagainst the monopolists of land, capital, and political power. Itherefore take the liberty of sending you herewith a book of minecontaining a number of miscellaneous essays, a few of which, I ventureto think, are worthy of your serious attention. 

Some time since you intimated in one of your speeches that, if thechoice for this country were between Imperialism and Socialism, you wereinclined to consider the latter the less evil of the two. You added, Ithink, your conviction that the dangers of Socialism to human characterwere what most influenced you against it. I trust that my impression ofwhat you said is substantially correct. Now I myself believe, after astudy of the subject extending over twenty years, that this danger isnon-existent, and certainly does not in any way apply to the fundamentalprinciples of Socialism, which is, simply, _the voluntary organisationof labour for the good of all_. .. . --With great esteem, I am yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

MR. JOHN (LORD) MORLEY TO A. R. WALLACE

_57 Elm Park Gardens, S. W. October 31, 1900. _

My dear Sir, --For some reason, though your letter is dated the 20th, ithas only reached me, along with the two volumes, to-day. I feel myselfgreatly indebted to you for both. In older days I often mused upon apassage of yours in the "Malay Archipelago" contrasting the condition ofcertain types of savage life with that of life in a modern industrialcity. And I shall gladly turn again to the subject in these pages, newto me, where you come to close quarters with the problem. 

But my time and my mind are at present neither of them free for theeffective consideration of this mighty case. Nor can I promise myselfthe requisite leisure for at least several months to come. What I can dois to set your arguments a-simmering in my brain, and perhaps when thetime of liberation arrives I may be in a state to make something of it. I don't suppose that I shall be a convert, but I always remember J. S. Mill's observation, after recapitulating the evils to be apprehendedfrom Socialism, that he would face them in spite of all, if the onlyalternative to Socialism were our present state. --With sincere thanksand regard, believe me yours faithfully

JOHN MORLEY. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. C. G. STUART-MENTEITH

_Parkstone, Dorset. June 6, 1901. _

Dear Sir, --I have no time to discuss your letter[52] at any length. Youseem to assume that we can say definitely who are the "fit" and who the"unfit. "

I deny this, except in the most extreme cases. 

I believe that, even now, the race is mostly recruited by the _morefit_--that is the upper working classes and the lower middle classes. 

Both the very rich and the very poor are probably--as classes--belowthese. The former increase less rapidly through immorality and latemarriage; the latter through excessive infant mortality. If that is thecase, no legislative interference is needed, and would probably do harm. 

I see nothing in your letter which is really opposed to mycontention--that under rational social conditions the healthy instinctsof men and women will solve the population problem far better than anytinkering interference either by law or by any other means. 

And in the meantime the condition of things is not so bad as yousuppose. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. SYDNEY COCKERELL

_Broadstone, Wimborne. January 15, 1906. _

Dear Mr. Cockerell, --I have now finished reading Kropotkin's Life withvery great interest, especially for the light it throws on the presentcondition of Russia. It also brings out clearly some very fine aspectsof the Russian character, and the horrible despotism to which they arestill subject, equivalent to that of the days of the Bastille and thesystem of _Lettres de cachet_ before the great Revolution in France. Itseems to me probable that under happier conditions--perhaps in the notdistant future--Russia may become the most advanced instead of the mostbackward in civilisation--a real leader among nations, not in war andconquest but in social reform. --Yours faithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. J. HYDER (Of THE LAND NATIONALISATION SOCIETY)

_Broadstone, Wimborne. May 13, 1907. _

Dear Mr. Hyder, --Although it is not safe to hallo before one is out ofthe wood, I think I may congratulate the Society upon the prospect itnow has of obtaining the first-fruits of its persistent efforts, for aquarter of a century, to form an enlightened public opinion in favour ofour views. If the Government adequately fulfils its promises, we shallhave, in the Bill for a fair valuation of land apart from improvements, as a basis of taxation and for purchase, and that giving localauthorities full powers to acquire land so valued, the first real anddefinite steps towards complete nationalisation. .. . 

ALFRED R. WALLACE, * * * * *

TO MR. A. WILTSHIRE[53]

_Broadstone, Wimborne. October 10, 1907. _

Dear Sir, --I told Mr. Button that I do not approve of the resolution youare going to move. [54]

The workers of England have themselves returned a large majority ofordinary Liberals, including hundreds of capitalists, landowners, manufacturers, and lawyers, with only a sprinkling of Radicals andSocialists. The Government--your own elected Government--is doing morefor the workers than any Liberal Government ever did before, yet you aregoing to pass what is practically a vote of censure on it for not beinga Radical, Labour, and Socialist Government!

If this Government attempted to do what you and I think ought to bedone, it would lose half its followers and be turned out, ignominiously, giving the Tories another chance. That is foolish as well asunfair. --Yours truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO LORD AVEBURY

_Broadstone, Wimborne. June 23, 1908. _

Dear Lord Avebury, -- . .. Allow me to wish every success to your Bill forpreserving beautiful birds from destruction. To stop the import is theonly way--short of the still more drastic method of heavily finingeveryone who wears feathers in public, with imprisonment for a secondoffence. But we are not yet ripe for that. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. TO MR. E. SMEDLEY

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. December 25, 1910. _

Dear Mr. Smedley, --Thanks for your long and interesting letter. .. . Manis, and has been, horribly cruel, and it is indeed difficult to explainwhy. Yet that there is an explanation, and that it does lead to good inthe end, I believe. Praying is evidently useless, and should be, as itis almost always selfish--for _our_ benefit, or our _families_, or our_nation_. --Yours very truly, ALFRED E. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. W. G. WALLACE

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. August 20, 1911. _

My dear Will, -- . .. The railway strike surpasses the Parliament Bill inexcitement. On receipt of Friday's paper, I sat down and composed andsent off to Lloyd George a short but big letter, on large foolscappaper, urging him and Asquith, as the two strong men of the Government, to take over at once the management of the railways of the entirecountry, by Royal Proclamation--on the ground of mismanagement forseventy years, and having brought the country to the verge of starvationand civil war; to grant an amnesty to all strikers (except for acts ofviolence), also grant all the men's demands for one year, and devotethat time to a deliberate and impartial inquiry and a complete scheme ofreorganisation of the railways in the interest, first of the public, then of the men of all grades, lastly of the share and bond owners, whowill become guaranteed public creditors. .. . It has been admitted andproved again and again, that the men are badly treated, that theirgrievances are real--their very unanimity and standing by each otherproves it. Their demands are most moderate; and the cost in extra wageswill be saved over and over in safety, regularity, economy of working, and public convenience. I have not had even an acknowledgment of receiptyet, but hope to in a day or two. .. . 

 * * * * *

MR. H. M. HYNDMAN TO A. R. WALLACE

_9 Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster, S. W. March 14, 1912. _

Dear Sir, --Everyone who knows anything of the record of modern sciencein this country recognises how very much we all owe to you. It was, therefore, specially gratifying to me that you should be so kind as towrite such a very encouraging letter on the occasion of my seventiethbirthday. I owe you sincere thanks for what you said, though I mayhonestly feel that you overpraised what I have done. It has been anuphill fight, but I am lucky in being allowed to see through the smokeand dust of battle a vision of the promised land. The transformationfrom capitalism to socialism is going on slowly under our eyes. 

Again thanking you and wishing you every good wish, believe me yourssincerely, H. M. HYNDMAN. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. M. J. MURPHY

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. August 19, 1913. _

Dear Sir, --I not only think but firmly believe that Lloyd George isworking for the good of the people, in all ways open to him. The wonderis that he can persuade Asquith and the Cabinet to let him go as far ashe does. No doubt he is obliged to do things he does not think the bestabsolutely, but the best that are practicable. He does not profess to bea Socialist, and he is not infallible, but he does the best he can, under the conditions in which he finds himself. Socialists who condemnhim for not doing more are most unfair. They must know, if they think, that if he tried to do much more towards Socialism he would break up theGovernment and let in the Tories. --Yours truly, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. A. WILTSHIRE

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. September 14, 1913. _

Dear Sir, --I wish you every success in your work for the amelioration ofthe condition of the workers, through whose exertions it may be trulysaid we all live and move and have our being. 

Your motto is excellent. Above all things stick together. 

Equally important is it to declare as a fixed principle that wages areto be and must be continuously raised, never lowered. You have too mucharrears to make up--too many forces against you, to admit of their beingever lowered. Let future generations decide when that is necessary--ifever. 

This is a principle worth enforcing by a general strike. Nothing lesswill be effective--nothing less should be accepted; and you must let theGovernment know it, and insist that they adopt it. 

The rise must always be towards uniformity of payment for all useful andproductive work. --Yours sincerely, ALFRED E. WALLACE. 

PART VI

Some Further Problems

I. --Astronomy

Of the varied subjects upon which Wallace wrote, none, perhaps, camewith greater freshness to the general reader than his books written whenhe was nearly eighty upon the ancient science of astronomy. 

Perhaps he would have said that the "directive Mind and Purpose" keptthese subjects back until the closing years of his life in order that hemight bring to bear upon them his wider knowledge of nature, enlightenedby that spiritual perception which led him to link the heavens and theearth in one common bond of evolution, culminating in the development ofmoral and spiritual intelligences. 

"Man's Place in the Universe" (1903) was in effect a prelude to "TheWorld of Life" (1910). Wallace saw afterwards that one grew out of theother, as we find him frequently saying with regard to his other booksand essays. 

As with Spiritualism, so with Astronomy, the seed-interest practicallylay dormant in his mind for many years; with this difference, however, that temperament and training caused a speedy unfolding of his mind whenonce a scientific subject gripped him, whereas with Spiritualism he feltthe need of moving slowly and cautiously before fully accepting thephenomena as verifiable facts. 

It was during the later period of his land-surveying, when he wassomewhere between the ages of 18 and 20, that he became distinctlyinterested in the stars. Being left much alone at this period, he beganto vary his pursuits by studying a book on Nautical Astronomy, andconstructing a rude telescope. [55] This primitive appliance increasedhis interest in other astronomical instruments, and especially in thegrand onward march of astronomical discovery, which he looked upon asone of the wonders of the nineteenth century. 

It was the inclusion of astronomy in lectures he delivered at Davoswhich led him to extend his original brief notes into the four chapterswhich form an important part of his "Wonderful Century. " He freelyconfessed that in order to write these chapters he was obliged to readwidely, and to make much use of friends to whom astronomy was a morefamiliar study. And it was whilst he was engaged upon these chaptersthat his attention became riveted upon the unique position of our planetin relation to the solar system. 

He had noticed that certain definite conditions appeared to beabsolutely essential to the origin and development of the higher typesof terrestrial life, and that most of these must have been certainlydependent on a very delicate balance of the forces concerned in theevolution of our planet. Our position in the solar system appeared tohim to be peculiar and unique because, he thought, we may be almost surethat these conditions do not coexist on any other planet, and that wehave no good reason to believe that other planets could have maintainedover a period of millions of years the complex and equable conditionsabsolutely necessary to the existence of the higher forms of terrestriallife. Therefore it appeared to him to be proved that our earth doesreally stand alone in the solar system by reason of its specialadaptation for the development of human life. 

Granting this, however, the question might still be asked, Why shouldnot any one of the suns in other parts of space possess planets as welladapted as our own to develop the higher forms of organic life? Thesequestions cannot be answered definitely; but there are reasons, heconsidered, why the central position which we occupy may alone besuitable. It is almost certain that electricity and other mysteriousradiant forces (of which we have so recently discovered the existence)have played an important part in the origin and development of organisedlife, and it does not appear to be extravagant to assume that theextraordinary way in which these cosmic forces have remained hidden fromus may be due to that central position which we are found to occupy inthe whole universe of matter discoverable by us. Indeed, it may well bethat these wonderful forces of the ether are more irregular--and perhapsmore violent--in their effect upon matter in what may be termed theouter chambers of that universe, and that they are only so nicelybalanced, so uniform in their action, and so concealed from us, as to befit to aid in the development of organic life in that central portion ofthe stellar system which our globe occupies. Should these views as tothe unique central position of our earth be supported by the results offurther research, it will certainly rank as the most extraordinary andperhaps the most important of the many discoveries of the past century. 

While still working on this section of his "Wonderful Century, " he wasasked to write a scientific article, upon any subject of his own choice, for the _New York Independent_. And as the idea of the unique positionof the earth to be the abode of human life was fresh in his mind, hethought it would prove interesting to the general public. However, before his article appeared simultaneously in the American papers and inthe _Fortnightly Review_, a friend who read it was so impressed withits originality and treatment that he persuaded Wallace to enlarge itinto book form; and it appeared in the autumn of 1903 as "Man's Place inthe Universe. "

This fascinating treatise upon the position occupied by the earth, andman, in the universe, had the same effect as some of his formerwritings, of drawing forth unstinted commendation from many religiousand secular papers; whilst the severely scientific and materialisticreviewers doubted how far his imagination had superseded unbiasedreason. 

On one point, however, most outsiders were in agreement--that he hadinvested an ancient subject with freshest interest through approachingit by an entirely new way. The plan followed was that of bringingtogether all the positive conclusions of the astronomer, the geologist, the physicist, and the biologist, and by weighing these carefully in thebalance he arrived at what appeared to him to be the only reasonableconclusion. He therefore set out to solve the problem whether or not thelogical inferences to be drawn from the various results of modernscience lent support to the view that our earth is the only inhabitedplanet, not only in our own solar system, but in the whole stellaruniverse. In the course of his close and careful exposition he takes thereader through the whole trend of modern scientific research, concludingwith a summing-up of his deductions in the following six propositions, in the first three of which he sets out the conclusions reached bymodern astronomers:

(1) That the stellar universe forms one connected whole; and, though ofenormous extent, is yet finite, and its extent determinable. 

(2) That the solar system is situated in the plane of the Milky Way, andnot far removed from the centre of that plane. The earth is, therefore, nearly in the centre of the stellar universe. 

(3) That this universe consists throughout of the same kinds of matter, and is subjected to the same physical and chemical laws. 

The conclusions which I claim to have shown to have enormousprobabilities in their favour are:

(4) That no other planet in the solar system than our earth is inhabitedor habitable. 

(5) That the probabilities are almost as great against any other sunpossessing inhabited planets. 

(6) That the nearly central position of our sun is probably a permanentone, and has been specially favourable, perhaps absolutely essential, tolife-development on the earth. 

Wallace never maintained that this earth alone in the whole universe isthe abode of life. What he maintained was, first, that our solar systemappears to be in or near the centre of the visible universe, and, secondly, that all the available evidence supports the idea of theextreme unlikelihood of there being on any star or planet revealed bythe telescope any intelligent life either identical with or analogous toman. To suppose that this one particular type of universe extends overall space was, he considered, to have a low idea of the Creator and Hispower. Such a scheme would mean monotony instead of infinite variety, the keynote of things as they are known to us. There might be a millionuniverses, but all different. 

To his mind there was no difficulty in believing in the existence ofconsciousness apart from material organism; though he could not readilyconceive of pure mind, or pure spirit, apart from some kind ofsubstantial envelope or substratum. Many of the views suggested in"Man's Place in the Universe" as to man's spiritual progress hereafter, the reason or ultimate purpose for which he was brought into existence, were enlarged upon, later, in "The World of Life. " As early, however, as1903, Wallace did not hesitate to express his own firm conviction thatScience and Spiritualism were in many ways closely akin. 

He believed that the near future would show the strong tendency ofscientists to become more religious or spiritual. The process, hethought, would be slow, as the general attitude has never been morematerialistic than now. A few have been bold enough to assert theirbelief in some outside power, but the leading scientific men are, as arule, dead against them. "They seem, " he once remarked, "to think, andto like to think, that the whole phenomena of life will one day bereduced to terms of matter and motion, and that every vegetable, animal, and human product will be explained, and may some day be artificiallyproduced, by chemical action. But even if this were so, behind it allthere would still remain an unexplained mystery. "

Closely associated with "Man's Place in the Universe" is a small volume, "Is Mars Habitable?" This was first commenced as a review of ProfessorPercival Lowell's book, "Mars and its Canals, " with the object ofshowing that the large amount of new and interesting facts contained inthis work did not invalidate the conclusion that he (Wallace) hadreached in 1903--that Mars is not habitable. The conclusions to whichhis argument led him were these:

(1) All physicists are agreed that . .. Mars would have a meantemperature of about 35° F. Owing to its distance from the sun. 

(2) But the very low temperatures on the earth under the equator at aheight where the barometer stands at about three times as high as onMars, proves that from scantiness of atmosphere alone Mars cannotpossibly have a temperature as high as the freezing-point of water. Thecombination of these two results must bring down the temperature of Marsto a degree wholly incompatible with the existence of animal life. 

(3) The quite independent proof that water-vapour cannot exist on Mars, and that, therefore, the first essential of organic life--water--isnon-existent. 

The conclusion from these three independent proofs . .. Is thereforeirresistible--that animal life, especially in its highest forms, cannotexist. Mars, therefore, is not only uninhabited by intelligent beings. .. But is absolutely uninhabitable. 

 * * * * *

In contrast to his purely scientific interest in astronomy, Wallace wasmoved by the romance of the "stars, " akin to his enthusiastic love ofbeautiful butterflies. Had it not been for this touch of romance andidealism in his writings on astronomy, they would have lost much oftheir charm for the general reader. His breadth of vision transforms himfrom a mere student of astronomy into a seer who became ever more deeplyconscious of the mystery both "before and behind. "

 "Rain, sun, and rain! and the free blossom blows; Sun, rain, and sun! and where is he who knows? From the great deep to the great deep he goes. "

And whilst facing with brave and steady mind the great mysteries ofearth and sky, of life and what lies beyond it, he himself loved toquote:

 "Fear not thou the hidden purpose Of that Power which alone is great, Nor the myriad world His shadow, Nor the silent Opener of the Gate. "

Among the scientific friends to whom he appealed for help when writinghis astronomical books was Prof. (now Sir) W. F. Barrett. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Parkstone, Dorset. February 12, 1901. _

My dear Barrett, --I shall be much obliged if you will give me youropinion on a problem in physics that I cannot find answered in any book. It relates to the old Nebular Hypothesis, and is this:

It is assumed that the matter of the solar system was once whollygaseous, and extended as a roughly globular or lenticular mass beyondthe orbit of Neptune. Sir Robert Ball stated in a lecture here that evenwhen the solar nebula had shrunk to the size of the earth's orbit itmust have been (I think he said) hundreds of times rarer than theresidual gas in one of Crookes's high vacuum tubes. Yet, by hypothesis, it was hot enough, even in its outer portions, to retain all the solidelements in the gaseous state. 

Now, admitting this to be _possible_ at any given epoch, my difficultyis this: how long could the outer parts of this nebula exist, exposed tothe zero temperature of surrounding space, without losing the gaseousstate and aggregating into minute solid particles--into meteoric dust, in fact?

Could it exist an hour? a day? a year? a century? Yet the process ofcondensation from the Neptunian era to that of Saturn or Jupiter mustsurely have occupied millions of centuries. What kept the almostinfinitely rare metallic gases in the gaseous state all this time? Issuch a condition of things physically possible?

I cannot myself imagine any such condition of things as the supposedprimitive solar nebula as possibly coming into existence under anyconceivably antecedent conditions, but, granted that it did come intoexistence, it seems to me that the gaseous state must almost instantlybegin changing into the solid state. Hence I adopt the meteoric theoryinstead of the nebular; since all the evidence is in favour of solidmatter being abundant all through known space, while there is noevidence of metallic gases existing in space, except as the result ofcollisions of huge masses of matter. Is my difficulty a mare'snest?--Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO Mrs. Fisher

_Broadstone, Wimborne. February 28, 1905. _

Dear Mrs. Fisher, --Thanks for your letter. Am sorry I have not convertedyou, but perhaps it will come yet! I will only make one remark as toyour conclusion. 

I have not attempted to prove a negative! That is not necessary. What Iclaim to have done is, to have shown that all the evidence we have, beit much or little, is decidedly against not only other solar planetshaving inhabitants, but also, as far as probabilities are concerned, equally against it in any supposed stellar planets--for not one has beenproved to exist. There is absolutely no evidence which shows even aprobability of there being other inhabited worlds. It is all purespeculation, depending upon our ideas as to what the universe is for, asto what _we_ think (some of us!) _ought_ to be! That is not evidence, even of the flimsiest. All I maintain is that mine _is_ evidence, founded on physical probabilities, and that, as against no evidence atall--no proved physical probability--mine holds the field!--Yours verytruly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. E. SMEDLEY

_Broadstone, Dorset. July 24, 1907. _

Dear Mr. Smedley, -- . .. I write chiefly to tell you that I have read Mr. Lowell's last book, "Mars and its Canals, " and am now writing anarticle, or perhaps a small book, about it. I am sure his theories areall wrong, and I am showing why, so that anyone can see his fallacies. His observations, drawings, photographs, etc. , are all quite right, andI believe true to nature, but his interpretation of what he sees iswrong--often even to absurdity. He began by thinking the straight linesare works of art, and as he finds more and more of these straight lines, he thinks that proves more completely that they are works of art, andthen he twists all other evidence to suit that. The book is not verywell written, but no doubt the newspaper men think that as he is such agreat astronomer he must know what it all means!

I am more than ever convinced that Mars is totallyuninhabitable. .. . --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Broadstone, Wimborne. August 10, 1907. _

My dear Barrett, --Thanks for your letter, and your friend Prof. Stroud's. I have come to the sad conclusion that it is hopeless to getany mathematician to trouble himself to track out Lowell's obscuritiesand fallacies. .. . So, being driven on to my own resources, I have workedout a mode of estimating (within limits) the temperature of Mars, without any mathematical formulæ--and only a little arithmetic. I wantto know if there is any fallacy in it, and therefore take the liberty ofsending it to you, as you are taking your holiday, just to read it overand tell me if you see any flaw in it. I also send my short summary ofLowell's _Philosophical Magazine_ paper, so that you can see if mycriticism at the end is fair, and whether his words really mean what tome they seem to. .. . --Yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. F. BIRCH

_Sept. 12, 1907. _

Dear Fred, -- . .. For the last two or three months I have had a hardstruggle with Mars--not the god of war, but the planet--writing a smallbook, chiefly criticising Lowell's last book, called "Mars and itsCanals, " published less than a year back by Macmillan, who will alsopublish my reply. _I_ think it is crushing, but it has cost me a deal oftrouble, as Lowell has also printed a long and complex mathematicalarticle trying to prove that though Mars receives less than half thesun-heat we do, yet it is very nearly as warm and quite habitable! Buthis figures and arguments are alike so shaky and involved that I cannotget any of my mathematical friends to tackle it or point out his errors. However, I think I have done it myself by the rules of commonsense. .. . --Your sincere friend, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. H. JAMYN BROOKE

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. December 2, 1910. _

Dear Sir, --Your "monistic" system is to me a system of merecontradictory words. You begin with three things--then you say they arecorrelated with one substance--coextensive with the universe. This youcannot possibly know, and it is about as intelligible and as likely tobe true as the Athanasian Creed!--Yours truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROP. KNIGHT

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. October 1, 1913. _

Dear Mr. Knight, --I have written hardly anything on the direct proofs of"immortality" except in my book on "Miracles and Modern Spiritualism, "and also in "My Life, " Vol. II. But my two works, "Man's Place in theUniverse" (now published at 1s. ), and my later volume, "The World ofLife, " form together a very elaborate, and I think conclusive, scientific argument in favour of the view that the whole materialuniverse exists and is designed for the production of immortal spirits, in the greatest possible diversity of nature, and character, corresponding with . .. The almost infinite diversity of that universe, in all its parts and in every detail. .. . --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

P. S. --I am fairly well, but almost past work. --A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR OLIVER LODGE

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. October 9, 1913. _

Dear Sir Oliver Lodge, --Owing to ill-health and other causes I have onlynow been able to finish the perusal of your intensely interesting andinstructive Address to the British Association. I cannot, however, refrain from writing to you to express my admiration of it, andespecially of the first half of it, in which you discuss the almostinfinite variety and complexity of the physical problems involved in thegreat principle of "continuity" in so clear a manner that outsiders likemyself are able to some extent to apprehend them. I am especiallypleased to find that you uphold the actual existence and _continuity_ ofthe ether as scientifically established, and reject the doubts of somemathematicians as to the reality and perfect continuity of space andtime as unthinkable. 

The latter part of the Address is even more important, and is especiallynotable for your clear and positive statements as to the evidence in alllife-process of a "guiding" Mind. I can hardly suppose that you can havefound time to read my rather discursive and laboured volume on "TheWorld of Life, " written mainly for the purpose of enforcing not only theproofs of a "guiding" but also of a "foreseeing" and "designing" Mind byevidence which will be thought by most men of science to be undulystrained. It is, therefore, the more interesting to me to find that youhave yourself (on pp. 33-34 of your Address) used the very same form ofanalogical illustration as I have done (at p. 296 of "The World ofLife") under the heading of "A Physiological Allegory, " as being a veryclose representation of what really occurs in nature. 

To conclude: your last paragraph rises to a height of grandeur andeloquence to which I cannot attain, but which excites my highestadmiration. 

Should you have a separate copy to spare of your Romanes Lecture atOxford, I should be glad to have it to refer to. --Believe me yours verytruly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The last of Wallace's letters on astronomical subjects was written toSir Oliver Lodge about a week before his death:

TO SIR OLIVER LODGES

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. October 27, 1913. _

Dear Sir Oliver Lodge, --Many thanks for your Romanes Lecture, which, owing to my ignorance of modern electrical theory and experiments, ismore difficult for me than was your British Association Address. 

I have been very much interested the last month by reading a book sentme from America by Mr. W. L. Webb, being "An Account of the UnparalleledDiscoveries of Mr. T. J. J. See. "

Several of Mr. See's own lectures are given, with references to his"Researches on the Evolution of the Stellar Systems, " in two largevolumes. 

His theory of "capture" of suns, planets, and satellites seems to mevery beautifully worked out under the influence of gravitation and aresisting medium of cosmical dust--which explains the origin and motionsof the moon as well as that of all the planets and satellites far betterthan Sir G. Darwin's expulsion theory. 

I note however that he is quite ignorant that Proctor, forty years ago, gave full reasons for this "capture" theory in his "Expanse of Heaven, "and also that the same writer showed that the Milky Way could not havethe enormous lateral extension he gives to it, but that it cannot reallybe much flattened. He does not even mention the proofs given of thisboth by Proctor and, I think, by Herbert Spencer, while in Mr. Webb'svolume (opposite p. 212) is a diagram showing the "Coal Sack" as a"vacant lane" running quite through and across the successive spiralextensions laterally of the galaxy, without any reference or a word ofexplanation that such features, of which there are many, reallydemonstrate the untenability of such extension. 

An even more original and extremely interesting part of Mr. See's workis his very satisfactory solution of the hitherto unsolved geologicalproblem of the origin of all the great mountain ranges of the world, inChapters X. , XI. , and XII. Of Mr. Webb's volume. It seems quite completeexcept for the beginnings, but I suppose it is a result of the formationof the _earth_ by accretion and not by expulsion, by heating and not bycooling. .. . --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

II. --Spiritualism

 "The completely materialistic mind of my youth and early manhood has been slowly moulded into the socialistic, spiritualistic, and theistic mind I now exhibit--a mind which is, as my scientific friends think, so weak and credulous in its declining years, as to believe that fruit and flowers, domestic animals, glorious birds and insects, wool, cotton, sugar and rubber, metals and gems, were all foreseen and foreordained for the education and enjoyment of man. The whole cumulative argument of my 'World of Life' is that _in its every detail_ it calls for the agency of a mind . .. Enormously above and beyond any human mind . .. Whether this Unknown Reality is a single Being and acts everywhere in the universe as direct creator, organiser, and director of every minutest motion . .. Or through 'infinite grades of beings, ' as I suggest, comes to much the same thing. Mine seems a more clear and intelligible supposition . .. And it is the teaching of the Bible, of Swedenborg, and of Milton. "--Letter from A. R. Wallace to JAMES MARCHANT, written in 1913. 

The letters on Spiritualism which Wallace wrote cast further light onthe personal attitude of mind which he maintained towards that subject. He was an unbiased scientific investigator, commencing on the "lowerlevel" of spirit phenomena, such as raps and similar physicalmanifestations of "force by unseen intelligences, " and passing on to aclearer understanding of the phenomena of mesmerism and telepathy; tothe materialisation of, and conversation with, the spirits of those whohad been known in the body, until the conviction of life after death, asthe inevitable crowning conclusion to the long process of evolution, wasreached in the remarkable chapter with which he concludes "The World ofLife"--an impressive prose poem. 

Like that of many other children, Wallace's early childhood was spent inan orthodox religious atmosphere, which, whilst awakening within himvague emotions of religious fervour, derived chiefly from the morepicturesque and impassioned of the hymns which he occasionally heardsung at a Nonconformist chapel, left no enduring impression. Moreover, at the age of 14 he was brought suddenly into close contact withSocialism as expounded by Robert Owen, which dispelled whateverglimmerings of the Christian faith there may have been latent in hismind, leaving him for many years a confirmed materialist. 

This fact, together with his early-aroused sense of the social injusticeand privations imposed upon the poorer classes both in town and country, which he carefully observed during his experience as a land-surveyor, might easily have had an undesirable effect upon his general characterhad not his intense love and reverence for nature provided a stimulus tohis moral and spiritual development. But the "directive Mind andPurpose" was preparing him silently and unconsciously until his "fabricof thought" was ready to receive spiritual impressions. For, accordingto his own theory, as "the laws of nature bring about continuousdevelopment, on the whole progressive, one of the subsidiary results ofthis mode of development is that no organ, no sensation, no facultyarises _before_ it is needed, or in greater degree than it isneeded. "[56] From this point of view we may make a brief outline of themanner in which this particular "faculty" arose and was developed inhim. 

When at Leicester, in 1844, his curiosity was greatly excited by somelectures on mesmerism given by Mr. Spencer Hall, and he soon discoveredthat he himself had considerable power in this direction, which heexercised on some of his pupils. 

Later, when his brother Herbert joined him in South America, he foundthat he also possessed this gift, and on several occasions theymesmerised some of the natives for mere amusement. But the subject wasput aside, and Wallace paid no further attention to such phenomena untilafter his return to England in 1862. 

It was not until the summer of 1865 that he witnessed any phenomena of aspiritualistic nature; of these a full account is given in "Miracles andModern Spiritualism" (p. 132). "I came, " he says, "to the inquiryutterly unbiased by hopes or fears, because I knew that my belief couldnot affect the reality, and with an ingrained prejudice even againstsuch a word as 'spirit, ' which I have hardly yet overcome. "

From that time until 1895, when the second edition of that bookappeared, he did much, together with other scientists, to establishthese facts, as he believed them to be, on a rational and scientificfoundation. It will also be noticed, both before and after this period, that in addition to the notable book which he published dealingexclusively with these matters, the gradual trend of his convictions, advancing steadily towards the end which he ultimately reached, hadbecome so thoroughly woven into his "fabric of thought" that it appearsunder many phases in his writings, and occupies a considerable part ofhis correspondence, of which we have only room for some specimens. 

The first definite statement of his belief in "this something" otherthan material in the evolution of Man appeared in his essay on "TheDevelopment of Human Faces under the Law of Natural Selection" (1864). In this he suggested that, Man having reached a state of physicalperfection through the progressive law of Natural Selection, thenceforthMind became the dominating factor, endowing Man with an ever-increasingpower of intelligence which, whilst the physical had remainedstationary, had continued to develop according to his needs. This"in-breathing" of a divine Spirit, or the controlling force of a supremedirective Mind and Purpose, which was one of the points of divergencebetween his theory and that held by Darwin, is too well known to needrepetition. 

This disagreement has a twofold interest from the fact that Darwin, inhis youth, studied theology with the full intention of taking holyorders, and for some years retained his faith in the more or lessorthodox beliefs arising out of the Bible. But as time went by, anever-extending knowledge of the mystery of the natural laws governingthe development of man and nature led him to make the characteristicallyfrank avowal that he "found it more and more difficult . .. To inventevidence which would suffice to convince"; adding, "This disbelief creptover me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was soslow that I felt no distress. "[57] With Wallace, however, his earlydisbelief ended in a deep conviction that "as nothing in nature actually'dies, ' but renews its life in another and higher form, so Man, thehighest product of natural laws here, must by the power of mind andintellect continue to develop hereafter. "

The varied reasons leading up to this final conviction, as related byhimself in "Miracles and Modern Spiritualism" and "My Life, " are, however, too numerous and detailed to be retold in a brief summary inthis place. 

The correspondence that follows deals entirely with investigations onthis side of the Atlantic, but a good deal of evidence which to him wasconclusive was obtained during his stay in America, where Spiritualismhas been more widely recognised, and for a much longer period than inEngland. 

Some of the letters addressed to Miss Buckley (afterwards Mrs. Fisher)reveal the extreme caution which he both practised himself and advocatedin others when following up any experimental phase of spiritualphenomena. The same correspondence also gives a fairly clear outline ofhis faith in the ascending scale from the physical evidence ofspirit-existence to the communication of some actual knowledge of lifeas it exists beyond the veil. 

In spiritual matters, as in natural science, though at times his headmay have appeared to be "in the clouds, " his feet were planted firmly onthe earth. This is seen, to note another curious instance, in hiscorrespondence with Sir Wm. Barrett, where he maintains a delicatebalance between natural science and "spirit impression" when discussingthe much controverted reality of "dowsing" for water. 

It was this breadth of vision, unhampered by mere intellectualism, butalways kept within reasonable bounds by scientific deduction andanalysis, which constituted Alfred Russel Wallace a seer of the firstrank. 

Wallace lived to see the theory of evolution applied to the life-historyof the earth and the starry firmament, to the development of nations andraces, to the progress of mind, morals and religion, even to the originof consciousness and life--a conception which has completelyrevolutionised man's attitude towards himself and the world and God. Evolution became intelligible in the light of that idea which came tohim in his hut at Ternate and changed the face of the universe. Surelyit was enough for any one man to be one of the two chief originators ofsuch a far-reaching thought and to witness its impact upon the ancientstory of special creations which it finally laid in the dust. ButWallace was privileged beyond all the men of his generation. He lived tosee many of the results of the theory of evolution tested by time and toforesee that there were definite limits to its range, that, indeed, there were two lines of development--one affecting the visible world ofform and colour and the other the invisible world of life andspirit--two worlds springing from two opposite poles of being anddeveloping _pari passu_, or, rather, the spiritual dominating thematerial, life originating and controlling organisation. It was, inshort, his peculiar task to reveal something of the Why as well as theHow of the evolutionary process, and in doing so verily to bringimmortality to light. 

The immediate exciting cause of this discovery of the inadequacy ofevolution from the material side alone to account for the world of lifemay seem to many to have been trivial and unworthy of the seriousattention of a great scientist. How, it might be asked, could the crudeand doubtful phenomena of Spiritualism afford reasonably adequategrounds for challenging its supremacy and for setting a limit to itsrange? But spiritualistic phenomena were only the accidental modes inwhich the other side of evolution struck in upon his vision. They sethim upon the other track and opened up to him the vaster kingdom of lifewhich is without beginning, limit or end; in which perchance thesequence of life from the simple to the complex, from living germ toliving God, may also be the law of growth. It is in the light of thisultimate end that we must judge the stumbling steps guided by raps andvisions which led him to the ladder set up to the stars by whichconnection was established with the inner reality of being. That was thedistinctive contribution which he made to human beliefs over and abovehis advocacy of pure Darwinism. 

 * * * * *

Reading almost everything he could obtain upon occult phenomena, Wallacefound that there was such a mass of testimony by men of the highestcharacter and ability in every department of human learning that hethought it would be useful to bring this together in a connected sketchof the whole subject. This he did, and sent it to a secularist magazine, in which it appeared in 1866, under the title of "The Scientific Aspectof the Supernatural. " He sent a copy to Huxley. 

 * * * * *

TO T. H. HUXLEY

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, Regent's Park, N. W. November 22, 1866. _

Dear Huxley, --I have been writing a little on a _new branch_ ofAnthropology, and as I have taken your name in vain on the title-page Isend you a copy. I fear you will be much shocked, but I can't help it;and before finally deciding that we are all mad I hope you will come andsee some very curious phenomena which we can show you, _among friendsonly_. We meet every Friday evening, and hope you will come sometimes, as we wish for the fullest investigation, and shall be only too gratefulto you or anyone else who will show us how and where we are deceived. 

 * * * * *

T. H. HUXLEY TO A. R. WALLACE

[? _November, 1886. _]

Dear Wallace, --I am neither shocked nor disposed to issue a Commissionof Lunacy against you. It may be all true, for anything I know to thecontrary, but really I cannot get up any interest in the subject. Inever cared for gossip in my life, and disembodied gossip, such as theseworthy ghosts supply their friends with, is not more interesting to methan any other. As for investigating the matter, I have half-a-dozeninvestigations of infinitely greater interest to me to which any sparetime I may have will be devoted. I give it up for the same reason Iabstain from chess--it's too amusing to be fair work, and too hard workto be amusing. --Yours faithfully, T. H. HUXLEY. 

 * * * * *

TO T. H. HUXLEY

_9 St. Mark's Crescent, Regent's Park, N. W. December 1, 1866. _

Dear Huxley, --Thanks for your note. Of course, I have no wish to presson you an inquiry for which you have neither time nor inclination. Asfor the "gossip" you speak of, I care for it as little as you can do, but what I do feel an intense interest in is the exhibition of _force_where force has been declared _impossible_, and of _intelligence_ from asource the very mention of which has been deemed an _absurdity_. 

Faraday has declared (apropos of this subject) that he who can prove theexistence or exertion of force, if but the lifting of a single ounce, bya power not yet recognised by science, will deserve and assuredlyreceive applause and gratitude. (I quote from memory the sense of hisexpressions in his Lecture on Education. )

I believe I can now show such a force, and I trust some of thephysicists may be found to admit its importance and examine intoit. --Believe me yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS BUCKLEY

_Holly House, Barking, E. December 25, 1870. _

Dear Miss Buckley, -- . .. You did not hear Mrs. Hardinge[58] on veryfavourable topics, and I hope you will hear her often again, andespecially hear one of her regular discourses. I think, however, fromwhat you heard, that, setting aside all idea of her being more than amere spiritualist lecturer setting forth the ideas and opinions of thesect, you will admit that spiritualists, as represented by her, areneither prejudiced nor unreasonable, and that they are truly imbued withthe scientific spirit of subordinating all theory to fact. You will alsoadmit, I think, that the moral teachings of Spiritualism, as far as shetouched upon them, are elevated and beautiful and calculated to do good;and if so, that is the use of Spiritualism--the getting such doctrinesof future progress founded on actual phenomena which we can observe andexamine now, not on phenomena which are said to have occurred thousandsof years ago and of which we have confessedly but imperfect records. 

I think, too, that the becoming acquainted with two such phases ofSpiritualism as are exhibited by Mrs. Hardinge and Miss Houghton mustshow you that the whole thing is not to be judged by the commonphenomena of public stances alone, and I can assure you that there aredozens of other phases of the subject as remarkable as thesetwo. .. . --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS BUCKLEY

_Holly House. Barking, E. June 1, 1871. _

Dear Miss Buckley, -- . .. I have lately had a stance with the celebratedMr. Home, and saw that most wonderful phenomenon an accordion playingbeautiful music by itself, the bottom only being held in Mr. Home'shand. I was invited to watch it as closely as I pleased under the tablein a well-lighted room. I am sure nothing touched it but Mr. Home's onehand, yet at one time I saw a shadowy yet defined hand on the keys. Thisis too vast a phenomenon for any sceptic to assimilate, and I can wellunderstand the impossibility of their accepting the evidence of theirown senses. Mr. Crookes, F. R. S. , the chemist, was present and suspendedthe table with a spring balance, when it was at request made heavy orlight, the indicator moving accordingly, and to prevent any mistake itwas made light when the hands of all present were resting on the tableand heavy when our hands were all underneath it. The difference, if Iremember, was about 40 lb. I was also asked to place a candle on thefloor and look under the table while it was lifted completely off thefloor, Mr. Home's feet being 2 ft. Distant from any part of it. This wasin a lady's house in the West End. Mr. Home courts examination if peoplecome to him in a fair and candid spirit of inquiry. .. . --Yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS BUCKLEY

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. January 11, 1874. _

My dear Miss Buckley, --I am delighted to hear of your success so far, and hope you are progressing satisfactorily. Pray keep accurate notes ofall that takes place. .. . Allow me . .. To warn you not to take it forgranted till you get proof upon proof that it is really your sister thatis communicating with you. I hope and think it is, but still, theconditions that render communication possible are so subtle and complexthat she may not be able; and some other being, reading your mind, maybe acting through you and making you think it is your sister, to induceyou to go on. Be therefore on the look out for characteristic traits ofyour sister's mind and manner which are different from your own. Thesewill be tests, especially if they come when and how you are notexpecting them. Even if it is your sister, she may be obliged to use theintermediation of some other being, and in that case her peculiaridiosyncrasy may be at first disguised, but it will soon make itselfdistinctly visible. Of course you will preserve every scrap you write, and date them, and they will, I have no doubt, explain each other as yougo on. 

If you can get to see the last number of the _Quarterly Journal ofScience_, you will find a most important article by Mr. Crookes, givingan outline of the results of his investigations, which he is going togive in full in a volume. His facts are most marvellous and convincing, and appear to me to answer every one of the objections that have usuallybeen made to the evidence adduced. .. . --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS BUCKLEY

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. February 28, 1874. _

Dear Miss Buckley, --I was much pleased with your long and interestingletter of the 19th and am glad you are getting on at last. It will besplendid if you really become a good medium for some first-rateunmistakable manifestations that even Huxley will acknowledge are worthseeing, and Carpenter confess are not to be explained by unconsciouscerebration. .. . --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS BUCKLEY

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. March 9, 1874. _

Dear Miss Buckley, --I compassionate your mediumistic troubles, but Ihave no doubt it will all come right in the end. The fact that yoursister will not talk as you want her to talk--will not say what youexpect her to say, is a grand proof that it is not your unconsciouscerebration that does her talking for her. Is not that clear? Whether itis she herself or someone else who is talking to you, is not so clear, but that it is not you, I think, is clear enough. 

I can quite understand, too, that your sister in her new life may be, above all things, interested in getting the telegraph in good order, tocommunicate, and will not think of much else till that is done. Whilethe first Atlantic cable was being laid the messages would be chieflyreports of progress, directions and instructions, with now and thentrivialities about the weather, the time, or small items of news. Onlywhen it was in real working order was a President's Message, a Queen'sSpeech, sent through it. 

Automatic writing and trance speaking never yet convinced anybody. Theyare only useful for those who are already convinced. But you _would_begin this way. You would not go to mediums and séances and see what youcould get that way. So now you must persevere; but do not give up yourown judgment in anything. Insist upon having things explained to you, orsay you won't go on. You will then find they will be explained, only itmay take a little more time. .. . --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS BUCKLEY

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. April 24, 1874. _

Dear Miss Buckley, -- . .. On coming home this evening I received the newsof poor little Bertie's death--this morning at eight o'clock. I left himonly yesterday forenoon, and had then considerable hopes, for we hadjust commenced a new treatment which a fortnight earlier I am prettysure might have saved him. The thought suddenly struck me to go to Dr. Williams, of Hayward's Heath . .. But it was too late. As he had been inthis same state of exhaustion for nearly a month, it is evident thatvery slight influences might have been injurious or beneficial. Ourorthodox medical men are profoundly ignorant of the subtle influences ofthe human body in health and disease, and can thus do nothing in manycases which Nature would cure if assisted by proper conditions. We whoknow what strange and subtle influences are around us can believethis. .. . --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

Mr. Wallace felt the death of this child so deeply that during theremainder of his life he never mentioned him except when obliged, andthen with tears in his eyes. --A. B. FISHER. 

 * * * * *

TO MISS BUCKLEY

_The Dell, Grays, Essex. Thursday evening, [? December, 1875]. _

Dear Miss Buckley, --Our stance came off last evening, and was atolerable success. The medium is a very pretty little lively girl, theplace where she sits a bare empty cupboard formed by a frame and doorsto close up a recess by the side of a fireplace in a small basementbreakfast-room. We examined it, and it is absolutely impossible toconceal a scrap of paper in it. Miss Cooke is locked in this cupboard, above the door of which is a square opening about 15 inches each way, the only thing she takes with her being a long piece of tape and a chairto sit on. After a few minutes Katie's whispering voice was heard, and alittle while after we were asked to open the door and seal up themedium. We found her hands tied together with the tape passed threetimes round each wrist and tightly knotted, the hands tied closetogether, the tape then passing behind and well knotted to thechair-back. We sealed all the knots with a private seal of my friend's, and again locked the door. A portable gas lamp was on a table the wholeevening, shaded by a screen so as to cast a shadow on the square openingabove the door of the cupboard till permission was given to illuminateit. Every object and person in the room were always distinctly visible. A face[59] then appeared at the opening, but dark and indistinct. 

After a time another face quite distinct with a white turban-likeheaddress--this was a handsome face with a considerable general likenessto that of the medium, but paler, larger, fuller, and older--decidedly adifferent face, although like. The light was thrown full on this face, and on request it advanced so that the chin projected a little beyondthe aperture. We were then ordered to release the medium. I opened thedoor, and found her bent forward with her head in her lap, andapparently in a deep sleep or trance--from which a touch and a few wordsawoke her. We then examined the tape and knots--all was as we left itand every seal perfect. 

The same face appeared later in the evening, and also one decidedlydifferent with coarser features. 

After this, for the sake I believe of two sceptics present, the mediumwas twice tied up in a way that no human being could possibly tieherself. Her wrists were tied together so tightly and painfully that itwas impossible to untie them in any moderate time, and she was alsosecured to the chair; on the other occasion the two arms were tied closeabove the elbows so tightly that the arms were swelling considerablyfrom impeded circulation, the elbows being drawn together as close aspossible behind the back, there repeatedly knotted, and again tightlyknotted to the back of the chair. Miss C. Was evidently in considerablepain, and she had to be lifted out bodily in her chair before we couldsafely cut her loose, so tightly was she bound. This evidently had agreat effect on the sceptics, as I have no doubt it was intended tohave, and it demonstrated pretty clearly that some strange being wasinside the cupboard playing these tricks, although quite invisible andintangible to us except when she made certain portions of herselfvisible. 

When Miss C. Was complaining of being hurt by the tying we could hearthe whispering voice soothing her in the kindest manner, and also heardkisses, and Miss C. Afterwards declared that she could feel hands andface about her like those of a real person. 

During all the face exhibitions singing had to go on to a rather painfulextent. [60]

A Dr. Purdon was present, an Army surgeon, who has been much in India, and seems a very intelligent man. He seemed very intimate with thefamily, and told us he had studied them all, and had had Miss Cooke amonth at a time in his own house, studying these phenomena. He wasabsolutely satisfied of their genuineness, and indeed no opportunity forimposture seems to exist. 

The children of the house tell wonderful tales of how they are lifted upand carried about by the spirits. They seem to enjoy it very much, andto look upon it all as just as real and natural as any other matters oftheir daily life. 

Can such things be in this nineteenth century, and the wise ones passaway in utter ignorance of their existence?--Yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

At the Glasgow Meeting of the British Association in 1876, Prof. (nowSir) W. F. Barrett read a paper "On some Phenomena associated withAbnormal Conditions of Mind. " Wallace was Chairman of the Section inwhich the paper was read, and a vigorous controversy arose at the closebetween Dr. Carpenter, who came in towards the end of the paper, and theChairman. The paper set forth certain remarkable evidence which Prof. Barrett had obtained from a subject in the mesmeric trance, giving whatappeared to be indubitable proof of some supernormal mode oftransmission of ideas from his mind to that of the subject. The factswere so novel and startling that Prof. Barrett asked for a committee ofexperts to examine the whole question and see whether such a thing as"thought transference, " independently of the recognised channels ofsense, did really exist. This was the first time evidence of this kindhad been brought before a scientific society, and a protracteddiscussion followed. The paper also dealt with certain so-calledspiritualistic phenomena, which at the time Prof. Barrett was disposedto attribute to hallucination and "thought-transference. " Theintroduction of this topic led the discussion away from the substance ofthe paper, and Prof. Barrett's plea for a committee of investigation onthought-transference fell through. So strong was the feeling against thepaper in official scientific circles at the time, that even an abstractwas refused publication in the _Report_ of the British Association, andit was not until the Society for Psychical Research was founded that thepaper was published, in the first volume of its _Proceedings_. It wasthe need of a scientific society to collect, sift and discuss andpublish the evidence on behalf of such supernormal phenomena as Prof. Barrett described at the British Association that induced him to call aconference in London at the close of 1881, which led to the foundationof the Society for Psychical Research early in 1882. 

Wallace, in his letter to Prof. Barrett which follows, refers toReichenbach's experiments with certain sensitives who declared they sawluminosity from the poles of a magnet after they had been for some timein a perfectly darkened room. Acting on Wallace's suggestion, Prof. Barrett constructed a perfectly darkened room and employed a largeelectro-magnet, the current for which could be made or broken by anassistant outside without the knowledge of those present in the darkenedroom. Under these circumstances, and taking every precaution to preventany knowledge of when the magnet was made active by the current, Prof. Barrett found that two or three persons, out of a large number with whomhe experimented, saw a luminosity streaming from the poles of the magnetdirectly the current was put on. An article of Prof. Barrett's on thesubject, with the details of the experiment, was published in the_Philosophical Magazine_, and also in the _Proceedings_ of the Societyfor Psychical Research (Vol. I. ). 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Rosehill, Dorking, December 18, 1876. _

My dear Prof. Barrett, -- . .. I see you are to lecture at SouthKensington the end of this month (I think), and if you can spare time torun down here and stay a night or two we shall be much pleased to seeyou, and I shall be greatly interested to have a talk on the subject ofyour paper, and hear what further evidence you have obtained. I wantparticularly to ask you to take advantage of any opportunity that youmay have to test the power of sensitives to see the "flames" frommagnets and crystals, as also to _feel_ the influence from them. This issurely a matter easily tested and settled. I consider it has been testedand settled by Reichenbach, but he is ignored, and a fresh proof of thisone fact, by indisputable tests, is much needed; and a paper describingsuch tests and proofs would I imagine be admitted into the _Proceedings_of any suitable society. 

You will have heard no doubt of the Treasury having taken up theprosecution of Slade. Massey the barrister, one of the most intelligentand able of the Spiritualists (whose accession to the cause is due, I amglad to say, to my article in the _Fortnightly_), proposes a memorialand deputation to the Government protesting against this prosecution bythe Treasury on the ground that it implies that Slade is an habitualimpostor and nothing else, and that in face of the body of evidence tothe contrary, it is an uncalled-for interference with the private rightof investigation into these subjects. On such general grounds as these Isincerely hope you will give your name to the memorial. .. . --Yours veryfaithfully, A. R. WALLACE. TO PROF. BARRETT

_Rosehill, Dorking. December 9, 1877. _

My dear Barrett, --I am always glad when a man I like and respect treatsme as a friend. I am advised by other friends also not to waste moretime on Dr. C. [Carpenter], and I do not think I shall answer him again, except perhaps to keep him to certain points, as in my letter in thelast _Nature_. In a proof of his new edition of "Lectures" I see hechallenges me to produce a person who can detect by light or sensationwhen an electro-magnet is made and unmade. The Association ofSpiritualists are going to experiment, as Dr. C. Offers to pay £30 if itsucceeds. Should you have an opportunity of trying with any persons, andcan find one who sees or feels the influence strongly, it might be worthwhile to send him to London, as nothing would tend to lower Dr. C. Inpublic estimation on this subject more than his being forced toacknowledge that what he has for more than thirty years declared to bepurely subjective is after all an objective phenomenon. 

I never had anything to do with showing or sending a medium to Huxley. He must refer to his séance a few months ago with Mrs. Kane and Mrs. Jencken (along with Carpenter and Tyndall), when . .. Nothing but rapsoccurred. .. . --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

The British Association met in Dublin in 1878, and Prof. Barrett askedWallace to stay with him at Kingstown, or, if he preferred being nearerthe meetings, with a friend in Dublin. Earlier in the year Mr. Huggins, afterwards Sir W. Huggins, O. M. And President of the Royal Society, hadsent Prof. Barrett a very beautifully executed drawing of the knots tiedin an endless cord during the remarkable sittings Prof. Zöllner had withthe medium Slade. Sir W. Huggins invited Prof. Barrett to come and seehim at his observatory at Tulse Hill, near London, and there he metWallace and discussed the whole matter. It may not be generally knownthat so careful and accurate an observer as Sir W. Huggins was convincedof the genuineness of the phenomena he had witnessed with Lord Dunravenand others through the medium D. D. Home. He informed Prof. Barrett ofthis himself. 

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Waldron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. June 27, 1873. _

My dear Barrett, --The receipt of a British Association circular remindsme of your kind invitation to stay with you or your friend at Dublin, and as you may be wishing soon to make your arrangements I write at onceto let you know that, much to my regret, I shall not be able to come toDublin this year. Since I met you at Mr. Huggins's I have done nothingmyself in Spiritual investigations, but have been exceedingly interestedin the knot-tying experiment of Prof. Zöllner and the weight-varyingexperiments of the Spiritualists' Association. I do not see what flawcan be found in either of them. .. . --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

In the discussion on Prof. Barrett's paper at the Glasgow Meeting of theBritish Association, which took place in the London _Times_ and othernewspapers, instances of apparent thought-transference were given bymany correspondents. Each of these cases Prof. Barrett investigatedpersonally, and one of them led to a remarkable series of experimentswhich he conducted at Buxton, with the result that no doubt was left onhis mind of the fact of the transference of ideas from one mind toanother independent of the ordinary channels of sense. He asked Prof. And Mrs. H. Sidgwick to come to Buxton and repeat his experiments withthe subjects there--daughters of a local clergyman. They did so, andthough they had less success at first than Prof. Barrett had had, theywere ultimately convinced of the genuineness of the phenomena. Inaddition, Mr. Edmund Gurney, Mr. Frederic Myers, Prof. A. Hopkinson andProf. Balfour Stewart, all responded to Prof. Barrett's invitation tovisit Buxton and test the matter for themselves, and all came to thesame conclusion as he had. Subsequently Gurney and Myers associatedtheir name with Barrett's in a paper on the subject, published in the_Nineteenth Century_. 

Prof. Barrett asked Wallace to read over the first report made by Prof. And Mrs. Sidgwick, which at first seemed somewhat disheartening, and thefollowing is his reply:

REMARKS ON EXPERIMENTS IN THOUGHT READING BY MR. AND MRS. SIDGWICK ATBUXTON

The failure of so many of these experiments seems to me to depend ontheir having been conducted without any knowledge of the mainpeculiarity of thought reading or clairvoyance--that it is a perceptionof the object thought of or hidden, not by its name, or even by its sumtotal of distinctive qualities, but by the simple qualities separately. A clairvoyant will perceive a thing as round, then as yellow, andfinally as an orange. Now Mr. Galton's experiments have shown howvarious are the powers of visualising objects possessed by differentpersons, and how distinct their modes of doing so; and if these distinctvisualisations of the same thing are in any way presented to aclairvoyant, there is little wonder that some confusion should result. This would suggest that one person who possesses the faculty of clearlyvisualising objects would meet with more success than a number ofpersons some of whom visualise one portion or quality of the object, some another, while to others the name alone is present to the mind. Itfollows from these considerations that cards are bad for suchexperiments. The qualities of number, colour, form and arrangement maybe severally most prominent in one mind or other, and the result isconfusion to the thought reader. This is shown in the experiments by thenumber of pips or the suit alone being often right. 

It must also be remembered that children have not the same thoroughknowledge of the names of the cards that we have, nor can they sorapidly and certainly count their numbers. This introduces anothersource of uncertainty which should be avoided in such experiments asthese. 

The same thing is still more clearly shown by the way in which objectsare guessed by some prominent quality or resemblance, not by anylikeness of name--as poker guessed for walking-stick, fork for pipe, something iron for knife, etc. And the total failure in the case ofnames of towns is clearly explained by the fact that these would conveyno distinct idea or concrete image that could be easily described. Theselast failures really give an important clue to the nature of the facultythat is being investigated, since they show that it is not _words_ or_names_ that are read but thoughts or images that are perceived, and thecertainty of the perception will depend upon the simple character ofthese images and the clearness and identity of the perception of them bythe different persons present. 

If these considerations are always kept in view, I feel sure that theexperiments will be far more successful. 

ALFRED E. WALLACE. 

Sept. 6, 1881. 

 * * * * *

Wallace's remarkable gifts as a lecturer are less widely known than hislucid and admirable style as a writer. Though Sir Wm. Barrett has hearda great number of eminent scientific men lecture, he considers that fewcould approach him for the simplicity, clearness and vigour of hisexposition, which commanded the unflagging attention of every one of hishearers. Mr. Frederic Myers, no mean judge of literary merit, once saidhe thought Wallace one of the most lucid English writers and lecturersof his time. Prof. Barrett was anxious to induce Wallace to lecture inDublin, and brought the matter before the Science Committee of the RoyalDublin Society, which arranges a course of afternoon lectures bydistinguished men every spring. The Committee cordially supported thesuggestion that Wallace should be invited to lecture, and the invitationwas accepted. During his visit to Dublin, Wallace stayed with Prof. Barrett at Kingstown, and was busily engaged in revising theproof-sheets of his book on "Land Nationalisation" (1882). 

In "My Life" (Vol. II. , p. 334) Wallace says that among the eminent menwhose "first acquaintance and valued friendship" he owed to a commoninterest in Spiritualism was Frederic Myers, whom he met first at someséances in London about the year 1878. 

 * * * * *

F. W. H. MYERS TO A. R. WALLACE

_Leckhampton House, Cambridge. April 12, 1890. _

My dear Wallace, --I will read your pamphlet[61] most carefully; willwrite and tell you how it affects me; and will in any case send it onwith your letter and a letter of my own to Sir John Gorst, whom I knowwell, and whom I agree with you in regarding as the most acceptablemember of the Government. 

If I am converted, it will be wholly _your_ doing. I have read much onthe subject--Creighton, etc. , and am at present stronglypro-vaccination; at the same time, there is no one by whom I would morewillingly be converted than yourself. 

I am glad to take this opportunity of telling you something about myrelation to one of your books. I write now from bed, having had someinfluenzic pneumonia, now going off. For some days my temperature was105 and I was very restless at night, anxious to read, but in toosensitive and fastidious a state to tolerate almost any book. I foundthat almost the only book which I could read was your "MalayArchipelago" (of course I had read it before). In spite of my completeignorance of natural history there was a certain charm about the book, both moral and literary, which made it deeply congenial in those tryinghours. You have had few less instructed readers, but very few can havedwelt on that simple manly record with a more profound sympathy. 

I want to bespeak you as a _friend at court_. When we get into the nextworld, I beg you to remember me and say a good word for me when you can, as you will have much influence there. 

To me it seems that Hodgson's report[62] is the _best_ thing which wehave yet published. I trust that it impresses you equally. It hasconverted _Podmore_ amongst other people!

I will, then, write again soon, and I am yours most truly, F. W. H. MYERS. 

 * * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER (_née_ BUCKLEY)

_Parkstone, Dorset. January 4, 1896. _

My dear Mrs. Fisher, --I am glad to hear that you are going on with yourbook. I am sure it will be a comfort to you. I have read one book ofHudson's--"A Scientific Demonstration of a Future Life, " and that is sopretentious, so unscientific, and so one-sided that I do not feelinclined to read more of the same author's work. I do not think Imentioned to you (as I thought you did not read much now) a really fineand original work, called "Psychic Philosophy, a Religion of NaturalLaw, " by Desertis (Redway). I should like to know if, after readingthat, you still think Hudson's books worth reading. I have been muchpleased and interested lately in reading Mark Twain's, Mrs. Oliphant'sand Andrew Lang's books about Joan of Arc. The last two are far thebest, Mrs. Oliphant's as a genuine sympathetic _history_, Lang's as afine realistic story ("A Monk of Fife"). Jeanne was really perhaps themost beautiful character in authentic history, and the one that mostconclusively demonstrates spirit-guidance, and both Mrs. Oliphant and A. Lang bring this out admirably. .. . --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER

_Parkstone, Dorset. September 14, 1896. _

My dear Mrs. Fisher, --I have much pleasure in signing your applicationfor the Psychical Research Society, though the majority of the activemembers are so absurdly and illogically sceptical that you will not findmuch instruction in their sayings. Mr. Podmore's report in thelast-issued _Proceedings_ is a good illustration. .. . 

We have all been in Switzerland this year. Violet, her mother, and fivelady friends all went together to a rather newly-discovered place, Adelboden, a branch valley from that going up to the Gemmi Pass byKandersteg. I went first for a week to Davos, to give a lecture to Dr. Lunn's party, and enjoyed myself much, chiefly owing to the company ofRev. Hugh Price Hughes, one of the most witty, earnest, advanced, andestimable men I have ever met. Dr. Lunn himself is very jolly, and wehad also Mr. Le Gallienne, the poet and critic, and between them we hada very brilliant table-talk. Mr. Haweis was also there, and oneafternoon he and I talked for two hours about Spiritualism. He is athorough spiritualist, and preaches it. .. . --Yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. TO MRS. FISHER

_Parkstone, Dorset. April 9, 1897. _

My dear Mrs. Fisher, --I have tried several Reincarnation andTheosophical books, but _cannot_ read them or take any interest in them. They are so purely imaginative, and do not seem to me rational. Manypeople are captivated by it--I think most people who like a grand, strange, complex theory of man and nature, given with authority--peoplewho if religious would be Roman Catholics. Crookes gave a suggestive andinteresting, but in some ways rather misleading address as President ofthe Psychical Research Society. I liked Oliver Lodge's address to theSpiritualists' Association better. .. . --Yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

In 1891, at the urgent request of Prof. H. Sidgwick, President of theSociety for Psychical Research, Prof. Barrett undertook, withconsiderable reluctance, to make a thorough examination of the subjectof "dowsing" for water and minerals by means of the so-called "diviningrod. " At the time he fully believed that a critical inquiry of this kindwould speedily show all the alleged successes of the dowser to be dueeither to fraud or a sharp eye for the ground. As the inquiry went on, to his surprise he found that neither chicanery, nor clever guessing, nor local knowledge, nor chance coincidence could explain away theaccumulated evidence, but that something new to science was really atthe root of the matter. This result was so startling that Prof. Barretthad to pursue the investigation for six years before venturing topublish his first report, which appeared in the _Proceedings_ of theSociety for Psychical Research, Part xxxii. , 1897. This was followed bya second report published some years later, in which he gave a freshbody of evidence on the criticisms of some eminent geologists to whom hehad submitted the evidence. The reports were reviewed in _Nature_ withconsiderable severity, and some erroneous statements were made, towhich Prof. Barrett replied. The editor, Sir Norman Lockyer, at firstdeclined to publish Prof. Barrett's reply, and to this Wallace refers inthe following letter. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Parkstone, Dorset. October 30, 1899. _

My dear Barrett, -- . .. Apropos of _Nature_, they never gave a word ofnotice to my book[63]--probably they would say out of kindness to myselfas one of their oldest contributors, since they would have had toscarify me, especially as regards the huge Vaccination chapter, which isnevertheless about the most demonstrative bit of work I have done. Ibegged Myers--as a personal favour--to read it. He told me he firmlybelieved in vaccination, but would do so, and afterwards wrote me thathe could see no answer to it, and if there was none he was converted. There certainly has been not a tittle of answer except abuse. 

I am glad you brought Lockyer up sharp in his attempt to refuse you theright to reply. I am glad you now have some personal observations toadduce. I hope persons or corporations who are going to employ a dowserwill now advise you so that you may be present. .. . --Yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Parkstone, Dorset. December 24, 1900. _

My dear Barrett, -- . .. I have read your very interesting paper on thedivining rod, and the additional evidence you now send. Of course, Ithink it absolutely conclusive, but there are many points on which Idiffer from your conclusions and remarks, which I think are often unfairto the dowsers. I will just refer to one or two. At p. 176 (note) youcall the idea of there being a "spring-head" at a particular point"absurd. " But instead of being absurd it is a _fact_, proved not only bynumerous cases you have given of strong springs being found quite nearto weak springs a few yards off, but by all the phenomena of mineral andhot springs. Near together, as at Bath, hot springs and cold springsrise to the surface, and springs of different quality at Harrogate, yeteach keeps its distinct character, showing that each rises from a greatdepth without any lateral diffusion or intermixture. This is a commonphenomenon all over the world, the dowsers' facts support it, geologistsknow all about it, yet I presume they have told you that when a dowserstates this fact it ceases to be a fact and becomes an absurdity!

The only other point I have time to notice is your Sect. II. (p. 285). You head this, "Evidence that the Motion of the Rod is due toUnconscious Muscular Action. " Naturally I read this with the greatestinterest, but found to my astonishment that you adduce no evidence atall, but only opinions of various people, and positive assertions thatsuch is the case! Now as I _know_ that motions of various objects occurwithout any muscular action, or even any contact whatever, while Crookeshas proved this by careful experiments which have never been refuted, what _improbability_ is there that this should be such a case, and whatis the value of these positive assertions which you quote as "evidence"?And at p. 286 you quote the person who says the more he tried to preventthe stick's turning the more it turned, as _evidence_ in favour ofmuscular action, without a word of explanation. Another man (p. 287)says he "could not restrain it. " None of the "trained anatomists" youquote give a particle of _proof_, only positive opinion, that it must bemuscular action--simply because they do not believe any other actionpossible. Their evidence is just as valueless as that of the people whosay that all thought-transference is collusion or imposture!

I do not say that it is not "muscular action, " though I believe it isnot always so, but I do say that you have as yet given not a particle ofproof that it is so, while scattered through your paper is plenty ofevidence which points to its being something quite different. Such arethe cases when people hold the rod for the first time and have neverseen a dowser work, yet the rod turns, over water, to their greatastonishment, etc. Etc. 

Your conclusion that it is "clairvoyance" is a good provisionalconclusion, but till we know what clairvoyance really is it explainsnothing, and is merely another way of stating the _fact_. 

I believe all true clairvoyance to be spirit impression, and that alltrue dowsing is the same--that is, when in either case it cannot bethought-transference, but even this I believe to be also, for the mostpart, if not wholly, spirit impression. --Believe me yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Parkstone, Dorset. February 17, 1901. _

My dear Barrett, --I am rather sorry you wrote to any one of the Societyfor Psychical Research people about my being asked to be President, because I should certainly feel compelled to decline it. I never go, willingly, to London now, and should never attend meetings, so pray sayno more about it. Besides, I am so widely known as a "crank" and a"faddist" that my being President would injure the Society, as much asLord Rayleigh would benefit it, so pray do not put any obstacle in _his_way, though of course there is no necessity to beg him as a favour tobe the successor of Sidgwick, Crookes and Myers. .. . 

 * * * * *

TO REV. J. B. HENDERSON

_Parkstone, Dorset. August 10, 1893. _

Dear Sir, --Although I look upon Christianity as originating in anunusual spiritual influx, I am not disposed to consider [it] as_essentially_ different from those which originated other greatreligious and philanthropic movements. It is probable that in _your_sense of the word I am not a Christian. --Believe me yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. J. W. MARSHALL

_Parkstone, Dorset. March 6, 1894. _

My dear Marshall, --We were very much grieved to hear of your sad loss ina letter from Violet. Pray accept our sincere sympathy for Mrs. Marshalland yourself. 

Death makes us feel, in a way nothing else can do, the mystery of theuniverse. Last autumn I lost my sister, and she was the only relative Ihave been with at the last. For the moment it seems unnatural andincredible that the living self with its special idiosyncrasies you haveknown so long can have left the body, still more unnatural that itshould (as so many now believe) have utterly ceased to exist and becomenothingness!

With all my belief in, and knowledge of, Spiritualism, I have, however, occasional qualms of doubt, the remnants of my original deeply ingrainedscepticism; but my reason goes to support the psychical andspiritualistic phenomena in telling me that there _must_ be a hereafterfor us all. .. . --Believe me yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO DR. EDWIN SMITH

_Parkstone, Dorset. October 19, 1899. _

Dear Sir, --I know nothing of London mediums now. Nine-tenths of thealleged frauds in mediums arise from the ignorance of the sitters. Theonly way to gain any real knowledge of spiritualistic phenomena is tofollow the course pursued in all science--study the elements beforegoing to the higher branches. To expect proof of materialisation beforebeing satisfied of the reality of such simpler phenomena as raps, movements of various objects, etc. Etc. , is as if a person beganchemistry by trying to analyse the more complex vegetable productsbefore he knew the composition of water and the simplest salts. 

If you want to _know_ anything about Spiritualism you should experimentyourself with a select party of earnest inquirers--personal friends. When you have thus satisfied yourself of the existence of a considerablerange of the physical phenomena and of many of the obscurities anddifficulties of the inquiry, you may use the services of public mediums, without the certainty of imputing every little apparent suspiciouscircumstance to trickery, since you will have seen similar suspiciousfacts in your private circle where you _knew_ there was no trickery. Youwill find rules for forming private circles in some issues of _Light_. You can get them from the office of _Light_. --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

PROF. BARRETT TO A. R. WALLACE

_6 De Vesci Terrace, Kingstown, Co. Dublin. November 3, 1905. _

My dear Wallace, -- . .. Just now I am engaged in a correspondence withthe Secretaries of the Society for Psychical Research on the question ofthe Presidency for next year. I maintain that as a matter of duty tothe Society you should be asked to accept the Presidency, though ofcourse it would be impossible for you to be much more than an HonoraryPresident, as we could not expect you often to come to London. I amanxious that in our records for future reference your Presidency shouldappear. .. . Podmore, who is proposed as President, represents theattitude of resolute incredulity, and I consider this line of action hasbeen to some extent injurious to the S. P. R. Crookes supported myproposal, and so did Lodge, and so would Myers if he had lived. All thisis of course between ourselves. .. . 

I have a vast amount of material unpublished on "dowsing" and amconvinced the explanation is subconscious clairvoyance. .. . --Yours verysincerely, W. F. BARRETT. 

 * * * * *

TO MRS. FISHER

_Broadstone, Wimborne. April 20, 1906. _

My dear Mrs. Fisher, --If you mean "honest" by "thoroughly reliable, "there are plenty of such mediums, but if you mean those who give equallygood results always, and to all persons, I should say there are none. .. . 

I am reading Herbert Spencer's "Autobiography" (just finished Vol. I. ). I find it very interesting, though tedious in parts. I am glad I did notread it before I wrote mine. He certainly brings out his own charactermost strikingly, and a wonderful character it was. How extraordinarilylittle he owed either to teaching or to reading! I think he is bestdescribed as a "reasoning genius. "--Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

LORD AVEBURY TO A. R. WALLACE

_48 Grosvenor Street, W. May 1, 1910. _

My dear Wallace, --I have been reading your biography with greatinterest. It must be a source of very pleasant memories to you to lookback and feel how much you have accomplished. 

It surprises me, however, how much we differ, and it is anotherillustration of the problems [?] of our (or rather I should say of my)intellect. 

In some cases, indeed, the difference is as to facts. 

You would, I am sure, for instance, find that you have been misinformedas to "thousands of dogs" being vivisected annually (p. 392). .. . As toSpiritualism, my difficulty is that nothing comes of it. What has beengained by your séances, compared to your studies?

I see you have a kindly reference to our parties at High Elms in olddays, on which I often look back with much pleasure, but much regretalso. 

If you would give us the pleasure of another visit, _do_ proposeyourself, and you will have a very hearty welcome from yours verysincerely, AVEBURY. 

 * * * * *

A lecture delivered by Prof. Barrett before the Quest Society in London, entitled "Creative Thought, " was published by request, and as itdiscussed the subject of evolution and the impossibility of explainingthe phenomena of life without a supreme Directing and Formative Forcebehind all the manifestations of life, he was anxious to have Wallace'scriticisms. At that time he had not read Wallace's recently publishedwork on a similar subject, and he was greatly surprised to find howclosely his views agreed with those of the great naturalist. 

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. February 15, 1911. _

My dear Barrett, --Thanks for your proofs, which I return. It is reallycurious how closely your views coincide with mine, and how admirably andclearly you have expressed them. If it were not for your adoptingthroughout, as an actual fact, the (to me) erroneous theory of the"subconscious self, " I should agree with every word of it. I have put"?" where this is prominently put forward, merely to let you know how Itotally dissent from it. To me it is pure assumption, and, besides, proves nothing. Thanks for the flattering "Postscript, " which I returnwith a slight suggested alteration. 

Reviews have been generally very fair, complimentary and flattering. Butto me it is very curious that even the religious reviewers seemhorrified and pained at the idea that the Infinite Being does notactually do every detail himself, apparently leaving his angels, andarchangels, his seraphs and his messengers, which seem to exist inmyriads according to the Bible, to have no function whatever!--Yoursvery truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

PROF. BARRETT TO A. R. WALLACE

_6 De Vesci Terrace, Kingstown, Co. Dublin. February 18, 1911. _

My dear Wallace, -- . .. Thank you very much for your kind letter andcomments. I have modified somewhat the phraseology as regards the"subliminal self. " I think we really agree but use different terms. There _is_ a hidden directive power, which works in conjunction with, and is temporarily part of, our own conscious self; but it is below thethreshold of consciousness, or is a subliminal part of our self. 

I should like to have come over to Broadstone expressly to ask yourviews on the parts you queried. For I have an immense faith in thesoundness of your judgment, and in the accuracy of your views _in thelong run_. 

I should like also immensely to see you again and in your lovelyhome. .. . --Yours ever sincerely, W. F. BARRETT. 

 * * * * *

TO PROF. BARRETT

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. February 20, 1911. _

My dear Barrett, --I wrote you yesterday on quite another matter, buthaving yours this morning in reply to my criticisms of your Address, Isend a few lines of explanation. Most of my queries to your statementsapply solely to your expressing them so positively, as if they wereabsolute certainties which no psychical researcher doubted. My mainobjection to the term "subliminal self" and its various synonyms is, that it is so dreadfully vague, and is an excuse for the assumption thata whole series of the most mysterious of psychical phenomena are held tobe actually explained by it. Thus it is applied to explain all cases ofapparent "possession, " when the alleged "secondary self" has a totallydifferent character, and uses the dialect of another social grade, fromthe normal self, sometimes even possesses knowledge that the real selfcould not have acquired, speaks a language that the normal self neverlearnt. All this is, to me, the most gross travesty of science, and Itherefore object totally to the use of the term which is so vaguely andabsurdly used, and of which no clear and rational explanation has everbeen given. 

You are now one of my oldest friends, and one with whom I mostsympathise; and I only regret that we have seen so little of eachother. --Yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

TO MR. E. SMEDLEY

_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. October 2, 1911. _

Dear Mr. Smedley, --I am quite astonished at your wasting your money onan advertising astrologer. In the horoscope sent you there is not asingle definite fact that would apply to you any more than to thousandsof other men. All is vague, what "might be, " etc. Etc. It is justcalculated to lead you on to send more money, and get in reply morewords and nothing else. .. . --Yours very truly, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

[Illustration: A. R. WALLACE ADMIRING _EREMUS ROBUSTUS_ about 1905. ]

PART VII

Characteristics

 "There is a point of view so lofty or so peculiar that from it we are able to discern in men and women something more than and apart from creed and profession and formulated principle; which indeed directs and colours this creed and principle as decisively as it is in its turn acted on by them, and this is their character or humanity. "--LORD MORLEY. 

 "As sets the sun in fine autumnal calm So dost thou leave us. Thou not least but last Link with that rare and gallant little band Of seekers after truth, whose days, though past, Shed lustre on the hist'ry of their land. And thine, O Wallace, thine the added charm Of modesty, thy mem'ry to embalm. "--_Anonymous. _

(_Received with a bunch of lilies-of-the-valley, a few days after Dr. Wallace's death_. )

Addison somewhere says that modesty sets off every talent which a mancan be possessed of. This was manifestly true of Alfred Russel Wallace. When, for instance, honours were bestowed upon him, he accepted orrejected them with the same good-humour and unspoilable modesty. ToProf. E. B. Poulton, whose invitation for the forthcoming Encæmia hadbeen conveyed in Prof. Bartholomew Price's letter, he wrote:

_Godalming. May 28, 1889. _

My dear Mr. Poulton, --I have just received from Prof. B. Price thetotally unexpected offer of the honorary degree of D. C. L. At the comingCommemoration, and you will probably be surprised and _disgusted_ tohear that I have declined it. I have to thank you for your kind offer ofhospitality during the ceremony, but the fact is, I have at all times aprofound distaste of all public ceremonials, and at this particulartime that distaste is stronger than ever. I have never recovered fromthe severe illness I had a year and a half ago, and it is in hopes ofrestoring my health that I have let my cottage here and have takenanother at Parkstone, Dorset, into which I have arranged to move onMidsummer Day. To add to my difficulties, I have work at examinationpapers for the next two or three weeks, and also a meeting (annual) ofour Land Nationalisation Society, so that the work of packing my booksand other things and looking after the plants which I have to move frommy garden will have to be done in a very short time. Under thesecircumstances it would be almost impossible for me to rush away toOxford except under absolute compulsion, and to do so would be to rendera ceremony which at any time would be a trial, a positive punishment. 

Really the greatest kindness my friends can do me is to leave me inpeaceful obscurity, for I have lived so secluded a life that I am moreand more disinclined to crowds of any kind. I had to submit to it inAmerica, but then I felt exceptionally well, whereas now I am altogetherweak and seedy and not at all up to fatigue or excitement. --Yours veryfaithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. Prof. Poulton pressed him to reconsider his decision, and he reluctantly gave way. 

 * * * * *

_Godalming. June 2, 1889. _

My dear Mr. Poulton, --I am exceedingly obliged by your kind letters, andI will say at once that if the Council of the University should againask me to accept the degree, to be conferred in the autumn, as youpropose, I could not possibly refuse it. At the same time I hope youwill not in any way urge it upon them, as I really feel myself too muchof an amateur in Natural History and altogether too ignorant (I leftschool--a bad one--finally, at fourteen) to receive honours from a greatUniversity. But I will say no more about that. --Yours very faithfully, A. R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

In due course he received the degree. "On that occasion, " says ProfessorPoulton, "Wallace stayed with us, and I was anxious to show himsomething of Oxford; but, with all that there is to be seen, one subjectalone absorbed the whole of his interest--he was intensely anxious tofind the rooms where Grant Allen had lived. He had received from GrantAllen's father a manuscript poem giving a picture of the ancient citydimly seen by midnight from an undergraduate's rooms. With the help ofGrant Allen's college friends we were able to visit every house in whichhe had lived, but were forced to conclude that the poem was written inthe rooms of a friend or from an imaginary point of view. "

His friend Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, with others, was promoting hiselection to the Royal Society, and wrote to him:

SIR W. T. THISELTON-DYER TO A. R. WALLACE

_Kew. October 23, 1892. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, -- . .. When you were at Kew this summer I took theliberty of saying that it would give great pleasure to the Fellows ofthe Royal Society if you would be willing to join their body. Iunderstood you to say that it would be agreeable to you. I now proposeto comply with the necessary formalities. But before doing so it will beproper to ask for your formal consent. You will then, as a matter ofcourse, be included in the next annual election. 

Will you forgive me if I am committing any indiscretion in saying that Ihave good authority for adding (though I suppose it can hardly be statedofficially at this stage) that no demand will ever be made upon you fora subscription?--Believe me yours sincerely, W. T. THISELTON-DYER. 

 * * * * *

SIR W. T. THISELTON-DYER TO A. R. WALLACE

_Kew. January 12, 1893. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, -- . .. I was very vexed to hear that I hadmisunderstood your wishes about the Royal Society. Of course, the mattermust often have presented itself to your mind, and I confess that itargued a little presumption on the part of a person like myself, so farinferior to you in age and standing, to think that you would yield to mysolicitation. 

I was obliged for my health to go to Eastbourne, and there I had thepleasure of seeing Mr. Huxley, who, you will be glad to hear, iswonderfully well, and an ardent gardener! His present ambition is togrow every possible saxifrage. 

I told him that I had had the audacity to approach you on the subject ofthe Royal Society. He heartily approved, and expressed the strongestopinion that unless you had some insuperable objection you ought toyield. All of us who belong to the R. S. Have but one wish, which is thatit should stand before the public as containing all that is best andworthiest in British Science. As long as men like you stand aloof, thatcannot be said. Lately we have been exposed to some very ill-naturedattacks: we have been told that we are professional, and notdiscoverers. Well, this is all the more reason for your not holdingaloof from us. I wish you would think it over again. Huxley went thelength of saying that to him it seemed a plain duty. But this islanguage I do not like to use. 

As to attending the meetings or taking part in the work of the Society, that is immaterial. Darwin never did either, though he did once come toone of the evening receptions, and enjoyed it immensely. 

In writing as I do I am not merely expressing my own opinions, but thoseof many others of my own standing who are keenly interested in thematter. 

It is not a great matter to ask. I have the certificate ready. You havebut to say the word. You will be put to no trouble or pecuniaryresponsibility. That my father-in-law arranged, long ago. 

To dissociate yourself from the R. S. Really amounts nowadays to doing itan injury. And I am sure you do not wish that. 

With all good wishes, believe me yours sincerely, W. T. THISELTON-DYER. 

 * * * * *

TO SIR W. T. THISELTON-DYER

_Parkstone, Dorset. January 17, 1893. _

Dear Mr. Thiselton-Dyer, --I have been rather unwell myself the last fewdays or should have answered your very kind letter sooner. I feel reallyoverpowered. I cannot understand why you or anyone should care about mybeing an F. R. S. , because I have really done so little of what is usuallyconsidered scientific work to deserve it. I have for many years feltalmost ashamed of the amount of reputation and honour that has beenawarded me. I can understand the general public thinking too highly ofme, because I know that I have the power of clear exposition, and, Ithink, also, of logical reasoning. But all the work I have done is moreor less amateurish and founded almost wholly on other men'sobservations; and I always feel myself dreadfully inferior to men likeSir J. Hooker, Huxley, Flower, and scores of younger men who haveextensive knowledge of whole departments of biology of which I amtotally ignorant. I do not wish, however, to be thought ungrateful forthe many honours that have been given me by the Royal and otherSocieties, and will therefore place myself entirely in your hands asregards my election to the F. R. S. 

I am much pleased to hear that Huxley has taken to gardening. I have nodoubt he will do some good work with his saxifrages. For myself thepersonal attention to my plants occupies all my spare time, and I deriveconstant enjoyment from the mere contemplation of the infinite varietyof forms of leaf and flower, and modes of growth, and strangepeculiarities of structure which are the source of fresh puzzles andfresh delights year by year. With best wishes and many thanks for thetrouble you are taking on my behalf, believe me yours very faithfully, ALFRED B. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

In 1902 the _Standard_ announced that the degree of D. C. L. Was to beconferred upon him by the University of Wales. He wrote to Miss DoraBest, who had sent him the information:

I have not seen the _Standard_. But I suppose it is about the offer of adegree by the University of Wales. You will not be surprised to hearthat I have declined it "with thanks. " The bother, the ceremony, thehaving perhaps to get a blue or yellow or scarlet gown! and at allevents new black clothes and a new topper! such as I have not worn thistwenty years. Luckily I had a good excuse in having committed the sameoffence before. Some ten years back I declined the offer of a degreefrom Cambridge, so that settled it. 

P. S. --Having already degrees two--LL. D. (Dublin) and D. C. L. (Oxford)--Imight have quoted Shakespeare: "To gild refined gold, to paint thelily, " etc. But I didn't!--A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

In 1908 he received the Order of Merit, the highest honour conferredupon him. To his friend Mrs. Fisher he wrote:

Dear Mrs. Fisher, --Is it not awful--two more now! I should think veryfew men have had three such honours within six months! I have never feltmyself worthy of the Copley Medal--and as to the Order of Merit--to begiven to a red-hot Radical, Land Nationaliser, Socialist, Anti-Militarist, etc. Etc. Etc. , is quite astounding andunintelligible!. .. 

There is another thing you have not heard yet, but it will be announcedsoon. Sir W. Crookes, as Secretary of the Royal Institution, wrote to metwo weeks back asking me very strongly to give them a lecture at theiropening meeting (third week in January) appropriate to the Jubilee ofthe "Origin of Species. " I was very unwell at the time--could eatnothing, etc. --and was going to decline positively, having nothing moreto say! But while lying down, vaguely thinking about it, an idea flashedupon me of a new treatment of the whole subject of Darwinism, justsuitable for a lecture to a R. I. Audience. I felt at once there wassomething that ought to be said, and that I should like to say--so Iactually wrote and accepted, provisionally. My voice has so broken thatunless I can improve it I fear not being heard, but Crookes promised toread it either wholly, or leaving to me the opening and concludingparagraphs. I was very weak--almost a skeleton--but I am now gettingmuch better. But finishing up the "Spruce" book, and now all thesehonours and congratulations and letters, etc. , are giving me much work, yet I am getting strong again, and really hope to do this "lecture" asmy last stroke for Darwinism against the Mutationists and Mendelians, but much more effective, I hope, than my article in the August_Contemporary Review_, though that was pretty strong. --Yours verysincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

How more than true "Sunlight's"[64] words have come, "You will come outof the hole! You will be more in the world. You will have satisfaction, retrospection, and work"! Literally fulfilled!--A. R. W. 

 * * * * *

And to Mr. F. Birch:

_December 30, 1908. _

Dear Fred, -- . .. I received a letter from Lord Knollys--the King'sPrivate Secretary--informing me that His Majesty proposed to offer methe Order of Merit, among the Birthday honours! This is an "Order"established by the present King about eight years ago, solely for"merit"--whether civil or military--it is a pity it was not civil only, as the military have so many distinctions already. So I had to compose avery polite letter of acceptance and thanks, and then later I had to begto be excused (on the ground of age and delicate health) from attendingthe investiture at Buckingham Palace (on December 14th), when Courtdress--a kind of very costly livery--is obligatory! and I was kept forweeks waiting. But at last one of the King's Equerries, Col. Legge (anEarl's son), came down here about two weeks ago bringing the Order, which is a very handsome cross in red and blue enamel and gold--richcolours--with a crown above, and a rich ribbed-silk blue and crimsonriband to hang it round the neck! Col. Legge was very pleasant, stayedhalf an hour, had some tea, and showed us how to wear it. So I shall bein duty bound to wear it on the only public occasion I shall be seenagain (in all probability), when I give (or attempt to give) mylecture. [65] Then, I had a letter from Windsor telling me that chalkportraits of all the members of the Order were to be taken for thecollections in the Library, and a Mr. Strang came and stayed the night, and in four hours completed a very good life-size head, in colouredchalk, and so far, so good!--Yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

Wallace regarded "Sunlight's" prophecy about "retrospection" as beingfulfilled in 1904, when he received the invitation of Messrs. Chapmanand Hall to begin collecting material for his autobiography which wassubsequently published in two large volumes, under the title of "MyLife. "

Referring to this work he wrote to Mrs. Fisher:

_Broadstone, Dorset. April_ 17, 1904. 

Dear Mrs. Fisher, --Thanks for your remarks on what an autobiographyought to be. But I am afraid I shall fall dreadfully short. I seem toremember nothing but ordinary facts and incidents of no interest toanyone but my own family. I do not feel myself that anything has muchinfluenced my character or abilities, such as they are. Lots of thingshave given me opportunities, and those I can state. Also other thingshave directed me into certain lines, but I can't dilate on these; andreally, with the exception of Darwin and Sir Charles Lyell, I have comeinto close relations with hardly any eminent men. All my doings andsurroundings have been commonplace!

I am now just reading a charming and ideal bit of autobiography--RobertDale Owen's "Threading my Way. " If you have not read it, do get it(published by Trübner and Co. In 1874). It is delightful. So simple andnatural throughout. But his father was one of the most wonderful men ofthe nineteenth century--Robert Owen of New Lanark--and this book givesthe true history of his great success. Then R. D. Owen met Clarkson andheard from his own lips how he worked to abolish the slave trade. 

Then he had part of his education at Hofwyl under Fellenberg, anexperiment in education and self-government wonderfully original andsuccessful. He afterwards worked at "New Harmony" with his father, andmet during his life almost all the most remarkable people in England andAmerica. 

This book only contains the first twenty-seven years of his life and Iam afraid he never completed it. Such a book makes me despair!--Yoursvery sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

When "My Life" was published, he wrote to the same old and valuedfriend:

_Broadstone, Wimborne. November 7, 1905. _

My dear Mrs. Fisher, --The reviewers are generally very fair about thefads except a few. The _Review_ invents a new word for me--I am an"anti-body"; but the _Outlook_ is the richest: I am the one man whobelieves in Spiritualism, phrenology, anti-vaccination, and thecentrality of the earth in the universe, whose life is worth writing. Then it points out a few things I am capable of believing, but whicheverybody else knows to be fallacies, and compares me to Sir I. Newtonwriting on the prophets! Yet of course he praises my biology up to theskies--there I am wise--everywhere else I am a kind of weak, babyishidiot! It is really delightful!

Only one is absolutely savage about it all--the _Liverpool_ _Daily Postand Mercury_. The reviewer devotes over three columns almost wholly tothe fads--as to all of which he evidently knows absolutely nothing, buthe is cocksure that I am always wrong!. .. --Yours very sincerely, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

He always thought that he was deficient in the gift of humour: "I am, "he wrote to Mr. J. W. Marshall (May 6, 1905), "still grinding away at myautobiography. Have got to my American lecture tour, and hope to finishby about Sept. But have such lots of interruptions. I am just readingHuxley's Life. Some of his letters are inimitable, but the whole israther monotonous. I find there is a good deal of variety in my life ifI had but the gift of humour! Alas! I could not make a joke to save mylife. But I find it very interesting. " "Unless somebody, " he wrote toMiss Evans, "can make me laugh just before the critical moment I alwayshave a horrid expression in photographs. " Yet another observant friendremarked that "he had a keen sense of humour. It was always his boyishjoyous exuberance which touched me. He never grew old. When I had satwith him an hour he was a young man, he became transfigured to me. " . .. "The last time I saw Dr. Wallace, " writes Prof. T. D. A. Cockerell ofColorado, "was immediately after the Darwin Celebration at Cambridge in1909. I was the first to give him the details concerning it, and vividlyremember how interested he was, and how heartily he laughed over some ofthe funny incidents, which may not as yet be told in print. One of hismost prominent characteristics was his keen sense of humour, and hisenjoyment of a good story. " In the summer of 1885 he spent a holidaywith Prof. Meldola at Lyme Regis. "After our ramble, " said theProfessor, "we used to spend the evenings indoors, I reading aloud the'Ingoldsby Legends, ' which Wallace richly enjoyed. His humour was adelightful characteristic. 'The inimitable puns of T. Hood were, ' hesaid, 'the delight of my youth, as is the more recondite and fantastichumour of Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll in my old age. '"

 * * * * *

Wallace loved to give time and trouble in aiding young men to start inlife, especially if they were endeavouring to become naturalists. Hesent them letters of advice, helped them in the choice of the rightcountry to visit, and gave them minute practical instructions how tolive healthily and to maintain themselves. He put their needs beforeother and more fortunate scientific workers and besought assistance forthem. 

"The central secret of his personal magnetism lay in his wide andunselfish sympathy, " writes Prof. Poulton. [66] "It might be thought bythose who did not know Wallace that the noble generosity which willalways stand as an example before the world was somethingspecial--called forth by the illustrious man with whom he was brought incontact. This would be a great mistake. Wallace's attitude wascharacteristic, and characteristic to the end of his life. 

"A keen young naturalist in the North of England, taking part in anexcursion to the New Forest, called on Wallace and confided to him thedream of his life--a first-hand knowledge of tropical nature. When Ivisited 'Old Orchard' in the summer of 1903, I found that Wallace wasintently interested in two things: his garden, and the means by whichhis young friend's dream might best be realised. The subject wasreferred to in seventeen letters to me; it formed the sole topic of someof them. It was a grand and inspiring thing to see this great manidentifying himself heart and soul with the interests of one--till thena stranger--in whom he recognised the passionate longings of his ownyouth. By the force of sympathy he re-lived in the life of another thesplendid years of early manhood. "

The late Prof. Knight recalled meeting him at the British Association inDundee, during the year 1867, when Wallace was his guest for the usualtime of the gathering. He wrote:

 I, and everyone else who then met him at my house, were struck, as no one could fail to be, by his rare urbanity, his social charm, his modesty, his unobtrusive strength, his courtesy in explaining matters with which he was himself familiar but those he conversed with were not; and his abounding interest, not only in almost every branch of Science, but in human knowledge in all its phases, especially new ones. He was a many-sided scientific man, and had a vivid sense of humour. He greatly enjoyed anecdote, as illustrative of character. During those days he talked much on the fundamental relations between Science and Philosophy, as well as on the connection of Poetry with both of them. When he left Dundee he went to Kenmore, that he might ascend Ben Lawers in search of some rare ferns. 

 In 1872 I saw him, after meeting Thomas Carlyle and Dean Stanley at Linlathen, when Darwin's theory was much discussed, and when our genial host--Mr. Erskine--talked so dispassionately but decidedly against evolution as explanatory of the rise of what was new. A little later in the same year Matthew Arnold discussed the same subject with some friends at the Athenæum Club, defending the chief aim of Darwin's theory, and enlarging from a different point of view what Wallace had done in the same direction. I remember well that he characterised the two men as fellow-workers, not as followers, or in any sense as copyists. Wallace's versatility not only continued, but grew in many ways with the advance of years. It was seen in his appreciation of the value of historical study. Quite late in life he wrote: "The nineteenth century is quite as wonderful in the domain of History as in that of Science. " Comparatively few know, or remember, that he and his young brother Herbert--on whom he left an interesting chapter _in memoriam_--both wrote verses, some of which were of real value. 

 It may be safely said that few scientific men have sympathetically entered into bordering territories and therein excelled. The whole field of psychical research was familiar to him, and he might have been a leader in it. 

 My last meeting with him was at his final home, the "Old Orchard, " Broadstone, in 1909. I was staying at Boscombe in Hants, and he asked me to "come and see his garden, while we talked of past days. " He had then the freshness of boyhood, blent with the mellow wisdom of age. --W. A. K. 

The eminent naturalist and traveller, Dr. Henry O. Forbes, who laterexplored the greater part of the lands visited by Wallace, contributesthe following appreciation of the latter's scientific work:

 As a traveller, explorer and working naturalist, Wallace will always stand in the first rank, compared even with the most modern explorers. It ought not to be forgotten, however, how great were the difficulties, the dangers and the cost of travel fifty years ago, compared with the facilities now enjoyed by his successors, who can command steam and motor transport to wellnigh any spot on the coasts of the globe, and who have to their hand concentrated and preserved foods, a surer knowledge of the causes of tropical diseases, and outfits of non-perishable medicines sufficient for many years within the space of a few cubic inches. Commissariat and health are the keys to all exploration in uncivilised regions. Wallace accomplished his work on the shortest of commons and lay weeks at a time sick through inability to replenish his medical stores. 

 He was no mere "trudger" over new lands. Where those before him, and even many after him, have been able to see only sterile objects, his discerning eyes perceived everywhere a meaning in the varying modes of organic life, and in response to his sympathetic mind Nature revealed to him more of her multitudinous secrets than to most others. Wallace's Amazonian travels were far from unfruitful, in spite of the irreparable loss he sustained in the burning of his notes and the bulk of his collections in the vessel by which he was returning home; but it was in the Malay Archipelago that his most celebrated years of investigation were passed, which marked him as one of the greatest naturalists of our time. As a methodical natural history collector--which is "the best sport in the world" according to Darwin--he has never been surpassed; and few naturalists, if any, have ever brought together more enormous collections than he. The mere statement, taken from his "Malay Archipelago, " of the number of his captures in the Archipelago in six years of actual collecting, exceeding 125, 000 specimens--a number greater than the entire contents of many large museums--still causes amazement. The value of a collection, however, depends on the full and accurate information attached to each specimen, and from this point of view only a few collections, including Darwin's and Bates's, have possessed the great scientific value of his. 

 Wallace's Eastern explorations included nearly all the large and the majority of the smaller islands of the Archipelago. Many of them he was the first naturalist to visit, or to reside on. Ceram, Batjian, Buru, Lombok, Timor, Aru, Ke and New Guinea had never been previously scientifically investigated. When in 1858 "the first and greatest of the naturalists, " as Dr. Wollaston styles Wallace, visited New Guinea, it was "the first time that any European had ventured to reside alone and practically unprotected on the mainland of this country, " which, dangerous as it is now in the same regions, was infinitely more so then. Of the journals of his voyagings, "The Malay Archipelago" will always be ranked among the greatest narratives of travel. The fact that this volume has gone through a dozen editions is witness to its extraordinary popularity among intelligent minds, and hardly supports the belief that his scientific work has been forgotten. Nor can this popularity be a matter of much surprise, for few travellers have possessed Wallace's powers of exposition, his lucidity and charm of style. Professor Strasburger of Bonn has declared that through "The Malay Archipelago" "a new world of scientific knowledge" was unfolded before him. "I feel it . .. My duty, " he adds, "to proclaim it with gratitude. " Wallace's narrative has attracted during the past half-century numerous naturalists to follow in his tracks, many of whom have reaped rich aftermaths of his harvest; but certain it is that no explorer in the same, if in any other, region has approached his eminence, or attained the success he achieved. 

 As a systematic zoologist, Wallace took no inconsiderable place; his _métier_, however, was different. He described, nevertheless, large sections of his Lepidoptera and of his birds, on which many valuable papers are printed in the _Transactions_ of the learned societies and in various scientific periodicals. Of the former, special mention may be made of that on variation in the "Papilionidæ of the Malayan Region, " of which Darwin has recorded: "I have never in my life been more struck by any paper. " Of the latter, reference may be drawn to his account of the "Pigeons of the Malay Archipelago" and his paper on the "Passerine Birds, " in which he proposed an important new arrangement of the families of that group (used later in his "Geographical Distribution") based on the feathering of their wings. Without a lengthy search through the zoological records, it would be impossible to say how many species Wallace added to science; but the constant recurrence in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum of "wallacei" as the name bestowed on various new species by other systematists, and of "Wallace" succeeding those scientifically named by himself, is an excellent gauge of their very large number. 

 In the field of anthropology Wallace could never be an uninterested spectator. He took a deep interest, he tells us, in the study of the various races of mankind. His accounts of the Amazonian tribes suffered greatly by the loss of his journals; but of the peoples of the Malay Archipelago he has given us a most interesting narrative, detailing their bodily and mental characteristics, and showing how their distribution accorded with that of the fauna on the opposite sides--Malays to the West, Papuans to the East--of Wallace's Line. If fuller investigation of the New Guinea tribes requires some modification in regard to their origin, his observations, as broadly outlined then, remain true still. His opinions on the origin of the Australian aborigines--that they were a low and primitive type of Caucasian race--which, when first promulgated, were somewhat sceptically received, are now those accepted by many very competent anthropologists. 

 Wallace's contributions to Geographical Science were only second in importance to those he so pre-eminently made to biology. Though skilled in the use of surveying instruments, he did little or no map-making--at all times a laborious and lengthy task--for, with more important purposes in his mind, he could not spare the time, nor did the limitations to his movements permit any useful attempt. Yet he did pure geographical work quite as important. The value of the comparative study of the flora and fauna of neighbouring regions, the great differences in the midst of much likeness between the organic life of neighbouring land masses, was a subject that was always in Wallace's mind during his exploration of the Amazon Valley, for he perceived that the physical geography and the distribution of these animals and plants were of the greatest service in elucidating their history where the geological record was defective. As is well known, the visual inspection of the geological structure of tropical countries is always difficult and often impossible to make out because of the dense vegetation upon the surface and even the faces of the river gorges. But for the loss of his collections and notes we should have had from Wallace's pen a Physical History of the Amazon. This loss was, however, amply made up by his very original contributions to the geography of the Malay Archipelago. "The Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago" and "The Physical Geography of the Malay Archipelago" (written on Eastern soil, with the texts of his discourses around him) were the forerunners of his monumental "Geographical Distribution of Animals, " elaborated in England after his return. "To the publication of the 'Geographical Distribution of Animals' we owe the first scientific study of the distribution of organic life on the globe, which has broadened ever since, and continues to interest students daily; his brilliant work in Natural History and Geography . .. Is universally honoured, " are the opinions of Dr. Scott speaking as President of the Linnean Society of London. 

 One of Wallace's most important contributions to the physical geography of the Malay region was his discovery of the physical differences between the western and the eastern portions of the Archipelago; i. E. That the islands lying to the east of a line running north from the middle of the Straits of Bali and outside Celebes were fragments of an ancient and larger Australian continent, while those to the western side were fragments of an Asiatic continent. This he elucidated by recognising that the flora and fauna on the two sides of the line, close though these islands approached each other, were absolutely different and had remained for ages uncommingled. This line was denominated "Wallace's Line" by Huxley, and this discovery alone would have been sufficient to associate his name inseparably with this region of the globe. --H. O. F. 

Like Darwin, Wallace gave excessive attention to the suggestions andcriticisms of people who were obviously ignorant of the subjects aboutwhich they wrote. He was never impatient with honest ignorance orconsidered the lowly position of his correspondents. He replied to allletters of inquiry (and he received many from working men), and alwaysgave his best knowledge and advice to anyone who desired it. There wasnot the faintest suggestion of the despicable sense of superiority abouthim. 

"I had, of course, revelled in 'The Malay Archipelago' when a boy, " saysProf. Cockerell, "but my first personal relations with Dr. Wallace arosefrom a letter I wrote him after reading his 'Darwinism, ' then (early in1890) recently published. The book delighted me, but I found a number oflittle matters to criticise and discuss, and with the impetuosity ofyouth proceeded to write to the author, and also to send a letter onsome of the points to _Nature_. I have possibly not yet reached years ofdiscretion, but in the perspective of time I can see with confusion thatwhat I regarded as worthy zeal might well have been characterised byothers as confounded impudence. In the face of this, the tolerance andkindness of Dr. Wallace's reply is wholly characteristic: 'I am verymuch obliged to you for your letter containing so many valuableemendations and suggestions on my "Darwinism. " They will be very usefulto me in preparing another edition. Living in the country with but fewbooks, I have often been unable to obtain the _latest_ information, butfor the purpose of the argument the facts of a few years back are oftenas good as those of to-day--which in their turn will be modified a fewyears hence. .. . You appear to have so much knowledge of details in somany branches of natural history, and also to have thought so much onmany of the more recondite problems, that I shall be much pleased toreceive any further remarks or corrections on any other portions of mybook. ' This letter, written to a very young and quite unknown man in thewilds of Colorado, who had merely communicated a list of more or lesstrifling criticisms, can only be explained as an instance of Dr. Wallace's eagerness to help and encourage beginners. It did not occur tohim to question the propriety of the criticisms, he did not write as asuperior to an inferior; he only saw what seemed to him a spark ofbiological enthusiasm, which should by all means be kindled into flame. Many years later, when I was at his house, he produced with the greatestdelight some letters from a young man who had gone to South America andwas getting his first glimpse of the tropical forest. What discoverieshe might make! What joy he must have on seeing the things described inthe letter, such things as Dr. Wallace himself had seen in Brazil solong ago!"

Wallace's critical faculty was always keen and vigilant. Unlike somecritics, however, he relished genuine and well-informed criticism of hisown writings. Flattery he despised; whilst the charge of dishonestyaroused strongest resentment. Deceived he might be, but he requiredclear proof that his own eyes and ears had led him astray. Romanes, whohad propounded the forgotten theory of physiological selection, chargedWallace with adopting it as his own. This was not only untrue, it wasridiculous; and Wallace, after telling him so and receiving no apology, dropped him out of his recognition. During Romanes' illness Mr. Thiselton-Dyer wrote to Wallace and sought to bring about areconciliation, and Wallace replied:

 * * * * *

_Parkstone, Dorset. September 26, 1893. _

My dear Thiselton-Dyer, --I am sorry to hear of Romanes' illness, becauseI think he would have done much good work in carrying out experimentswhich require the leisure, means and knowledge which he possesses. Icannot, however, at all understand his wishing to have any communicationfrom myself. I do not think I ever met Romanes in private more thanonce, when he called on me more than twenty years ago about some curiouspsychical phenomena occurring in his own family; and perhaps half adozen letters--if so many--may have passed between us since. There istherefore no question of personal friendship disturbed. I consider, however, that he made a very gross misstatement and personal attack onme when he stated, both in English and American periodicals, that in my"Darwinism" I adopted his theory of "physiological selection" andclaimed it as my own, and that my adoption of it was "unequivocal andcomplete. " This accusation he supported by such a flood of words andquotations and explanations as to obscure all the chief issues andrender it almost impossible for the ordinary reader to disentangle thefacts. I told him then that unless he withdrew this accusation aspublicly as he had made it I should decline all future correspondencewith him, and should avoid referring to him in any of my writings. 

This is, of course, very different from any criticism of my theories;that, or even ridicule, would never disturb me; but when a man has madean accusation of literary and scientific dishonesty, and has done all hecan to spread this accusation over the whole civilised world, my onlyanswer can be--after showing, as I have done (_see Nature_, vol. Xliii. , pp. 79 and 150), that his accusations are wholly untrue--to ignore hisexistence. 

I cannot believe that he can want any sympathy from a man he says haswilfully and grossly plagiarised him, unless he feels that hisaccusations were unfounded. If he does so, and will write to me to thateffect (for publication, if I wish, after his death), I will accept itas full reparation and write him such a letter as you suggest. --Believeme yours very faithfully, ALFRED R. WALLACE. 

 * * * * *

SIR W. T. THISELTON-DYER TO A. R. WALLACE

_Kew. September 27, 1897. _

Dear Mr. Wallace, --I am afraid I have been rather guilty of animpertinence which I hope you will forgive. 

Romanes is an old acquaintance of mine of many years' standing. Personally, I like him very much; but for his writings I confess I haveno great admiration. 

Pray believe me I had no mission of any sort on his part to write toyou. But I feel so sorry for him that when he told me how much heregretted that he did not stand well with you, I could not resistwriting to tell you of the calamities that have befallen him. 

I must confess I was in total ignorance of what you tell me. I don'tsee how, under the circumstances, you can do anything. I was never moresurprised in my life, in fact, than when I read your letter. The wholething is too childishly preposterous. 

Romanes laments over _me_ because he says I wilfully misunderstand histheory. The fact is, poor fellow, that I do not think he understands ithimself. If his life had been destined to be prolonged I should havedone all in my power to have induced him to occupy himself more withobservation and less with mere logomachy. 

I cannot get him to face the fact that natural hybrids are being foundto be more and more common amongst plants. At the beginning of thecentury it was supposed that there were some sixty recognisable speciesof willows in the British Isles: now they are cut down to about sixteen, and all the rest are resolved into hybrids. --Ever sincerely, W. T. THISELTON-DYER. 

 * * * * *

Wallace was a seeker after Truth who was never shy of his augustmistress, whatever robes she wore. "I feel within me, " wrote Darwin toHenslow, "an instinct for truth, or knowledge, or discovery, ofsomething of the same nature as the instinct of virtue. " This wasequally true of Wallace. He had a fine reverence for truth, beauty andlove, and he feared not to expose error. He paid no respect totime-honoured practices and opinions if he believed them to be false. Vaccination came under his searching criticism, and in the face ofnearly the whole medical faculty he denounced it as quackery condemnedby the very evidence used to defend it. He very carefully examined theclaims of phrenology, which had been laughed out of court by scientificmen, and he came to the conclusion that "in the present (twentieth)century phrenology will assuredly attain general acceptance. It willprove itself to be the true science of the mind. Its practical uses ineducation, in self-discipline, in the reformatory treatment ofcriminals, and in the remedial treatment of the insane, will gain itone of the highest places in the hierarchy of the sciences; and itspersistent neglect and obloquy during the last sixty years of thenineteenth century will be referred to as an example of the almostincredible narrowness and prejudice which prevailed among men of scienceat the very time they were making such splendid advances in other fieldsof thought and discovery. "[67]

Wallace was not even scared out of his wits by ghosts, for, unlikeColeridge, he believed in them although he thought he had seen many. Whether truth came from the scaffold or the throne, the séance or thesky, it did not alter the truth, and did not prejudice or overbear hisjudgment. He shed his early materialism (which temporarily tookpossession of him as it did of many others as a result of the shockfollowing the overwhelming discoveries of that period) when he wasbrought face to face with the phenomena of the spiritual kingdom whichwithstood the searching test of his keen observation and reasoningpowers. Prejudices, preconceived notions, respect for his scientificposition or the opinions of his eminent friends or the reputation of thelearned societies to which he belonged--all were quietly and firmly putaside when he saw what he recognised to be the truth. If hisfellow-workers did not accept it, so much the worse for them. He stoodfour-square against the onslaught of quasi-scientific rationalism, whichonce threatened to obliterate all the ancient landmarks of morality andreligion alike. He made mistakes, and he admitted and corrected them, because he verily loved Truth for her own sake. And to the very end ofhis long life he kept the windows of his soul wide open to what hebelieved to be the light of this and other worlds. 

He was, then, a man of lofty ideals, and his idealism was at the baseof his opposition to the materialism which boasted that NaturalSelection explained all adaptation, and that Physics could give thesolution of Huxley's poser to Spencer: "Given the molecular forces in amutton chop, deduce Hamlet and Faust therefrom, " and which regarded mindas a quality of matter as brightness is a quality of steel, and life asthe result of the organisation of matter and not its cause. 

"We have ourselves, " wrote Prof. H. F. Osborn in an account of Wallace'sscientific work which Wallace praised, "experienced a loss of confidencewith advancing years, an increasing humility in the face oftransformations which become more and more mysterious the more we studythem, although we may not join with this master in his appeal to anorganising and directing principle. " But profound contemplation ofnature and of the mind of man led Wallace to belief in God, to acceptthe Divine origin of life and consciousness, and to proclaim a hierarchyof spiritual beings presiding over nature and the affairs of nations. "Whatever, " writes Dr. H. O. Forbes, "may be the last words on the deepand mysterious problems to which Wallace addressed himself in his laterworks, the unquestioned consensus of the highest scientific opinionthroughout the world is that his work has been for more than half acentury, and will continue to be, a living stimulus to interpretationand investigation, a fertilising and vivifying force in every sphere ofthought. "

It is perhaps unprofitable to go further than in previous chapters intohis so-called heresies--political, scientific or religious. Yet we mayimitate his boldness and ask whether he was not, perhaps, in advance ofhis age and whether his heresies were not shrewd anticipations of sometruth at present but partially revealed. Take the example ofSpiritualism, which, I suppose, has more opponents thananti-vaccination. No one can overlook the fact that Spiritualism hasmany scientific exponents--Myers, Crookes, Lodge, Barrett and others. Prejudices against Spiritualism are as unscientific as the credulitywhich swallows the mutterings of every medium. Podmore's two ponderousvolumes on the History of Spritualism are marred by an obvious anxietyto make the very least, if not the very worst, of every phenomenonalleged to be spiritualistic. That kind of deliberate and obstinateblindness which prided itself on being the clear cold light of scienceWallace scorned and denounced. He did not insist upon spiritualisticmanifestations shaping themselves according to his own predesignedmoulds in order to be investigated. He watched for facts whatever formthey assumed. He fully recognised that the phenomena he saw and heardcould be easily ridiculed, but behind them he as fully believed that hecame into contact with spiritual realities which remain, and which ledhim to other explanations of the higher faculties of man and the originof life and consciousness than were acceptable to the materialisticfollowers of Haeckel, Büchner and Huxley. And who dares dogmatically toassert in the name of science and in the second decade of the twentiethcentury, when the deeper meanings of evolution are being revealed, andthe philosophy of Bergson is spoken about on the housetops, that he waswrong? In these views may he not become the peer of Darwin?

At first blush it may seem to be a bad example of special pleading toattempt to discover the reason for his opposition to vaccination in hisidealism. But it is not far from the truth. He believed in a Ministry ofPublic Health, that doctors should be servants of the State, and thatthey should be paid according as they kept people well and not ill. Health is the natural condition of the human body when it is properlysustained and used. And chemicals, even in sickness, are of lessimportance than fresh air, light and proper food. He ridiculed, too, thenotion of unhealthy places. "It is like, " he wrote to Mr. Birch, "theold idea that every child must have measles, and the sooner the better. "To the same correspondent, who was contemplating going into virginforests and who expressed his fear of malaria, he replied: "There is nospecial danger of malaria or other diseases in a dense forest region. Iam sure this is a delusion, and the dense virgin forests, even whenswampy, are, in a state of nature, perfectly healthy to live in. It isman's tampering with them, and man's own bad habits of living, thatrender them unhealthy. Having now gone over all Spruce's journals andletters during his twelve years' life in and about the Amazonianforests, I am sure this is so. And even where a place is said to benotoriously 'malarious, ' it is mostly due not to infection only but topredisposition due to malnutrition or some bad mode of living. A personliving healthily may, for the most part, laugh at such terrors. NeitherI nor Spruce ever got fevers when we lived in the forests and were ableto get wholesome food. " "Health, " he said to the present writer, "is thebest resistant to disease, and not the artificial giving of a mild formof a disease in order to render the body immune to it for a season. Vaccination is not only condemned upon the statistics which are used touphold it, but it is a false principle--unscientific, and thereforedoomed to fail in the end. " Besides which, he believed in mentalhealing, and had recorded definite and certain benefit from spiritual"healers. " And he reminded himself that amongst doctors (witness theblind opposition encountered by Lister's discoveries) were found fromtime to time not a few enemies of the true healing art, and obstinatedefenders of many forms of quackery. Wallace made no claim to be anoriginal investigator. He knew his limitations, and said again and againthat he could not have conducted the slow and minute researches or haveaccumulated the vast amount of detailed evidence to which Darwin, withinfinite patience, devoted his life. He was genuinely glad that it hadnot fallen to his lot to write "The Origin of Species. " He felt that hischief faculty was to reason from facts which others discovered. Yet hehad that original insight and creative faculty which enabled him to see, often as by flashlight, the explanation which had remained hidden fromthe eyes of the man who was most familiar with the particular facts, andhe elaborated it with quickening pulse, anxious to put down the wholeconception which filled his mind lest some portion of it should escapehim. Therein lay one secret of his great genius. He often said that hewas an idler, but we know that he was a patient and industrious worker. His idleness was his way of describing his long musings, waiting thebidding of her whom God inspires--Truth, who often hides her face fromthe clouded eyes of man. For hours, days, weeks, he was disinclined towork. He felt no constraining impulse, his attention was relaxed orengaged upon a novel, or his seeds, or the plan of a new house, whichalways excited his interest. Then, apparently suddenly, whilst in one ofhis day-dreams, or in a fever (as at Ternate, to recall the historicalepisode when the theory of Natural Selection struck him), anexplanation, a theory, a discovery, [68] the plan of a new book, came tohim like a flash of light, and with the plan the material, thearguments, the illustrations; the words came tumbling one over theother in his brain, and as suddenly his idleness vanished, and work, eager, prolonged, unwearying, filled his days and months and years untilthe message was written down and the task fully accomplished. Whilstwriting he referred to few books, but wrote straight on, addingparagraph to paragraph, chapter to chapter, without recasting orrevision. [69] And the result was fresh, striking, original. It was acreation. The work being done, he relapsed into his busy idleness. Thetruth, as he saw it, seemed to come to him. Some people called him aprophet, but he was not conscious of that high calling. I do notremember him saying that he was only a messenger. Perhaps later, when hewas reviewing his life, he connected his sudden inspirations with ahigher source, but for their realisation he relied upon a foundation ofveritable facts, facts patiently accumulated, a foundation laid broadand deep. He had the vision of the prophet allied with the wisdom of thephilosopher and the calm mental detachment of the man of science. Perhaps another explanation of his genius may be found in hisopen-mindedness. Truth found ready access to his conscience, and alwaysa warm welcome, and he saw with open eyes where others were stone-blind. 

He belonged to our common humanity. No caste or acquired pride orunapproachable intellectualism cut him off from the people. His simplehumanness made him one with us all. And his humanity was singularlycomprehensive. It led him, for instance, to investigate the subject ofsuffering in animals. He noticed that all good men and women rightlyshrank from giving pain to them, and he set himself to prove that thecapacity for pain decreased as we descended the scale of life, and thatpoets and others were mistaken when they imputed acute suffering to thelower creation, because of the very restricted response of their nervoussystem. Even in the case of the human infant, he concluded that onlyvery slight sensations are at first required, and that such only aretherefore developed. The sensation of pain does not, probably, reach itsmaximum till the whole organism is fully developed in the adultindividual. "This, " he added, with that characteristic touch which madehim kin to all oppressed people, "is rather comforting in view of thesufferings of so many infants needlessly sacrificed through the terribledefects of our vicious social system. "

To Wallace pain was the birth-cry of a soul's advance--the stamp of rankin nature is capacity for pain. Pain, he held, was always strictlysubordinated to the law of utility, and was never developed beyond whatwas actually needed for the protection and advance of life. This bringsthe sensitive soul immense relief. Our susceptibility to the higheragonies is a condition of our advance in life's pageant. 

Take another instance. Amongst his numerous correspondents there werenot a few who decided not to take life, for food, or science, or in war. One young man who went out with the assistance of Wallace to Trinidadand Brazil to become a naturalist, and to whom he wrote many letters[70]of direction and encouragement, gave up the work of collecting--toWallace's sincere disappointment--and came home because he felt that itwas wrong to take the lives of such wondrous and beautiful birds andinsects. Another correspondent, who had joined the Navy, wrote a numberof long letters to Wallace setting forth his conscientious objections tokilling, arrived at after reading Wallace's books; and although Wallaceendeavoured from prudential considerations to restrain him from givingup his position, he nevertheless wholly sympathised with him and in theend warmly defended him when it was necessary to do so. The sacrifice, too, of human life in dangerous employments for the purpose of financialgain, no less than the frightful slaughter of the battlefield, wasabhorrent to Wallace and aroused his intensest indignation. Life to himwas sacred. It had its origin in the spiritual kingdom. "We are loversof nature, from 'bugs' up to 'humans, '" he wrote to Mr. Fred Birch. 

By every means he laboured earnestly to secure an equal opportunity ofleading a useful and happy life for all men and women. He championed thecause of women--of their freer life and their more active and publicpart in national service. He found the selective agency, which was towork for the amelioration he desired, in a higher form of sexualselection, which will be the prerogative of women; and therefore woman'sposition in the not distant future "will be far higher and moreimportant than any which has been claimed for or by her in the past. "When political and social rights are conceded to her on equality withmen, her free choice in marriage, no longer influenced by economic andsocial considerations, will guide the future moral progress of the race, restore the lost equality of opportunity to every child born in ourcountry, and secure the balance between the sexes. "It will be their(women's) special duty so to mould public opinion, through home trainingand social influence, as to render the women of the future theregenerators of the entire human race. "

He was acutely anxious that his ideals should be realised on earth bythe masses of the people. He had a large and noble vision of theirfuture. And he had his plan for their immediate redemption--nationalownership of the soil, better housing, higher wages, certainty ofemployment, abolition of preventable diseases, more leisure and widereducation, not merely for the practical work of obtaining a livelihoodbut to enable them to enjoy art and literature and song. His oppositionto Eugenics (to adopt the word introduced by Galton, which Wallacecalled jargon) sprang from his idealism and his love of the people, aswell as from his scientific knowledge. On the social side he thoughtthat Eugenics offered less chance of a much-needed improvement ofenvironment than the social reforms which he advocated, whilst on thescientific side he believed that the attempt, with our extremely limitedknowledge, to breed men and women by artificial selection was worse thanfolly. He feared that, as he understood it, Eugenics would perpetuateclass distinctions, and postpone social reform, and affordquasi-scientific excuses for keeping people "in the positions Natureintended them to occupy, " a scientific reading of the more offensivesaying of those who, having plenty themselves, believe that it is forthe good of the lower classes to be dependent upon others. "Clear up, "he said to the present writer one day, when we drifted into a warmdiscussion of the teachings of Eugenists; "change the environment sothat all may have an adequate opportunity of living a useful and happylife, and give woman a free choke in marriage; and when that has beengoing on for some generations you may be in a better position to applywhatever has been discovered about heredity and human breeding, and youmay then know which are the better stocks. "

"Segregation of the unfit, " he remarked to an interviewer after theEugenic Conference, at which much was unhappily said that whollyjustified his caustic denunciation, "is a mere excuse for establishinga medical tyranny. And we have enough of this kind of tyranny already. .. The world does not want the eugenist to set it straight. .. . Eugenicsis simply the meddlesome interference of an arrogant scientificpriestcraft. "

Thus his radicalism and his so-called fads were born of his highaspirations. He was not the recluse calmly spinning theories from abewildering chaos of observations, and building up isolated facts intothe unity of a great and illuminating conception in the silence andsolitude of his library, unmindful of the great world of sin and sorrowwithout. He could say with Darwin, "I was born a naturalist"; but we canadd that his heart was on fire with love for the toiling masses. He hadfelt the intense joy of discovering a vast and splendid generalisation, which not only worked a complete revolution in biological science, buthas also illuminated the whole field of human knowledge. Yet hisgreatest ambition was to improve the cruel conditions under whichthousands of his fellow-creatures suffered and died, and to make theirlives sweeter and happier. His mind was great enough and his heart largeenough to encompass all that lies between the visible horizons of humanthought and activity, and even in his old age he lived upon the topmostpeaks, eagerly looking for the horizon beyond. In the words of the lateMr. Gladstone, he "was inspired with the belief that life was a greatand noble calling; not a mean and grovelling thing that we are toshuffle through as we can, but an elevated and lofty destiny. "

 * * * * *

But we must not be tempted into further disquisition. As he grew olderthe public Press as well as his friends celebrated his birthdays. Congratulations by telegram and letter poured in upon him and gave himgreat pleasure. Minor poets sang special solos, or joined in thechorus. One example may be quoted:

 ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE

 8TH JANUARY, 1911

 A little cot back'd by a wood-fring'd height, Where sylvan Usk runs swiftly babbling by: Here thy young eyes first look'd on earth and sky, And all the wonders of the day and night; O born interpreter of Nature's might, Lord of the quiet heart and seeing eye, Vast is our debt to thee we'll ne'er deny, Though some may own it in their own despite. Now after fourscore teeming years and seven, Our hearts are jocund that we have thee still A refuge in this world of good and ill, When evil triumphs and our souls are riv'n; A friend to all the friendless under heav'n; A foe to fraud and all the lusts that kill. 

 O champion of the Truth, whate'er it be! World-wand'rer over this terrestrial frame; Twin-named with Darwin on the roll of fame; This day we render homage unto thee; For in thy steps o'er alien land and sea, Where life burns fast and tropic splendours flame. Oft have we follow'd with sincere acclaim To mark thee unfold Nature's mystery. For this we thank thee, yet one thing remains Shall shrine thee deeper in the heart of man, In ages yet to be when we are dust; Thou hast put forth thy hand to rend our chains, Our birthright to restore from feudal ban; O righteous soul, magnanimous and just!

 W. BRAUNSTON JONES. 

Sir William Barrett, one of Wallace's oldest friends, visited him duringthe last year of his life, and thus describes the visit:

 In the early summer of 1913, some six months before his death, I had the pleasure of paying another visit and spending a delightful afternoon with my old friend. His health was failing, and he sat wrapped up before a fire in his study, though it was a warm day. He could not walk round his garden with me as before, but pointed to the little plot of ground in front of the French windows of his study--where he had moved some of his rarer primulas and other plants he was engaged in hybridising--and which he could just manage to visit. His eyesight and hearing seemed as good as ever, and his intellectual power was undimmed. .. . 

 Dr. Wallace then, pointing to the beautiful expanse of garden, woodland and sea which was visible from the large study windows, burst forth with vigorous gesticulation and flashing eyes: "Just think! All this wonderful beauty and diversity of nature results from the operation of a few simple laws. In my early unregenerate days I used to think that only material forces and natural laws were operative throughout the world. But these I now see are hopelessly inadequate to explain this mystery and wonder and variety of life. I am, as you know, absolutely convinced that behind and beyond all elementary processes there is a guiding and directive force; a Divine power or hierarchy of powers, ever controlling these processes so that they are tending to more abundant and to higher types of life. "

 This led Dr. Wallace to refer to my published lecture on "Creative Thought" and express his hearty concurrence with the line of argument therein; in fact he had already sent me his views, which, with his consent, I published as a postscript to that lecture. 

 Then our conversation turned upon recent political events, and it was remarkable how closely he had followed, and how heartily he approved, the legislation of the Liberal Government of the day. His admiration for Mr. Lloyd George was unfeigned. "To think that I should have lived to see so earnest and democratic a Chancellor of the Exchequer!" he exclaimed, and he confidently awaited still larger measures which would raise the condition of the workers to a higher level; and nothing was more striking than his intense sympathy with every movement for the relief of poverty and the betterment of the wage-earning classes. The land question, we agreed, lay at the root of the matter, and land nationalisation the true solution. In fact, ever since I read the proof-sheets of his book on this subject, which he corrected when staying at my house in Kingstown, I have been a member of the Land Nationalisation Society, of which he was President. 

 Needless to say, Dr. Wallace was an ardent Home Ruler and Free Trader, [71] but on the latter question he said there should be an export duty on coal, especially the South Wales steam coal, as our supply was limited and it was essential for the prosperity of the country--and "the purchaser pays the duty, " he remarked. I heartily agreed with him, and said that a small export duty _had_ been placed on coal by the Conservative Government, but subsequently was removed. This he had forgotten, and when later on I sent him particulars of the duty and its yield, he replied saying that at that time he was so busy with the preparation of a book that he had overlooked the fact. He wrote most energetically on the importance of the Government being wise in time, and urged at least a 2s. Export duty on coal. 

 We talked about the question of a portrait of Dr. Wallace being painted and presented to the Royal Society, which had been suggested by the Rev. James Marchant, to whom Dr. Wallace referred, when talking to me, in grateful and glowing terms. --W. F. B. 

Perhaps it should be added to Sir William Barrett's reminiscences thatthe movement which was set on foot to carry out this project was stayedby Wallace's death. 

During the last years of his life his pen was seldom dry. His interestin science and in politics was fresh and keen to the closing week. Hewrote "Social Environment and Moral Progress" in 1912, at the age of 90. The book had a remarkable reception. Leading articles and illustratedreviews appeared in most of the daily newspapers. The book, into whichhe had put his deepest thoughts and feelings upon the condition ofsociety, was hailed as a virile and notable production from a trulygreat man. After this was issued, he saw another, "The Revolt ofDemocracy, " through the press. But this did not exhaust his activities. He entered almost immediately into a contract to write a big volume uponthe social order, and as a side issue to help, as is mentioned in theIntroduction, in the production of an even larger book upon the writingsand position of Darwin and Wallace and the theory of Natural Selectionas an adequate explanation of organic evolution. Age did not seem toweaken his amazing fertility of creative thought, nor to render him lesssusceptible to the claims of humanity, which he faced with a noblecourage. In nobility of character and in magnitude, variety and richnessof mind he was amongst the foremost scientific men of the Victorian Age, and with his death that great period, which was marked by wide andilluminating generalisations and the grand style in science, came to anend. 

Apart altogether, however, from his scientific position and attainments, which set him on high, he was a noble example of brave, resolute, andhopeful endeavour, maintained without faltering to the end of a longlife. And this is not the least valuable part of his legacy to the race. 

When Henslow died, Huxley wrote to Hooker: "He had intellect tocomprehend his highest duty distinctly, and force of character to do it;which of us dare ask for a higher summary of his life than that? Forsuch a man there can be no fear in facing the great unknown; his lifehas been one long experience of the substantial justice of the laws bywhich this world is governed, and he will calmly trust to them still ashe lays his head down for his long sleep. " Let that also stand as theestimate of Wallace by his contemporaries, an estimate which we believeposterity will confirm. And to it we may add that death, which came tohim in his sleep as a gentle deliverer, opened the door into the largerand fuller life into which he tried to penetrate and in which he firmlybelieved. If that faith be founded in truth, Darwin and Wallace, yonderas here, are united evermore. 

 * * * * *

I am writing these concluding words on the second anniversary of hisdeath. Before me there lies the telegram which brought me the sad newsthat he had "passed away very peacefully at 9. 25 a. M. , without regainingconsciousness. " He was in his ninety-first year. It was suggested thathe should be buried in Westminster Abbey, beside Charles Darwin, butMrs. Wallace and the family, expressing his own wishes as well astheirs, did not desire it. On Monday, November 10th, he was laid to restwith touching simplicity in the little cemetery of Broadstone, on apine-clad hill swept by ocean breezes. He was followed on his lastearthly journey by his son and daughter, by Miss Mitten, hissister-in-law, and by the present writer. Mrs. Wallace, being aninvalid, was unable to attend. The funeral service was conducted by theBishop of Salisbury (Dr. Ridgeway), and among the officialrepresentatives were Prof. Raphael Meldola and Prof. E. B. Poultonrepresenting the Royal Society; the latter and Dr. Scott representingthe Linnean Society, and Mr. Joseph Hyder the Land NationalisationSociety. A singularly appropriate monument, consisting of a fossiltree-trunk from the Portland beds, has been erected over his grave upona base of Purbeck stone, which bears the following inscription:

 ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE, O. M. Born Jan. 8th, 1823, Died Nov. 7th, 1913

A year later, on the 10th of December, 1914, his widow died after a longillness, and was buried in the same grave. She was the eldest daughterof Mr. William Mitten, of Hurstpierpoint, an enthusiastic botanist, andin no mean degree she inherited her father's love of wild flowers and ofthe beautiful in nature. It was this similarity of tastes which led toher close intimacy and subsequent marriage, in 1866, with Wallace. Theirmarried life was an exceedingly happy one. She was able to help him inhis scientific labours, and she provided that atmosphere in the homelife which enabled him to devote himself to his many-sided enterprises. And nothing would give him more joy than to know that this book isdedicated to her memory. 

[Illustration: THE GRAVE OF ALFRED RUSSEL AND ANNIE WALLACE]

Soon after Wallace's death a Committee was formed (with Prof. Poulton asChairman and Prof. Meldola as Treasurer) to erect a memorial, and thefollowing petition was sent to the Dean and Chapter of WestminsterAbbey:

 We, the undersigned, earnestly desiring a suitable national memorial to the late Alfred Russel Wallace, and believing that no position would be so appropriate as Westminster Abbey, the burial-place of his illustrious fellow-worker Charles Darwin, petition the Right Reverend the Dean and Chapter for permission to place a medallion in Westminster Abbey. We further guarantee, if the medallion be accepted, to pay the Abbey fees of £200. 

 ARCH. GEIKIE WILLIAM CROOKES A. B. KEMPE E. RAY LANKESTER D. H. SCOTT D. PRAIN A. E. SHIPLEY RAPHAEL MELDOLA P. A. MACMAHON JOHN W. JUDD OLIVER J. LODGE E. B. POULTON A. STRAHAN H. H. TURNER J. LARMOR W. RAMSAY SILVANUS P. THOMPSON JOHN PERRY JAMES MARCHANT (Hon. Sec. )

To which the Dean replied:

 _The Deanery, Westminster, S. W. December 2, 1913. _

 Dear Mr. Marchant, --I have pleasure in informing you that I presented your petition at our Chapter meeting this morning, and a glad and unanimous assent was accorded to it. 

 I should be glad later on to be informed as to the artist you are employing; and probably it would be as well for him and you and some members of the Royal Society to meet me and the Chapter and confer together upon the most suitable and artistic arrangement or rearrangement of the medallions of the great men of science of the nineteenth century. 

 Nothing could have been more satisfactory or impressive than the document with which you furnished me this morning. I hope to get it specially framed. --Yours sincerely, HERBERT E. RYLE. 

Mr. Bruce-Joy, who had made an excellent medallion of Dr. Wallace duringhis lifetime, accepted the commission to fashion the medallion forWestminster Abbey, and it was unveiled, by a happy but undesignedcoincidence, on All Souls' Day, November 1 1915, together withmedallions to the memory of Sir Joseph Hooker and Lord Lister. In thecourse of his sermon, the Dean said--and with these words we may wellconclude this book:

"To-day there are uncovered to the public view, in the North Aisle ofthe Choir, three memorials to men who, I believe, will always be rankedamong the most eminent scientists of the last century. They passed away, one in 1911, one in 1912, and one in 1913. They were all men ofsingularly modest character. As is so often observable in truegreatness, there was in them an entire absence of that vanity andself-advertisement which are not infrequent with smaller minds. It isthe little men who push themselves into prominence through dread ofbeing overlooked. It is the great men who work for the work's sakewithout regard to recognition, and who, as we might say, achievegreatness in spite of themselves. 

[Illustration: THE WALLACE AND DARWIN MEDALLIONS IN THE NORTH AISLE OFTHE CHOIR OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY]

"Alfred Russel Wallace was a most famous naturalist and zoologist. Hearrived by a flash of genius at the same conclusions which Darwin hadreached after sixteen years of most minute toil and carefulobservation. .. . It was a unique example of the almost exact concurrenceof two great minds working upon the same subject, though in differentparts of the world, without collusion and without rivalry. .. . BetweenDarwin and Wallace goodwill and friendship were never interrupted. Wallace's life was spent in the pursuit of various objects ofintellectual and philosophical interest, over which I need not herelinger. All will agree that it is fitting his medallion should be placednext to that of Darwin, with whose great name his own will ever belinked in the worlds of thought and science. 

"All will acknowledge the propriety of these three great names beinghonoured in this Abbey Church, even though it be, to use Wordsworth'sphrase, already

 'Filled with mementoes, satiate with its part Of grateful England's overflowing dead. '

"These are three men whose lifework it was to utilise and promotescientific discovery for the preservation and betterment of the humanrace. "

APPENDIX

LISTS OF WALLACE'S WRITINGS

I. --BOOKS

Date Title

1853 "Palm Trees on the Amazon"1853 "A Narrative of Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro. " New Edition in "The Minerva Library, " 18891866 "The Scientific Aspect of the Supernatural"1869 "The Malay Archipelago, " 2 vols. Tenth Edition, 1 vol. , 18901870 "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. " Republished, with "Tropical Nature, " 18911874 "Miracles and Modern Spiritualism. " Revised Edition, 18961876 "The Geographical Distribution of Animals, " 2 vols. 1878 "Tropical Nature and other Essays. " Printed in 1 vol. With "Natural Selection, " 18911879 "Australasia. " "Stanford's Compendium of Geography and Travel. " (New issue, 1893)1880 "Island Life. " Revised Edition, 18951882 "Land Nationalisation"1885 "Bad Times"1889 "Darwinism. " 3rd Edition, 19011898 "The Wonderful Century. " New Edition, 19031900 "Studies, Scientific and Social"1901 "The Wonderful Century Reader"1901 "Vaccination a Delusion"1903 "Man's Place in the Universe. " New Edition, 1904. Cheap 1s. Edition, 19121905 "My Life, " 2 vols. New Edition, 1 vol. , 19081907 "Is Mars Habitable?"1908 "Notes of a Botanist on the Amazon and Andes, " by Richard Spruce. Edited by A. R. Wallace1910 "The World of Life"1913 "Social Environment and Moral Progress"1913 "The Revolt of Democracy"

II. --ARTICLES, PAPERS, REVIEWS, ETC. 

_The articles marked with an asterisk were republished in Wallace's"Studies, Scientific and Social. "_

-----------------+---------------------+---------------------------------- DATE | PERIODICAL OR | SUBJECT | SOCIETY |--------+--------+---------------------+---------------------------------- | 1850 | Proc. Zool. Soc. , | On the Umbrella Bird | | Lond. | | 1852 | " " | Monkeys of the Amazon | 1852-3 | Trans. Entomol. | On the Habits of the Butterflies | | Soc. | of the Amazon Valley | 1853 | Zoologist | On the Habits of the Hesperidæ | 1853 | Proc. Zool. Soc. , | On some Fishes allied to Gymnotus | | Lond. |June 6 | 1853 | Entomolog. Soc. | On the Insects used for Food by | | | the Indians of the AmazonJune 13 | 1853 | Royal Geograph. Soc. | The Rio Negro | 1854-5 | Zoologist | Letters from Singapore and Borneo | 1854-6 | Trans. Entomol. | Description of a New Species of | | Soc. | Ornithoptera | 1855 | Annals and Mag. | On the Ornithology of Malacca | | of Nat. Hist. | | 1855 | Journ. Bot. | Botany of Malacca | 1855 | Zoologist | The Entomology of MalaccaSept. | 1855 | Annals and Mag. | On the Law which has regulated | | of Nat. Hist. | the Introduction of New Species | 1856 | " " | Some Account of an Infant | | | Orang-Outang | 1856 | " " | On the Orang-Outang or Mias of | | | BorneoDec. | 1856 | " " | On the Habits of the Orang-Outang | | | of Borneo | 1856 | " " | Attempts at a Natural Arrangement | | | of BirdsNov. 22 | 1856 | Chambers's Journ. | A New Kind of Baby | 1856 | Journ. Bot. | On the Bamboo and Durian of Borneo | 1856 | Zoologist | Observations on the Zoology of | | | Borneo | 1856-8 | Trans. Entomol. | On the Habits, etc. , of a Species | | Soc. | of Ornithoptera inhabiting the | | | Aru Islands | 1856-9 | " " | Letters from Aru Islands and from | | | BatchianDec. | 1857 | Annals and Mag. | Natural History of the Aru Islands | | of Nat. Hist. | | 1857 | " " | On the Great Bird of Paradise | 1857 | Proc. Geograph. | Notes of a Journey up the Sadong | | Soc. | River | 1858 | " " | On the Aru Islands | 1858 | Zoologist | Note on the Theory of Permanent | | " " | and Geographical Varieties | 1858 | " " | On the Entomology of the Aru | | | Islands | 1858-61| Trans. Entomol. | Note on the Sexual Differences in | | Soc. | the Genus Lomaptera | 1859 | Annals and Mag. | Correction of an Important Error | | of Nat. Hist. | affecting the Classification of | | | the _Psittacidæ_ | 1859 | Proc, Linn. Soc. |On the Tendency of Varieties to | | (iii. 45) | Depart Indefinitely from the | | | Original Type[72]Oct. | 1859 | Ibis |Geographical Distribution of BirdsDec. | 1859 | Entomolog. Soc. |Note on the Habits of Scolytidæ and | | | Bostrichidæ | 1860 | Journ. Geograph. |Notes of a Voyage to New Guinea | | Soc. | | 1860 | Ibis |The Ornithology of North Celebes | 1860 | Proc. Zool, Soc. , |Notes on Semioptera wallacii | | Lond. | | 1860 | Proc. Linn. Soc. |Zoological Geography of Malay | | (iv. 172) | Archipelago | 1861 | Ibis |On the Ornithology of Ceram and | | | Waigiou | 1861 | " |Notes on the Ornithology of Timor | 1862 | Proc. And Journ. |On the Trade between the Eastern | | Geogr. Soc. | Archipelago and New Guinea | | | and its Islands | 1862 | Proc. Zool. Soc. , |List of Birds from the Sula Islands | | Lond. | | 1862 | Ibis |On some New Birds from the Northern | | | Moluccas | 1862 | Proc. Zool. Soc. , |Narrative of Search after Birds of | | Lond. | Paradise | 1862 | " |On some New and Rare Birds from New | | | Guinea | 1862 | " |Description of Three New Species | | | of _Pitta_ from the Moluccas | 1863 | Annals and Mag. |On the Proposed Change in Name of | | of Nat. Hist. | _Gracula pectoralis_ | 1863 | Entomol. Journ. |Notes on the Genus _Iphias_ | 1863 | Ibis |Note on _Corvus senex _and _Corvus | | | fuscicapillus_ | 1863 | " |Notes on the Fruit-Pigeons of Genus | | | _Treron_ | 1863 | Intellectual |The Bucerotidæ, or Hornbills | | Observer | | 1863 | Proc. Zool, Soc. |List of Birds collected on Island | | Lond. | of BouruApril | 1863 | Zoologist |Who are the Humming-Bird's | | | Relations?June | 1863 | Royal Geograph. |Physical Geography of the Malay | | Soc. | Archipelago | 1863 | Proc, Zool. Soc. , |On the Identification of _Hirundo | | Lond. | esculenta_, Linn. | 1863 | " |List of Birds inhabiting the | | | Islands of Timor, Flores and | | | Lombok | 1863 | Annals and Mag. |On the Rev. S. Haughton's Paper on | | of Nat. Hist. | the Bee's Cell and the Origin of | | | SpeciesJan. 1 | | Nat. Hist. Rev. |Some Anomalies in Zoological and | | | Botanical GeographyJan. 7 | 1864 |Edinburgh New |Ditto | | Journ. (Philos. ) | | 1864 | Proc. Zool. Soc. , | Parrots of the Malayan Region | | Lond. | | 1864 | Anthropol. Soc. | The Origin of Human Races and the | | Journ. | Antiquity of Man deduced from | | | Natural Selection | 1864 | Proc. Entom. Soc. | Effect of Locality in producing | | and Zoologist | Change of Form in Insects | 1864 | Proc. Entom. Soc. | Views on Polymorphism | 1864 | Ibis | Remarks on the Value of | | | Osteological Characters in the | | | Classification of Birds | 1864 | " | Remarks on the Habits, | | | Distribution, etc. , of the Genus | | | _Pitta_ | 1864 | " | Note on _Astur griseiceps_ | 1864 | Nat. Hist. Rev. | Bone Caves in Borneo | 1865 | Proc. Zool. Soc. , | List of the Land Shells collected | | Lond. | by Mr. Wallace in the Malay | | | ArchipelagoJan. | 1865 | Trans. Ethnolog. | On the Progress of Civilisation in | | Soc. | North CelebesJan. | 1865 | " | On the Varieties of Man in the | | | Malay Archipelago | 1865 | Proc. Zool. Soc. , | Descriptions of New Birds from the | | Lond. | Malay ArchipelagoJune 17 | 1865 | Reader | How to Civilise Savages*Oct. | 1865 | Ibis | Pigeons of the Malay Archipelago | 1866 | Trans. Linn. Soc. | On the Phenomena of Variation and | | (xxv. ) (Abstract | Geographical Distribution as | | in Reader, April, | illustrated by Papilionidæ of | | 1864) | the Malayan Region | 1866 | Proc. Zoo. Soc. , | List of Lepidoptera collected by | | Lond. | Swinton at Takow, Formosa | 1866 | Proc. Entomol. }| Exposition of the Theory of | | Soc. }| Mimicry as explaining Anomalies | 1867 | Zoologist }| of Sexual Variation | 1867 | Intellectual | The Philosophy of Birds' Nests | | Observer |Jan. | 1867 | Quarterly Journ. | Ice-Marks in North Wales | | of Sci. |April | 1867 | " | The Polynesians and their | | | Migrations*July | 1867 | Westminster Rev. | Mimicry and other Protective | | | Resemblances among AnimalsSept. | 1867 | Science Gossip | Disguises of InsectsOct. | 1867 | Quarterly Journ. | Creation by Law | | of Sci. | | 1867 | Proc. Entomol. }| | | Soc. }| A Catalogue of the Cetoniidæ of | 1868 | Trans. Entomol. }| the Malayan Archipelago, etc. | | Soc. }|Jan. 7 | 1868 | Ibis | Raptorial Birds of the Malay | | | Archipelago | 1868 | Trans. Entomol. | On the Pieridæ of the Indian and | | Soc. | Australian Regions | 1868 | --- | The Limits of Natural Selection | | | applied to Man* | 1869 | Trans. Entomol. | Note on the Localities given in | | Soc. | the "Longicornia Malayana" | 1869 | Journ. Of Travel | A Theory of Birds' Nests | | and Nat. Hist. |April | 1869 | Quarterly Rev. | Reviews of Lyell's "Principles | | | of Geology" (entitled | | | "Geological Climates and | | | Origin of Species") | 1869 | Macmillan's Mag. | Museums for the People* | 1869 | Trans. Entomol. | Notes on Eastern Butterflies (3 | | Soc. | Parts) | 1870 | Brit. Association | On a Diagram of the Earth's | | Report | Eccentricity, etc. March | 1871 | Academy | Review of Darwin's "Descent of | | | Man"May 23 | 1871 | Entomolog. Soc. | Address on Insular Faunas, etc. | 1871 | " | The Beetles of Madeira and | | | their Teachings*Nov. | 1871 | ---- | Reply to Mr. Hampden's Charges | 1873 | Journ. Linnean Soc. | Introduction to F. Smith's | | | Catalogue of Aculeate | | | Hymenoptera, etc. Jan. 4 | 1873 | Times | Spiritualism and ScienceApril | 1873 | Macmillan's Mag. | Disestablishment and | | | Disendowment, with a Proposal | | | for a really National Church | | | of England*Sept. 16| 1873 | Daily News | Coal a National Trust*Dec. | 1873 | Contemp. Rev. | Limitation of State Functions | | | in the Administration of | | | Justice*Jan. 17 | 1874 | Academy | Reviews of Mivart's "Man and | | | Apes" and A. J. Mott's "Origin | | | of Savage Life"April | 1874 | ---- | Review of W. Marshall's | | | "Phrenologist amongst the | | | Todas"April | 1874 | ---- | Review of G. St. Clair's | | | "Darwinism and Design" | 1874 | Ibis | On the Arrangement of the | | | Families constituting the | | | Order PasseresMay | 1876 | Academy | Review of Mivart's "Lessons | | | from Nature" | 1877 | Proc. Geograph. | The Comparative Antiquity of | | Soc. | ContinentsJuly | 1877 | Quarterly Journ. Of | Review of Carpenter's | | Sci. | "Mesmerism and Spiritualism, " | | | etc. Sept. | 1877 | Macmillan's Mag. | The Colours of Animals andand Oct. | | | PlantsNov. | 1877 | Fraser's Mag. | The Curiosities of CredulityDec. | 1877 | Fortnightly Rev. | Humming-BirdsDec. | 1877} | Athenæum | {Correspondence with W. B. Jan. | 1878} | " | { Carpenter on SpiritualismNov. | 1878 | Fortnightly Rev. | Epping Forest, and How to Deal | | | with itFeb. | 1879 | Contemp. Rev. | New Guinea and its InhabitantsApril | 1879 | Academy | Review of Haeckel's "Evolution | | | of Man"July | 1879 | Nineteenth Cent. | Reciprocity: A Few Words in | | | Reply to Mr. Lowe*July | 1879 | Quarterly Rev. | Glacial Epochs and Warm Polar | | | ClimatesJan. | 1880 | Nineteenth Cent. | The Origin of Species and | | | Genera*Oct. | 1880 | Academy | Review of A. H. Swinton's | | | "Insect Variety"Nov. | 1880 | Contemp. Rev. | How to Nationalise the Land* | | |Dec. 4 | 1880 | Academy | Review of Seebohm's "Siberia In | | | Europe" | 1881 | Rugby Nat. Hist. | Abstract of Four Lectures on | | Soc. Rept. | the Natural History of | | | IslandsDec. | 1881 | Contemp. Rev. | Monkeys: Their Affinities and | | | Distribution*Aug. And| 1883 | Macmillan's Mag. | The Why and How of Land Sept. | | | Nationalisation*March | 1884 | Christn. Socialist | The Morality of Interest--The | | | Tyranny of Capital | 1886 | Claims of Labour | The Depression of Trade* | | Lectures |Mar. 5 | 1887 | Banner of Light | Letter "_In re_ Mrs. Ross | | | (Washington, D. C. )"Mar. 17 | 1887 | Independ. Rev. | Review of E. D. Cope's "Origin | | | of the Fittest" | 1887 | Nation |"Oct. | 1887 | Fortnightly Rev. | American Museums* | 1888 | ---- | The Action of Natural Selection | | | in producing Old Age, Decay | | | and DeathJune | 1889 | Land Nationalisation| Address | | Soc. |Sept. | 1890 | Fortnightly Rev. | Progress without Poverty (Human | | | Selection)*Oct. | 1891 | " | English and American Flowers*Dec. | 1891 | " | Flowers and Forests of the Far | | | West*Jan. | 1892 | Arena | Human Progress, Past and | | | Future* | 1892 | Address to L. N. S. | Herbert Spencer on the Land | | | Question*Aug. | 1892 | Nineteenth Cent. | Why I Voted for Mr. GladstoneAug. And| 1892 | Natural Sci. | The Permanence of Great Ocean Dec. | | | Basins*Nov. | 1892 | Fortnightly Rev. | Our Molten Globe*Dec. | 1892 | Natural Sci. | Note on Sexual SelectionFeb. | 1893 | Nineteenth Cent. | Inaccessible Valleys*Mar. And| 1893 | Arena | The Social Quagmire and the Way Apr. | | | Out of it*Apr. And| 1893 | Fortnightly Rev. | Are Individually Acquired May | | | Characters Inherited?*Nov. | 1893 | " | The Ice Age and its Work*Dec. | 1893 | " | Erratic Blocks, etc. Lake | | | Basins* | 1893 | Arena | The Bacon-Shakespeare CaseApril 9 | 1894 | Land Nationalisation| Address on Parish Councils | | Soc. |June | 1894 | Natural Sci. | The Palearctic and Nearctic | | | Regions compared as regards | | | Families and Genera of | | | Mammalia and BirdsJune | 1894 | Contemp. Rev. | How to Preserve the House of | | | Lords*July | 1894 | Land and Labour | Review of F. W. Hayes' "Great | | | Revolution of 1905"Sept. | 1894 | Natural Sci. | The Rev. G. Henslow on Natural | | | Selection* | 1894 | Smithsonian Rep. | Method of Organic EvolutionOct. | 1894 | Nineteenth Cent. | A Counsel of Perfection for | | | Sabbatarians* | | | | 1894 | Vox Clamantium | Economic and Social Justice*Feb. And| 1895 | Fortnightly Rev. | Method of Organic Evolution* March | | |Oct. | 1895 | " | Expressiveness of Speech or | | | Mouth-Gesture as a Factor in | | | the Origin of Language* | 1895 | Agnostic Annual | Why Live a Moral Life?*May | 1896 | Contemp. Rev. | How Best to Model the Earth*July 25 | 1896 | Labour Leader | Letter on International Labour | | | CongressAug. | 1896 | Fortnightly Rev. | The Gorge of the Aar and its | | | Teaching*Dec. | 1896 | Journ. Linn. Soc. | The Problem of Utility: Are | | (v. 25) | Specific Characters always or | | | generally Useful?March | 1897 | Natural Sci. | Problem of Instinct* | 1897 | "Forecasts of | Re-occupation of Land, Solution | | Coming Century" | of the Unemployed Problem*March 20| 1898 | Lancet | Letter on VaccinationMay 9 | 1898 | Shrewsbury Chron. | Letter to Dr. Bond and A. K. W. | | | on VaccinationJune 16, | | | 21, 25, | 1898 | Echo |"Aug. 15 | | |Sept. 1 | 1898 | The Eagle and the | Darwinism and Nietzscheism in | | Serpent | Sociology | 1898 | Printed for private | Justice not Charity (Address to | | circulation | International Congress of | | | Spiritualists, London, June, | | | 1898)*Dec. 31 | 1898 | Academy | Paper Money as a Standard of | | | Value*Feb. , | 1899 | Journ. Soc. | Letters on Mr. Podmore _re_ March, | | Psychical Res. | Clairvoyance, etc. April | | |May | 1899 | L'Humanité | The Causes of War and the | | Nouvelle | Remedies*Nov. 18 | 1899 | Clarion | Letter on the Transvaal War | 1899 | N. Y. Independent | White Men in the Tropics* | | | | 1900 | N. Y. Sun | EvolutionNov. | 1900 | N. Y. Journ. | Social Evolution in the | | | Twentieth Century: An | | | Anticipation | 1900 | ---- | Ralahine and its Teachings* | | ---- | True Individualism the | | | Essential Preliminary of a | | | Real Social Advance* | 1901 | Morning Leader | An Appreciation of the Past | | | CenturyJan. 17 | 1903 | Black and White | Relations with DarwinMarch | 1903 | Fortnightly Rev. | Man's Place in the UniverseSept. | 1903 | " | Man's Place in the Universe. | | | Reply to CriticsOct. | 1903 | Academy | The Wonderful Century. Reply to | | | Dr. SaleebyNov. 12 | 1903 | Daily Mail | Does Man Exist in Other Worlds? | | | Reply to CriticsJan. 1 | 1904 | Clarion | Anticipations for the Immediate | | | Future, Written for the | | | _Berliner Lokalanzeiger_, and | | | refusedFeb. , | 1904 | Fortnightly Rev. | An Unpublished Poem by E. A. April | | | Poe, "Leonainie"Apr. , | 1904 | Independent Rev. | Birds of Paradise in the May | | | Arabian Nights | 1904 | Anti-Vaccination | Summary of the Proofs that | | League | Vaccination does not Prevent | | | Small-pox, but really | | | Increases it | 1904 | Labour Annual | Inefficiency of Strikes | 1904 | Clarion | Letter on Opposition to | | | Military Expenditure | | Vaccination | Letter on Inconsistency of the | | Inquirer | Government on VaccinationOct. 27 | 1906 | Daily News | Why Not British Guiana? Five | | | Acres for 2s. 6d. Nov. | 1906 | Independent Rev. | The Native Problem in South | | | Africa and ElsewhereJan. | 1907 | Fortnightly Rev. | Personal Suffrage, a Rational | | | System of Representation and | | | ElectionFeb. | 1907 | " | A New House of Lords | 1907 |Harmsworth's "History| How Life became Possible on the | | of the World" | EarthSept. 13| 1907 | Public Opinion | Letter on Sir W. Ramsay's | | | Theory: Did Man reach his | | | Highest Development in the | | | Past?Jan. 1 | 1908 | N. Y. World | Cable on Advance in Science in | | | 1907Jan. 18 | 1908 | Outlook | Letter on WomanJan. | 1908 | Fortnightly Rev. | Evolution and CharacterJune and| 1908 | Socialist Rev. | The Remedy for Unemployment July | | |July | 1908 | Times | Letter on the First Paper on | | | Natural SelectionJuly | 1908 | Delineator | Are the Dead Alive?Aug. 14 | 1908 | Public Opinion | Is it Peace or War? A ReplyAug. | 1908 | Contemp. Rev. | Present Position of DarwinismSept. | 1908 | New Age | Letter on Nationalisation, not | | | Purchase, of RailwaysDec. | 1908 | Contemp. Rev. | Darwinism _v. _ WallaceismChrist | 1908 | Christian | On the Abolition of Want -mas | | Commonwealth |Jan. 22 | 1909 | Royal Institution | The World of Life, as | | | Visualised, etc. , by | | | DarwinismFeb. | 1909 | Clarion pamphlet | The Remedy for Unemployment | | (? Socialist Rev. )|Feb. 6 | 1909 | Daily News | Flying Machines in WarFeb. 12 | 1909 | Daily Mail | Charles Darwin (Centenary)Feb. 12 | 1909 | Clarion | The Centenary of DarwinMarch | 1909 | Fortnightly Rev. | The World of Life (revised | | | Lecture)April 8 | 1909 | Daily News | Letter on Aerial FleetsApril 8 | 1910 | " | Man in the UniverseOct. 14 | 1910 | Public Opinion | A New Era in Public OpinionJan. 25 | 1912 | Daily Chronicle | Letter on the Insurance ActAug. 9 | 1912 | Daily News | A Policy of DefenceSept. | 1912 | ---- | The Nature and Origin of Life

III. --LETTERS, REVIEWS, ETC. , IN "NATURE"

--------+----------+------+-------------------------------------------- VOL. | PAGE | DATE | SUBJECT--------+----------+------+-------------------------------------------- I. | 105 | 1869 | Origin of Species Controversy " | 132 | " | " " " " | 288, 315 | 1870 | Government Aid to Science " | 399, 452 | " | Measurement of Geological Time " | 501 | " | Hereditary Genius II. | 82 | " | Pettigrew's "Handy Book of Bees" " | 234 | " | A Twelve-wired Bird of Paradise " | 350 | " | Early History of Mankind " | 465 | " | Speech on the Arrangement of Specimens | | " | in a Natural History Museum (British | | " | Association) " | 510 | " | Glaciation of Brazil III. | 8, 49 | " | Man and Natural Selection " | 85, 107 | " | " " " " | 165 | " | Mimicry versus Hybridity " | 182 | 1871 | Leroy's "Intelligence and Perfectibility of | | | Animals" " | 309 | " | Theory of Glacial Motion " | 329 | " | Duncan's "Metamorphoses of Insects" " | 385 | " | Dr. Bevan's "Honey Bee" " | 435 | " | Anniversary Address at the Entomological | | " | Society " | 466 | " | Sharpe's Monograph of the Alcedinidæ IV. | 22 | " | Staveley's "British Insects" " | 178 | " | Dr. Bastian's Work on the Origin of Life " | 181 | " | H. Howorth's Views on Darwinism " | 221 | " | " " " " | 222 | " | Recent Neologisms " | 282 | " | Canon Kingsley's "At Last" V. | 350 | 1872 | The Origin of Insects " | 363 | " | Ethnology and Spiritualism VI. | 237 | " | The Last Attack on Darwinism (Reviews) " | 284, 299 | " | Bastian's "Beginnings of Life" " | 328 | " | Ocean Circulation " | 407 | " | Speech on Diversity of Evolution (British | | | Association) " | 469 | " | Houzeau's "Faculties of Man and | | | Animals" VII. | 68 | " | Misleading Cyclopædias " | 277 | 1873 | Modern Applications of the Doctrine of " | | | Natural Selection (Reviews) " | 303 | " | Inherited Feeling " | 337 | " | J. T. Moggridge's "Harvesting Ants and | | | Trapdoor Spiders" " | 461 | " | Cave Deposits of BorneoVIII. | 5 | 1873 | Natural History Collections in the East | | | India Museum " | 65, 302 | " | Perception and Instinct In the Lower " | | | Animals " | 358 | " | Dr. Page's Textbook on Physical Geography " | 429 | " | Works on African Travel (Reviews) " | 462 | " | Lyell's "Antiquity of Man"IX. | 102 | " | Dr. Meyer's Exploration of New Guinea " | 218 | 1874 | Belt's "Naturalist in Nicaragua" " | 258 | " | David Sharp's "Zoological Nomenclature" " | 301, 403 | " | Animal LocomotionX. | 459 | " | Migration of Birds " | 502 | " | Automatism of AnimalsXII. | 83 | 1875 | Lawson's "New Guinea"XIV. | 403 | 1876 | Opening Address in Biology Section, British " | | | Association " | 473 | " | Erratum in Address to Biology Section, " | | | British Association " | 24 | " | Reply to Reviewers of "Geographical " | | | Distribution of Animals" " | 174 | " | "Races of Men" " | 274 | 1877 | Glacial Drift in California " | 431 | " | The "Hog-wallows" of CaliforniaXVI. | 548 | " | Zoological Relations of Madagascar and " | | | AfricaXVII. | 8 | " | Mr. Wallace and Reichenbach's Odyle " | 44 | " | The Radiometer and its Lessons " | 45 | " | Bees Killed by Tritoma " | 100 | " | The Comparative Richness of Faunas and " | | | Floras tested Numerically " | 101 | " | Mr. Crookes and Eva Fay " | 182 | 1878 | Northern Affinities of Chilian InsectsXVIII. | 193 | " | A Twenty Years' Error in the Geography of " | | | AustraliaXIX. | 4 | " | Remarkable Local Colour-Variation in " | | | Lizards " | 121, 244 | " | The Formation of Mountains " | 289 | 1879 | " " " " | 477 | " | Organisation and Intelligence " | 501, 581 | " | Grant Allen's "Colour Sense" " | 582 | " | Did Flowers Exist during the | | | Carboniferous EpochXX. | 141 | " | Butler's "Evolution, Old and New" " | 501 | " | McCook's "Agricultural Ants of Texas" " | 625 | " | Reply to Reviewers of Wallace's " | | | "Australasia"XXI. | 562 | 1880 | Reply to Everett on Wallace's "Australasia"XXII. | 141 | " | Two Darwinian EssaysXXIII. | 124, 217, | " | Geological Climates | 266 | | " | 152, 175 | " | New Guinea " | 169 | " | Climates of Vancouver Island and " | | " | Bournemouth " | 195 | " | Correction of an Error in "Island Life"XXIV. | 242 | 1881 | Tyler's "Anthropology"XXIV. | 437 | 1881 | Weismann's "Studies in the Theory of | | | Descent"XXV. | 3 | " | Carl Bock's "Head-Hunters of Borneo" " | 381 | 1882 | Grant Allen's "Vignettes from Nature" " | 407 | " | Houseman's "Story of Our Museum"XXVI. | 52 | " | Weismann's "Studies in the Theory of | | | Descent" " | 86 | " | Müller's "Difficult Cases of Mimicry"XXVII. | 481 | 1883 | " " " " | 482 | " | On the Value of the Neo-arctic as One of the | | | Primary Zoological RegionsXXVIII. | 293 | " | W. F. White's "Ants and their Ways"XXXI. | 552 | 1885 | Colours of Arctic AnimalsXXXII. | 218 | " | H. O. Forbes's "A Naturalist's Wanderings | | | in the Eastern Archipelago"XXXIII. | 170 | 1886 | Victor Hehn's "Wanderings of Plants and | | | Animals"XXXIV. | 333 | " | H. S. Gorham's "Central American Entomology" " | 467 | " | Physiological Selection and the Origin of | | | SpeciesXXXV. | 366 | 1887 | Mr. Romanes on Physiological SelectionXXXVI. | 530 | " | The British Museum and the American | | | MuseumsXXXIX. | 611 | 1889 | Which are the Highest Butterflies? (Quotations | | | from Letter of W. H. Edwards)XL. | 619 | " | Lamarck _versus_ WeismannXLI. | 53 | " | Protective Coloration of EggsXLII. | 289 | 1890 | E. B. Poulton's "Colours of Animals" " | 295 | " | Birds and FlowersXLIII. | 79, 150 | " | Romanes on Physiological Selection " | 337 | 1891 | C. Lloyd Morgan's "Animal Life and | | | Intelligence" " | 396 | " | Remarkable Ancient Sculptures from North-West | | | AmericaXLIV. | 529 | " | David Syme's "Modification of Organisms"XLVI. | 518 | " | Variation and Natural SelectionXLV. | 31 | " | Topical Selection and Mimicry " | 553 | 1892 | W. H. Hudson's "The Naturalist in La | | | Plata"XLVI. | 56 | " | Correction in "Island Life"XLVII. | 55 | " | An Ancient Glacial Epoch in Australia " | 175, 227 | " | The Earth's Age " | 437 | 1893 | The Glacial Theory of Alpine Lakes " | 483 | " | W. H. Hudson's "Idle Days in PatagoniaXLVIII. | 27 | " | H. O. Forbes's Discoveries in the Chatham | | | Islands " | 73 | " | Intelligence of Animals " | 198 | " | The Glacier Theory of Alpine Lakes " | 267 | " | The Non-inheritance of Acquired Characters " | 389 | " | Pre-natal Influences on Character " | 390 | " | Habits of South African Animals " | 589 | " | The Supposed Glaciation of BrazilXLIX. | 3 | 1893 | The Recent Glaciation of Tasmania " | 52, 101 | " | Sir W. Howorth on "Geology in Nubibus" " | 53 | " | Recognition Marks " | 197, 220 | 1894 | The Origin of Lake Basins " | 333 | " | J. H. Stirling's "Darwinianism, Workmen and | | | Work" " | 549 | " | B. Kidd's "Social Evolution" " | 610 | " | What are Zoological Regions? (Read at Cambridge | | | Natural Science Club)L. | 196 | " | Panmixia and Natural Selection " | 541 | " | Nature's Method in the Evolution of LifeLI. | 533 | 1895 | Tan Spots over Dogs' Eyes " | 607 | " | The Age of the EarthLII. | 4 | " | Uniformitarianism in Geology " | 386 | " | H. Dyer's "Evolution of Industry" " | 415 | " | The Discovery of Natural SelectionLIII. | 220 | 1896 | The Cause of an Ice Age " | 317 | " | The Astronomical Theory of a Glacial Period " | 553 | " | E. D. Cope's "Primary Factors of Organic | | | Evolution" " | 553 | " | G. Archdall Reid's "Present Evolution of Man"LV. | 289 | 1897 | E. B. Poulton's "Charles Darwin and the Theory | | | of Natural Selection"LIX. | 246 | 1899 | The Utility of Specific CharactersLXI. | 273 | 1900 | Is New Zealand a Zoological Region?LXVII. | 296 | 1903 | Genius and the Struggle for ExistenceLXXV. | 320 | 1907 | Fertilisation of Flowers by InsectsLXXVI. | 293 | " | The "Double Drift" Theory of Star Motions=======+==========+======+=================================================

INDEX

A

"Acclimatisation, " Wallace's article on, ii. 11

Acquired characters, non-inheritance of (_see_ Non-inheritance)

Africa, flora of, i. 309

Agassiz, Louis, attacks Darwin's "Origin of Species, " i. 142; glacial theories of, 176; on diversity of human races, ii. 28

Alexandria, Wallace at, i. 45-7

Allbutt, Sir Clifford, theory of generation, i. 214

Allen, Charles (Wallace's assistant), i. 39, 40, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 60, 79

---- Grant, on origin of wheat, ii. 46; Wallace and, 219

Alpine plants, i. 210, 311

Amazon and Rio Negro, Wallace's exploration of, i. 26-30

Amboyna, Wallace at, i. 106

America, Wallace's lecture tour in, ii. 14

"Anatomy of Expression, " Bell's, i. 182

"Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Cæsar, " Holmes's, ii. 86

Angræcum sesquipedale, i. 189 (note)

Animals and plants, distribution of, Darwin's views, i. 131

"---- ---- under Domestication, " i. 112

---- geographical distribution of, i. 94, 136; migration of, Lyell's theory, ii. 19

"Antarctic Voyage, " Scott's, ii. 82

"Anthropology, " Tyler's, Wallace's review of, ii. 65; his interest in, 231 _et seq. _

Antiseptic treatment, medical opposition to, ii. 241

Ants, instincts of, i. 279

Apis testacea, i. 146

Archebiosis, i. 274-6

Argus pheasant, i. 230, 289, 292

Argyll, Duke of, i. 189, 313, 315, ii. 23; his theory of flight, 25-7

Arnold, Matthew, on Darwin's theory, ii. 228

Aru Islands, distribution of animals in, i. 132; productions of, 161

---- pig, i. 160, 161, 162

Astronomy, Wallace's works on, ii. 167 _et seq. _; lectures at Davos on, 168

"Australasia, " Wallace's, i. 42

Australia, fauna and flora of, ii. 10, 20, 32-3

---- Wallace invited to lecture in, ii. 155

Avebury, Lord, i. 122, 137, 164; signs memorial to City Corporation in Wallace's favour, 303; and the Civil List pension to Wallace, 305

---- letter from, on Wallace's biography, and Spiritualism, ii. 212

Azores, birds of, i. 138; orchids of, 311

B

"Bad Times, " Wallace's, ii. 109, 143

Baer, von, ii. 96

Bahamas, flora of, ii. 33

Baker, J. G. , on alpine plants of Madagascar, i. 311-12

Balfour, Francis, i. 315

Bali, fauna of, ii. 19-20

Ball, Sir Robert, on solar nebula, ii. 174

"Barnacles, " Darwin's, ii. 2

Barrett, Sir W. F. , paper on "Phenomena associated with Abnormal Conditions of the Mind, " ii. 195; on Wallace as lecturer, 201; inquiry into dowsing, etc. , 205; invites Wallace's criticism of "Creative Thought, " 212; last visit to Wallace, 248-9

---- letters from: on Presidency of Psychical Research Society, ii. 210-11; on a Supreme Directive Power, 213-14

Bartlett, on colouring of male birds, i. 302

Bates, F. , i. 69

---- H. W. , i. 24, 25; explores the Amazon, 26-30

---- ---- letter from, on "Law regulating Introduction of New Species, " i. 64

Bates's caterpillar, i. 178, 253

Bateson, Prof. , Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyerson, ii. 91

---- "Material for Study of Variation, " ii. 60-1

Bats, fruit-eating, i. 57

_Beagle_, Darwin's voyage in the, i. 19, 31, 32, 33, 43

"------, Voyage of the, " i. 31, 32, 34, ii. 2

Bee's cell, Prof. Haughton's paper on the, i. 148

Bees' combs, i. 135; a honeycomb from Timor, 143, 146

Beetles, Darwin's zeal for collecting, i. 18; Wallace's study of, 24; South American, 30; Wallace's collection of, 38, 114

"Beginnings of Life, " Bastian's, i. 274

Bell, Sir C. , i. 182

Belt, Mr. , glacial theory of, i. 298

Bendyshe, Mr. , i. 165

Bennett, A. W. , i. 253

Bentham, G. , i. 219

Bergson, Wallace on, ii. 98

Bermuda, birds of, i. 138

Best, Miss Dora, letter to, on Welsh offer of a degree to Wallace, ii. 222

Biology and geographical distribution, Wallace's works on, ii. 1-17; correspondence on, 18-102

---- "Grand Old Men" of, ii. 12 (note)

Birch, Mr. F. , ii. 177, 223-4

Bird of paradise, i. 41, 44, 238, 261

Birds, flight of, i. 145-6, ii. 25 _et seq. _; colour problem of, i. 184, 185, 212, 226-9, 230, 252, 289 (note), 302; polygamous, 194, 199; migration of, ii. 19, 20; instincts of, 54

Birds' nests, i. 134, 191, 212, 213, 252

"---- ---- and Plumage, " Wallace's, i. 191

"---- ---- Philosophy of, " Wallace's, i. 212, ii. 6, 8

Blackbird, crested, i. 163

Blainville, D. , i. 162

Blandford, H. F. , i. 290

Blood relationship, Galton on, i. 277

Blyth, E. , i. 132

Blytt, Axel, essay on plants of Scandinavia, i. 293

Borneo, Wallace's collections from, i. 61; cave exploration, 152

---- Company, i. 38, 39, 40

Boston (U. S. A. ), Wallace's lectures at, ii. 15

Botany, Darwin's study of, at Cambridge, i. 17; Wallace's study of, 20, 21, ii. 106

"----, Elements of, " Lindley's, i. 21

Brazil, Wallace's explorations in, i. 29

Bree, Dr. , i. 271 (note), 272-3

British Museum, original of Wallace letter in, i. 73

Broadstone, funeral of Wallace at, ii. 252

Bronn, H. G. , translates "Origin of Species" into German, i. 141

Brooke, Capt. , i 52

---- H. Jamyn, ii. 175

---- Sir James, i. 39, 52, 59-60, 152, 238

Bruce-Joy, Mr. , portrait-medallion of Wallace, ii. 122, 254

Buckle, Rev. G. , article by, on Lyell's "Principles, " i. 232

Buckley, Miss (Mrs. Fisher), i. 260, 264, 313, 316, 319, ii. 40, 89, 90; reviews "Descent of Man, " i. 264

Budd, Dr. Richard, ii. 58

Buffon and Evolution, i. 1

Buru, Wallace's collection of birds from, ii. 3

Bustards, i. 146

Butler, Samuel, "Life and Habit, " ii. 102

Butterflies, Wallace's study of, i. 24; of South America, 30; of Malay Archipelago, 41-2; protective adaptation of, 140; variation and distribution of, 149; mimetic, 167, 168, 176, 178, 189 (note), 200, 213, 217, 224, 254, 300; sexual selection of, 179, 260 (note); flight of, ii, 26

C

Cambridge, Darwin at, i. 16, 17

---- Philosophical Society, attacks on "Origin of Species" at, i. 142

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, ii. 146

Carbon, deposits of, i. 298

Carlyle, Thomas, ii. 228

Carpenter, Dr. , his controversies with Wallace, ii. 195, 198

Carroll, Lewis, Wallace's quotations from, ii. 105

Casuarius, query from Darwin on, i. 239

Caterpillars, colouring of, i. 178, 179, 183, 236, 260, 270, 299

Celebes, i. 138, 237, 289; geological distribution in, 168

"Cessation of selection, " ii. 52

Chambers, Robert, i. 114, 116, 244

Child's "Root Principles, " ii. 83

Clairvoyance, ii. 200, 208, 211. (_See also_ Spiritualism)

Claparède, critique of, on Wallace's "Natural Selection, " i. 253, 254

Clarke, Prof. , attacks Darwin at Cambridge Philosophical Society, i. 142

Clarkson, Thomas, ii. 225

Cleistogamic flowers, i. 298

Climates, geological, Wallace's theory of, i. 306

Climatic conditions, plants and, i. 130

"Climbing Plants, Movements and Habits of, " Darwin's, i, 285, ii. 2

Coal, export duties on, Wallace's view of, ii. 250

Cockerell, Sydney C. , ii. 161

---- Theo. D. A. , ii. 49; and the Darwin Celebration at Cambridge, 226; first personal relations with Wallace, 233-5

"Coleoptera Atlantidum, " Wollaston's, ii. 22-3

"Colin Clout's Calendar, " ii. 46

Coloration, protective, i. 156, 177, 178-9, 181, 183, 184, 185-6, 201, 220, 221, 224 _et seq. _, 260, 270, 298, ii. 4, 11, 85. (_See also_ Protection, Mimicry)

Colour-adaptability, ii. 56

Confucius, Wallace's appreciation of, ii. 152

Conscience, evolution of, i. 263

"Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, " Wallace's, i. 94, 250, 252, ii. 5, 6

Cooke, Kate, medium, ii. 193, 194, 195

Co-operation, Wallace on, ii. 151-2

Cope, E. D. , ii. 47

Copley Medals awarded to Wallace, ii. 128, 222

Coral islands, Lyell on, ii. 22

"---- Reefs, " Darwin's, ii. 2

---- snakes, i. 187

Crawford, Marion, one of Wallace's favourite authors, ii. 131

"Creation by Law, " Wallace's article on, i. 188, 192, ii. 6

"Creative Thought, " Sir Wm. Barrett's, ii. 212-13, 249

"Creed of Science, " Graham's, i. 318

Croll, James, i. 242, 305, 313, ii. 5, 13

Crookes, Sir W. , and psychical research, ii. 87, 189, 191, 205; and Westminster Abbey memorial to Wallace, 253

Cross- and self-fertilisation, i. 169, 297, ii. 46

"Cross Unions of Dimorphic Plants, " Darwin's, i. 218

"Crossing Plants, " Darwin's, i. 296

Crotch, G. , i. 262

D

"Darwin and After Darwin, " Romanes', ii. 50

"---- and his Teachings, " i. 170

"---- and 'The Origin, '" Poulton's, ii. 88 (note)

----, Charles, i. 1, 2; birth of, 5; autobiography, 5, 23 (note); ancestors, 6; at Shrewsbury Grammar School, 12; natural history tastes, 12; as angler, 12; egg-collecting, 12; humanity of, 13; leaves Shrewsbury Grammar School, 15; fondness for shooting, 16; at Cambridge, 16; medical studies, 16; theological studies, 17, ii. 184; tours in North Wales, i. 18; beetle-hunting, 18, 114; voyage in the _Beagle_, 18; theory of Natural Selection, 102, 107; reading, 103; visits Maer and Shrewsbury, 103; experiments, 103; Huxley and, 104; at work on Species and Varieties, 107; at Down, 109; receives presentation copy of Spencer's Essays, 124; appreciation of Wallace's magnanimity, 134, 137, 139, 141, 153, 164, 242, 252, 287, 304; falls from his horse, 243; on Wallace's review of "Descent of Man, " 260-2; criticism of Wallace's "Geographical Distribution, " 286, 289; at Dorking, 288; promotes memorial to City Corporation in favour of Wallace, 303; acknowledgment of "Island Life, " 307-8; on migration of plants, 307 (note), 312; memorial to Gladstone on behalf of Wallace, 313; death of, 318

Darwin, Charles, letters to Wallace: On "Law regulating Introduction of New Species, " etc. , i. 106, ii. 129; on distribution of animals, i. 133; on his "Origin of Species, " etc. , 134, 136; on Wallace's "Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago, " 137; inviting Wallace's opinion of the "Origin, " 139; on protective adaptation of butterflies, 140; on Press reviews of "Origin, " 141, 144; on theory of flight, 146; on Wallace as reviewer, 148; on Wallace's "Variation" and his paper on Man, 153; on sexual selection, 159; on Wallace's papers on pigeons and parrots, 160; on the Aru pig, 162; on the crested blackbird, etc. , 163; on Wallace's "Pigeons of Malay Archipelago" and dimorphism, 166; on the non-blending of varieties, 169; on the term "survival of the fittest, " 174; on sexual differences in fishes, 177; on colour of caterpillars, 178; on coloration and expression in man, 179; on sexual selection and expression, 182; on scheme for his work on Man, 183; on laws of inheritance, etc. , 185; on Wallace's "Mimicry, " 187; on Wallace's reply to Duke of Argyll, 189; on sexual selection and collateral points, 194; on pangenesis and sterility of hybrids, 197; on production of natural hybrids, etc. , 201; on sexual selection, 204, 206, 207; on northern alpine flora, 211; on Wallace's article on "Birds' Nests, " and on mimetic butterflies, 212; on Sir Clifford Allbutt's sperm-cell theory, and on female protected butterflies, 214;on Wallace's "Protective Resemblance, " 216; on dimorphic plants and colour protection, 220; on the colour problem of birds, 225, 229, 231; on fifth edition of "Origin of Species, " 233; on single variations, 234; on Wallace's "Malay Archipelago, " 235, 237, 240; on Wallace's review of Lyell's "Principles, " 242; on baffling sexual characters, 245; on Wallace's paper, "Geological Time, " 250; on Wallace's views on Man, 250, 251; on Wallace's "Natural Selection, " 252; on Wallace's criticism of Bennett's paper, 253; on his "Descent of Man" and St. G. Mivart, 257; on Wallace's review of "Descent of Man, " 260; on Chauncey Wright's criticism of Mivart, 264; on a _Quarterly_ review, 269, 291; on Fritz Müller's letter on mimicry, 270; on Dr. Bree, 271, 272; on Bastian's "Beginnings of Life, " 274, 278; on ants, 279; criticising Wallace's review of "Expression of the Emotions, " 280; on Spencer and politics, 283; on Utricularia, 284; on Wallace's "Geographical Distribution of Animals, " 286, 289, 292; on Wallace's article on Colours of Animals, etc. , 299; on Wallace's "Origin of Species and Genera, " 304; on Wallace's "Island Life, " 307; on land migration of plants, 312; on memorial for Wallace pension, 314, 315; on mimicry, 316; on political economy and "Creed of Science, " 318; on land question, 319----, Erasmus, i. 6; on the Wallace-Darwin episode, 127

---- Sir Francis, and "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, " i. 118, 119, 120, 122

---- Sir G. , Expulsion theory of, ii. 180

----, Mr. Horace, letter from his father, on discoverers, ii. 242 (note)

---- Major Leonard, i. 145, 146

---- Dr. Robert Waring, i. 6, 18

"Darwinism, " Wallace's, i, 212, 218, ii. 2, 14, 15, 75, 90, 109; plan of, 15-17; Spencer's objection to title, 47

Davos, Wallace's lecture at, ii. 204

Dawson, Sir J. W. , attack on Natural Selection, i. 142

De Rougemont, Wallace on, ii. 76

De Vries on mutation, ii. 80, 96

Decaisne's paper on flora of Timor, i. 236

Deformities, article on, in Chambers's Encyclopedia, ii. 57

Dendrobium devonianum, i. 23

Denudation, theory of, i. 250, 309, ii. 71, 72, 73

Deposition, theory of, i. 309, ii. 72, 73

"Descent of Man, " Darwin's, i. 152, 255, 259, 284, 289 (note), ii. 2, 34; review in _Pall Mall Gazette_, i. 263; in _Spectator_, 263

"Development of Human Races under Law of Natural Selection, " Wallace's, ii. 6, 183

"Different Forms of Flowers and Plants of the Same Species, " Darwin's, i. 298, ii. 2

Dimorphism, i. 167, 202, 220

Dipsomania, Wallace on, ii. 68

Discontinuous variation, ii. 62, 63

Disuse, physiological effects of, i. 69

Divining rod, experiments with, ii. 205, 206-8, 211

Dixey, Dr. , ii. 79

Domestic selection (_see_ Selection, domestic)

Domestication, variation under, i. 192

Dowsing for water, etc. , ii. 205, 206-8, 211

Dunraven, Lord, and psychical research, ii. 199

"Duration of Life, " Weismann's, ii. 44, 45

Dyaks, i. 55, 59

E

Earl, W. , on distribution of animals in Malay Archipelago, i. 138

"Early History of Mankind, " Tylor's, i. 164, 165

Earth, formation of, ii. 179; Wallace's views on, 168 _et seq. _

"Earthworms, " Darwin's, i. 320, ii. 2

Edinburgh, Darwin in, i. 16, 17

Education, Wallace's views of, ii. 147

Edwards, W. H. , "Voyage up the Amazon, " i. 25

Eight hours' day, Wallace on, ii. 156

"Encyclopedia of Plants, " London's, i. 21, 23, 92

Entomological Society, i. 35; discussion on mimicry at, 176; Wallace's Presidential Address to, 126

Eocene Period, i. 308, 312

Epping Forest, superintendency of, Wallace and, i. 302-4, 306

Erotylidæ, i. 65

Erskine of Linlathen on evolution, ii. 228

"Essays on Evolution, " Poulton's, ii. 61 (note), 79 (note), 84, 85

"---- upon Heredity, " Weismann's, ii. 45, 51, 52

Eugenics, ii. 160, 246; term disliked by Wallace, 150, 246; and segregation of unfit, letter from Wallace on, 160

Evans, Miss, ii. 226

Evil, origin of, ii. 149

Evolution, theory of, Lamarck and, i. 1, 109; Lyell and, 76, 142, 239; as conceived in "Vestiges of Creation, " 91, 92 (note) _et seq. _; Darwin and, 103 _et seq. _, 122-4; notable converts to, 137, 139, 141, 219, 221, 239; Wallace's views on, 240, 256, 294, ii. 78, 94, 95; Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer on, 97, 185. (_See also_ Selection)

"---- and Adaptation, " Morgan's, ii. 79

---- and Mendelism, Wallace on, ii. 93

"Evolution of the Stellar System, Researches on, " ii. 178

"---- Theories of, " Poulton's, ii. 61

"Evolutionist at Large, " ii. 46

"Expanse of Heaven, " Proctor's, ii. 80

"Exposition of Fallacies in the Hypotheses of Darwin, " Bree's, i. 271 (note), 272-3

"Expression, Anatomy of, " Bell's, i. 182

---- in the Malays, i. 182, 191

"---- of the Emotions, " Darwin's, i. 279, ii. 2; review of, i. 280-1

"Expressiveness of Speech, etc. , in the Origin of Language, " Wallace's, ii. 65

F

Facsimile of Wallace's inscription on envelope containing his first eight letters from Darwin, i. 128

Faraday on Spiritualism, ii. 188

Farmer, W. J. , ii. 101

Farrer, Mr. , i. 304

Fauna, British, i. 307

Felis of Timor, i. 138

Fellenberg and R. D. Owen, ii, 225

Ferns, Lawrence on, ii. 40

"Fertilisation of Orchids, " Darwin's, i. 189 (note), ii. 2

---- self- and cross-, i. 169, 297, ii. 46

Finger-prints, Gallon's papers on, ii. 48-9

"First Principles, " Spencer's, Wallace's admiration of, i. 125

Fish, sexual differences in, i. 178

Fisher, Mrs. (_see_ Buckley, Miss)

---- O. , "Physics of the Earth's Crust, " Wallace on, ii. 74

FitzRoy, Capt. , i. 33

Flight, theory of, i. 145-6, ii. 25 _et seq. _

Flora, endemic, ii. 43

"Floral Structures, " Henslow's, ii. 46

Flourens' criticism of Darwin's theory, i. 160

Flowers, tropical, i. 238; cleistogamic, 298

Flustra, Darwin's article on larvæ of, i. 16

Forbes, Dr. Henry, ii. 12 (note); estimation of Wallace, 229-33, 239

---- Prof. , i. 96, 99, 100, 132, 139, 189, 248

Forel and Darwin, i, 294, 296

"Forms of Flowers, " Darwin's, i. 298

Fossils, i. 20

"Foundations, " Sir F. Darwin's, ii. 92

Free trade and monopoly, Wallace's views on, ii. 152

"Freeland, " Wallace's opinion of, ii. 114

"Fuel of the Sun, " M. Williams's, i. 263-4

G

Galapagos Islands, i. 97, 103; fauna of, i. 295, ii. 13

Galaxias, i. 290

Galton, Sir Francis, on heredity, ii. 45; on organic stability, 60; introduces term Eugenics, 246

---- letter from, on finger-marks, ii. 48-9

Gärtner, i. 195

Geach, C. , i. 79, 191, 245

Geddes, Prof. Patrick, ii. 12 (note), 41, 43

Geikie, Sir A. , i. 122, ii. 71, 253

General Enclosure Act, ii. 140

"Genesis of Species, " Mivart's, i. 257, 264, 265-7, 291, ii. 31

Geodephaga, exotic, i. 69

Geographical distribution and biology, Wallace's writings on, ii. 1-17; correspondence on, 18-102

"---- ---- of Animals, " Wallace's, i. 42, 286, ii. 1-2, 8, 32, 233, 286-7, 289-94

"---- ---- of Mammals, " Murray's, i. 181

"---- ---- of Plants, " Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer's, ii. 90

Geographical distribution of plants and animals, i. 94, 95, ii. 13

Geography, old-time teaching of, i. 11; organic, 95; zoological, ii. 9

"Geological Climates and the Origin of Species, " Wallace's, ii. 5

---- distribution of plants and animals, i. 94, 95, 136

"---- History of Man, " Lyell's, i. 142

"---- Observations on South America, " Darwin's, ii. 2

---- time, Wallace's paper on, i. 249

Geology, Darwin's studies in, i. 16, 17

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd, Wallace's letter to, on the railway strike, ii. 163; Wallace's admiration of, 164-5, 249

---- Henry, i. 17, 317; meets Wallace, ii. 143

"Germ Plasm, " Weismann's, ii. 72

"Germinal Selection, " Weismann's, ii. 68, 70

Glacial period, theory of, i. 149, 176, 177, 248, 251, 287, 298, 307, 308-10, ii. 6, 13

Gladstone, W. E. , recommends Wallace for a pension, i. 313

---- letter from, on onomatopoeia, ii. 66-7

Gould, Dr. Aug. , on land shells, i. 133

----, John, list of humming-birds, ii. 23; Sclater's distrust of, 24

Graham's "Creed of Science, " i. 318

Grant, Dr. , article on Flustra, i. 16; advocacy of Evolution by, 122

Granville, Lord, ii. 67

Gray, Asa, i. 76, 139; defends Darwin, 142

Great Exhibition of 1862, i. 79

Greenell, Mary Ann (Mrs. T. V. Wallace), i. 9

Growth, economy of, ii. 53

Gurney, Edmund, and telepathy, ii. 200

H

Habinaria, i. 311

"Habit and Intelligence, " Murphy's, i. 246, 249

Haeckel, Prof. , and the Darwin-Wallace Jubilee, i. 120

Hall, John, sends Wallace orchids from Buenos Ayres, ii. 129

---- Spencer, lectures on mesmerism, ii. 182

Hardinge, Mrs. , medium, ii. 188, 189

Hare, Prof. A. , ii. 57

Hart, Capt. , i. 79

Haughton, Prof. S. , criticises Darwin's "Origin of Species, " i. 142; on "The Bee's Cell and Origin of Species, " 148

Haweis, Rev. H. R. , ii. 204

Hayward, Mr. , i. 21, 92

Heliconiidæ, i. 65

Helmes, L. V. , reminiscences of Wallace's visit to Sarawak, i. 38-40

Hemsley, Dr. W. B. , ii. 43

Henderson, Rev. J. B. , ii. 209

Henslow, Prof. , Darwin's friendship with, i. 17; defends Darwin, 142

Herdman, Mr. , inaugural address to Liverpool Biological Society, ii. 45

Heredity, Weismann's essays on, ii. 44-5, 51; Galton on, 45

Herschel, Sir J. , i. 17

Hertford Grammar School, i. 11, 14

Heterogenesis, i. 274 (note), 275, 278

Heterostyled plants, illegitimate offspring of, i. 298

Hodgson's Psychical Research Report, ii. 203

Holland, Sir H. , on pangenesis, i. 197

Holmes, T. Rice, ii. 86

Home, D. D. , medium, ii. 189, 199

Home Rule, Wallace's advocacy of, ii. 152

Homer, onomatopoeic examples in, ii. 66, 67

Honeycomb sent by Wallace to Darwin, i. 143

Hooker, Sir Joseph, birth of, i. 5, 76; on oak trees, 56; and the Darwin-Wallace joint paper, 71, 111, 113, 119, 134, 136, 137, 139; receives the Darwin-Wallace Medal, 117; speech at Darwin-Wallace jubilee, 117; Darwin's appreciation of, 135, 137; introduction to "Flora of Australia, " 139; on pangenesis, 197; visits Darwin at Freshwater, 219; signs memorial to City Corporation in Wallace's favour, 303; opinion on Wallace's "Island Life, " 307

----, Sir Joseph, letters from: on "Island Life, " ii. 32-3; acknowledging Wallace's "Life, " etc. , 82-3

Hopkins's review of the "Origin of Species, " i. 144

Hopkinson, Prof. A. , and Spiritualism, ii. 200

Howorth, Sir H. H. , on subsidence and elevation of land, i. 277

Hubrecht, Prof. , ii. 80; alleges differences between Darwin and Wallace, 87

Hudson's "Scientific Demonstration of a Future Life, " ii. 203

Huggins, Sir W. , and psychical research, ii. 198, 199

Hughes, Hugh Price, Wallace's opinion of, ii. 204

---- letter from, on Wallace's "Justice, not Charity, " ii. 157

Humboldt's "Personal Narrative, " i. 17, 164, 238

Humming-birds, ii. 23, 24

Huxley, T. H. , i. 1, 5, 76, 116, 137; meets Wallace, 35; appreciation of Wallace, 94; first interview with Darwin, 104; and Herbert Spencer, 123; and the memorial to Gladstone as to a pension for Wallace, 313; and psychical research, ii. 198; opinion as to Wallace joining Royal Society, 220; on Henslow, 251

---- letters from, declining Wallace's invitation to investigate "curious phenomena, " ii. 187-8

Hybrids, sterility of, i. 130, 195 _et seq. _; and Natural Selection, 195 _et seq. _; infertility of, 297

Hyder, Mr. J. , ii. 161, 252

Hyndman, Mr. H. M. , letter from, acknowledging Wallace's birthdaycongratulations, ii. 164

I

"Ice-Marks in North Wales, " Wallace's, i. 177

"Illustrations of British Insects, " i. 23 (note)

"Immigration of Norwegian Flora, " Blytt's, i. 293

Immortality, Wallace's views on, ii. 176

Indian Mutiny, i. 68

Indians, American, Bates's opinion of, ii. 29

Individual adaptability and natural selection, ii. 55

"Insectivorous Plants, " Darwin's, i. 284, 285, ii. 2

Insects, migration of, Lyell on, ii. 19; theory of flight, 26

Instinct, Archdall Reid's views of, ii. 67

"---- in Man and Animals, " Wallace's, ii. 6

"Introduction to Study of Natural Philosophy, " Herschel's, i. 17

"Is Mars Habitable?" Wallace's, ii. 172

"Island Life, " Wallace's, i. 42, 305, 306-7, ii. 5, 12-14, 32, 33, 72, 75

Islands, continental, i. 305, ii. 12

---- oceanic, i. 138, 210-12, 305, ii. 12

J

Jameson's lectures on geology and zoology in Edinburgh, i. 16

Janet's "Materialism of the Present Day, " i. 170, 172, 173, 175

Jardine, Sir W. , criticism of "Origin of Species, " i. 142

Java, birds of, i. 87; flora of, 86; mountains of, 85-6; volcanoes of, 85, 86

Jencken, Mrs. , ii. 198

Jenkin, Fleeming, on limitations to variation, i. 190; Darwin on, 233, 234; Wallace on, 234

Jensen and De Rougemont, ii. 76

Jessopp, Rev. Augustus, letter on land nationalisation, ii. 157

Joan of Arc, works on, ii. 204

Jones, Sir Rupert, on Miocene or Old Pliocene Man in India, ii. 62

---- Mr. W. Braunston, birthday ode by, ii. 248

Jordan, Mr. , ii. 129

Josiah Mason College, Birmingham, Wallace and, i. 306

"Journal of Researches, " Darwin's, i. 18, 25, 37, 43

Judd, John W. , and Wallace medallion, ii. 253

Jukes, J. B. , a supporter of Darwin, i. 141

K

Kane, Mrs. , ii. 198

Keltie, Dr. J. Scott, on Wallace's exploration in Brazil, i. 29

Kelvin, Lord (_see_ Thomson, Sir W. )

Kempe, Sir A. B. , signs petition for Wallace memorial, ii. 253

Keyerling and the Darwinian theory, i. 141

Kidd, Mr. Benjamin, and "equality of opportunity, " ii. 158

Kingsley, Canon, letter to Wallace on "Malay Archipelago, " ii. 30-1

Knight, Prof. , ii. 176; his reminiscences of Wallace, 228

Knollys, Lord, ii. 223

Kolreuter, i. 195

Krefft, Dr. G. , i. 316

Kropotkin, Prince, "Memoirs of a Revolutionist, " i. 89

L

Lamarck and Evolution, i. 1, 109, 242

Lambs, instincts of, ii. 54

Land laws, Wallace and, ii. 140

---- molluscs, Darwin on, i. 131, 132, 287, 292

---- nationalisation, Wallace and, ii. 141

---- ---- Society, foundation of, ii. 143

"---- ----, " Wallace's, i. 317, ii. 109, 143

---- shells, i. 132, 133, 262

---- Tenure Reform Association, Wallace and, ii. 143

Lankester, Sir E. Ray, receives Darwin-Wallace Medal and speaks at Jubilee celebration, i. 121; replies to a Darwin Centenary article in the _Times_, ii. 89; a signatory to Wallace memorial petition, 253

Larmor, Sir J. , and Wallace national memorial, ii. 253

"Law regulating Introduction of New Species, " Wallace's, i. 93, 94, 105, 129, ii. 6, 21

Le Gallienne, Mr. , meets Wallace, ii. 204

Lecky's "Rationalism, " Darwin on, i. 164; Wallace on, 165-6

"Lectures on Man, " Lawrence's, i. 91

Legge, Col. , conveys to Wallace the Order of Merit, ii. 224

Lemuria, continent of, i. 289

Lepidoptera, colour-adaptability in, ii. 56

Lewes, G. H. , and pangenesis, i. 220; and origin of species, 221

Leyden Museum, i. 87

"Lhasa, " Waddell's, ii. 82

Life after death, Wallace's belief in, ii. 181

"---- and Habit, " Samuel Butler's, ii. 102

"---- and Letters of Charles Darwin, " i. 118, 119, 120, 122-3, 127, 260 (note), 263 (note), 273 (note), 274 (note), ii. 184

----, origin of, Spencer on, i. 125-6

---- ---- Wallace's views on, ii. 168

"Limits of Natural Selection as applied to Man, " Wallace's, ii. 6

Lindley, Dr. , "Elements of Botany, " i. 21; article on orchids by, 23

Linnean Society, Darwin-Wallace communication to, i. 71, 89, 109, 118, 122; Jubilee of event, 110 _et seq. _, ii. 127

Lip-expression, efficacy of, ii. 67

Littledale, Dr. , reminiscences of Wallace, ii. 132-3, 136

Lock's "Variation, Heredity, and Evolution, " ii. 84

Lodge, Sir Oliver, reply to Haeckel, ii. 83; Romanes lecture, 178-80; address at Psychical Research Society, 205; and the national memorial to Wallace, 253

Lombok, fauna of, ii. 19, 20

Lönnberg, Prof. , i. 122

"Looking Backward, " ii. 114

Lophura viellottii, i. 230

Loudon's "Encyclopedia of Plants, " i. 21, 23, 92

Lowell, Prof. Percival, "Mars and its Canals, " ii. 172, 175-7

Lubbock, Sir John (_see_ Avebury, Lord)

Lunn, Sir H. , meets Wallace, ii. 204

Lyell, Sir C. , birth of, i. 5; and the Darwin-Wallace joint essay, 71, 109, 111, 113, 118, 119, 134, 136, 139, ii. 19; as Evolutionist, i. 76, 142, 239; on extinction of species, 98; and Wallace's "Law regulating Introduction of New Species, " 132; defends Darwin, 142; on pangenesis, 200; and the "Fuel of the Sun, " 263

---- letters from: on "Origin of Races of Man, " ii. 18; on geographical distribution, 19; on Wallace's "Law regulating Introduction of Species, " etc. , 21; on humming-birds, shells, etc. , 23; on Wallace's "Mimicry of Colours, " 25; on diversity of human races, 28-9; on Wallace's "Malay Archipelago, " 30; on Wallace's "Geographical Distribution, " 32

Lyell, Sir Leonard, i. 120

Lythrum, trimorphism of, i. 161, 169

M

McAndrew, Mr. , on littoral shells of the Azores, ii. 24

Macmahon, Dr. P. A. , and the Wallace medallion, ii. 253

Madagascar, i. 290 (note); fauna of, 188, 189, 192, 293, 295; flora of, 311-13

Madeira, land shells in, i. 132; birds in, 138

"Maha Bharata, " Wallace's appreciation of, ii. 116

Malaria, Wallace on, ii. 241

Malay Archipelago, Wallace's explorations in, i. 35-42; distribution of animals in, 138

"---- ----, " Wallace's, i. 42, 121, 133, 140, 235, 237; ii. 30, 143, 159, 230, 231; translations of, i. 245

"Malayan Papilionidæ, " Wallace's, i. 153, ii. 4, 6, 231

Malthus on "Population, " i. 103, 104, 111, 116, 136, 175, 317

Man, influence of sexual selection on, i. 154, 155, 180, 181, 182, 183; geographical distribution of, 156; zoological classification of, 157; original colour of, ii. 29. 

----, origin of, Darwin's views of, i. 154-5, 243 (_see also_ "Descent of Man")

---- ---- Wallace's views of, i. 91-2, 152-3, 155 _et seq. _, 221, 240, 243, 250, 256, ii. 31

"Man's Place in the Universe, " ii. 102, 120, 167, 170 _et seq. _, 178

Mantegazza, colour theory of, i. 299

Marchant, James, ii. 100; and the Wallace memorial, ii. 253; letter from Bishop Ryle to, 254

"Mars, " Wallace's, ii. 122, 172-3, 175-7

"---- and its Canals, " Lowell's, ii. 172, 175-7

Marshall, Mr. J. W. , ii. 53, 209, 226

---- Dr. W. , i. 279

Martineau, James, Darwin on Spencer's reply to, i. 272

"Material for Study of Variation, " Bateson's, ii. 60-1

"Materialism of the Present Day, " Janet's, i. 170, 172, 173, 175

Maternal impressions, ii. 57-8

Matthew, P. , anticipates theory of Natural Selection, i. 116, 142

Maw, Mr. , reviews "Origin of Species, " i. 144

Melastoma, i. 150, 151

Meldola, Prof. Raphael, lecture on Evolution by, i. 123; death of, ii. 35; criticism of Romanes' theory, 36; on importance of "divergence, " 41-2; President of Entomological Society, 63; reminiscences of Wallace, 226; at Wallace's funeral, 252; and the Abbey memorial, 253

Mendelism, ii. 84; Dr. Archdall Reid's view of, 85; and Evolution, Wallace on, 93

Menura superba, i. 183 (note)

Mesmerism, Wallace and, i. 24, ii. 182

Meyer, Dr. Adolf Bernhard, i. 248, 249

Mias, i. 53, 56, 57, ii. 30

Mill, John Stuart, invites Wallace to join Land Tenure Reform Association, ii. 143

Mill's "Siege of the South Pole, " ii. 82

Miller, Mr. Ben R. , letter to, ii. 98

Mimetic butterflies, i. 167, 168, 176, 178, 179, 189 (note), 200, 213, 217, 224, 254, 300

"Mimicry, and Other Protective Resemblances, " Wallace's, ii. 6, 8, 25

"---- and Protective Colouring, " Wallace's, i. 179, 187

---- Bates's theory of, i. 225

---- Darwin on, i. 316

----, Wallace on, i. 167 (note), 168-9, 176

Miocene Period, i. 294, 308, 309, 312

"Miracles and Modern Spiritualism, " Wallace's, ii. 11, 178, 183

Missionaries, Wallace's and Darwin's impressions of, compared, i. 36-8; Wallace on, 47, 50, 62-3

Mitten, Miss, ii. 252

---- Mr. William, ii. 35, 253

Mivart, St. G. , controversy with Mr. G. Darwin, i. 291; his "Genesis of Species, " 257-8, 264, 265-7, ii. 31

Moluccas, birds of, ii. 3

Monistic theory, ii. 177

Monkeys, influence of, on distribution of pigeons and parrots, i. 166 (note), 167

Monopoly and free trade, Wallace on, ii. 152

"More Letters, " i. 127, 195, 288 (note), 312 (note)

Morgan, Prof. Lloyd, Wallace on, ii. 67, 68

---- T. H. , "Evolution and Adaptation, " ii. 79

Morley, Mr. John (Lord), correspondence with, ii. 159

Morton, Dr. , on American race problem, ii. 28

Moths, Jenner Weir's observations on, i. 179

Mott, Mr. , on Haeckel, i. 298; on progression of races, ii. 86

Mould, formation of, by agency of earthworms, i. 319

Mount Ophir (Malay), i. 51

Mouth-gesture as factor in origin of language, ii. 65

"Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants, " Darwin's, i. 285, 311, ii. 2

Mailer, Fritz, "Für Darwin, " i. 164; on mimetic butterflies, 189 (note), 270, 300

---- Hermann, i. 189 (note)

Murchison, Sir Roderick, and Wallace, i. 36; on Africa, 159

Murphy, Mr. M. J. , ii. 164

Murphy's "Habit and Intelligence, " Wallace's review of, i. 246, 249

Murray, Andrew, attacks Darwin's "Origin of Species, " i. 142; opposes Trimen's views on mimetic butterflies, 201

Murray's "Geographical Distribution of Mammals, " i. 181

Mutation theory, ii. 79, 84

"My Life, " Wallace's, i. 6, 10 (note), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29-30, 92 (note), 107, 125, 126, 127, 178, 253, 307 (note), 312 (note), ii. 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 81, 82, 149, 178, 202

Myers, F. W. H. , and telepathy, ii. 200, 202; on Wallace as lecturer, 202

---- letter from, on Vaccination pamphlet, the "Malay Archipelago, " etc. , ii. 202-3

N

Nägeli's essay on Natural Selection, i. 241

Nathusius on the Aru pig, i. 162

Natural Selection (_see_ Selection, natural)

"---- ---- Action of, in producing Old Age, Decay, and Death, " Wallace's, ii. 44

"---- ---- Contributions to the Theory of, " Wallace's, i. 94, 250, 252, ii. 5, 6

"---- ---- from a Mathematical Point of View, " Bennett's, i. 253

Nebular hypothesis, Spencer's, i. 151; Wallace on, ii. 174

Neo-Lamarckians, ii. 47, 60, 64

New Zealand, aborigines of, i. 239; colonisation of, 290; fauna and flora of, 291, 295, 305, 307, ii. 20, 33, 34

"Newton of Natural History, " the, i. 76

Newton, Prof. A. , i. 105, ii. 8, 36

"Nicaragua, " Belt's, ii. 36

Non-inheritance of acquired characters, ii. 44-5, 54, 70, 71, 72, 73; Prof. Poulton's address on, 79

Norman, Dr. , and Wallace, ii. 137

Norris, Dr. Richard, i. 244, ii. 136

---- Miss, ii. 136

"Norwegian Flora, Immigration of, " Blytt's, i. 293

O

Oceanic islands, colonisation of, i. 132, 133, 138, 290; flora of, 210-212, 305

Onomatopoeia, ii. 66

Orang-utans, i. 53, 56, 57, ii. 30

"Orchids, " Darwin's, i. 143, 297

---- Wallace's admiration of, i. 23, ii. 114; epiphytal, i. 23; of the Azores, 311

"Origin of Species, " Darwin's, i. 67, 72, 76-8, 112, 121, 124, 125, 129, 134, 136, 139, 141, 146, 164, 174, 176, 224, 240, 241, 244, 246, 264-5, 271, ii. 1, 2, 77; reviews of, i. 142, 144

---- ---- (_see_ Selection)

"---- ---- and Genera, " Wallace's, i. 304

"---- of the Fittest, " Cope's, ii. 47

"---- of the Races of Man, " Wallace's, ii. 18

Ornithoptera croesus, i. 41

---- poseidon, i. 42

Orr, Henry B. , ii. 60

Osborn, Prof. H. F. , on Wallace, ii. 239

Ostriches, Wallace on, i. 145; Darwin on, 146-7

Owen, Sir R. , Darwin's opinion of, i. 139; attacks Darwin's theory, 142, 144, 157, 199

---- Robert, and Wallace, i. 15, ii. 139, 148, 182, 225

---- Robert Dale, ii. 225

P

Pacific Islands, land shells in, i. 133

Pain, Wallace on, ii. 244

Pangenesis, i. 196 _et seq. _, 219, 220, 276, ii. 102

Panmixia, ii. 52, 53

Papilio, polymorphic species of, i. 168

---- sarpedon choredon, i. 316

"Papilionidæ of the Malay Region, " Wallace's, i. 153, ii. 4, 6, 231

Para, Wallace at, i. 26, 29; products of, 27

Parrots, Wallace's paper on, i. 160, ii. 4

"Passerine Birds, " Wallace's, ii. 231

Pastrana, Julia, i. 181

Patagonia, plains of, i. 32

"Permanence of Oceanic Basins, " Wallace's, ii. 74

Permian period, i. 290

Perry, John, and Wallace national memorial, ii. 253

"Personal Narrative, " Humboldt's, i. 17, 164, 238

Pheasants, Argus, i. 230, 289, 292

"Phenomena of Variation and Geographical Distribution, " Wallace's, i. 153

Phillips' attack on Darwin's "Origin of Species, " i. 142

Phrenology, Wallace's belief in, i. 24, ii. 237

"Physical Geography of the Malay Archipelago, " Wallace's, ii. 232

"---- History of Man, " Prichard's, i. 91, 116, ii. 73

"Physics of the Earth's Crust, " Fisher's, ii. 74

Physiological selection (_see_ Selection, physiological)

Pickard-Cambridge, Rev. O. , reminiscences of Wallace, ii. 131

Pictet, Prof. F. J. , reviews the "Origin of Species, " i. 141, 144

Pigeons, domestic, i. 130

"---- of the Malay Archipelago, " Wallace's, i. 166, ii. 4

"Plants, Crossing, " Darwin's, Wallace on, i. 296-7

---- geographical distribution of, i. 94; effect of climatic conditions on, 130; heterostyled, 298; migration of, 307 (note), 310, 311-12, 313-14, ii. 32, 34-5; Lyell on migration of, 19-20; variety of form and habit in, 54

"Plants of India and Indo-Oceanic Continent, " Blandford's, i. 290

Pleistocene Period, i. 308

Pliocene Period, i. 292, 294, ii. 22

Podmore, Frank, effect on, of Hodgson's Psychical Research report, ii. 203; report by, in _Proceedings_ of Psychical Research Society, 204; proposed as President, 211

Polymorphism, Wallace on, i. 168

"Population, Essay on, " Malthus's, i. 103, 104, 111, 116, 136, 175, 317

"---- Theory of, " Spencer's, i. 124

Poulton, Prof. , and Weismann's "Essays upon Heredity, " ii. 44-6; paper on colours of larva, pupa, etc. , 54; appointed Hope Professor of Zoology in Oxford University, 57; exposure of an American Neo-Lamarckian by, 60; Presidential Address to British Association, Wallace's criticism of, 71; Presidential Address to Entomological Society, 79; on Wallace, 227; at funeral of Wallace, 252; and the Westminster Abbey memorial, 253

Poverty, Wallace's views on, ii. 145 _et seq. _

"Power of Movement in Plants, " Darwin's, i. 311, ii. 2

Prain, Sir D. , and Wallace memorial in Westminster Abbey, ii. 253

"Prehistoric Times, " Lubbock's, i. 164, 165-6

"Present Evolution of Man, The, " Archdall Reid's, ii. 67, 73

Price, Prof. B. , formally offers D. C. L. Degree to Wallace, ii. 217

Prichard's "Physical History of Man, " i. 91, 116, ii. 73

Primula, Darwin's paper on, i. 218

"Principles of Geology, " Lyell's, i. 135, ii. 5

"---- of Psychology, " Spencer's, i. 123

"---- of Sociology, " Spencer's, i. 126

Proctor, R. A. , i. 263; "Expanse of Heaven, " ii. 180

"Progress and Poverty, " Henry George's, i. 317, 318, ii, 143

Protection, principle of, i. 140, 177, 184, 186, 189, 192, 199, 205, 212 _et seq. _, 214 _et seq. _, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226 _et seq. _, 235-6, 252, 256, 257-9, 270, 291, 299-300 (_see also_ Coloration, protective, _and_ Mimicry)

"Protective Resemblance, " Wallace's, i. 214

"---- Value of Colour and Markings in Insects, " ii. 38

Protoplasm, origin of, Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer on, ii. 96-7

"Psychic Philosophy, " Desertis's, ii. 203

Psychical research, Wallace and, ii. 181, 186 _et seq. _, 196, 199

---- ---- Society, foundation of, ii. 196

Pteropus edulis, i. 54

Purdon, Dr. , ii. 195

R

Ramsay, Andrew, Darwin on, i. 141

---- Sir Wm. , and Wallace national memorial, ii. 253

Rathbone, Reginald B. , reminiscences of Wallace, ii. 124-7

"Rationalism, " Lecky's, i. 164-6

"Regression to the mean, " ii. 69

Reichenbach, experiments of, with sensitives, ii. 196, 197

"Reign of Law, " Duke of Argyll's, ii. 23

"Researches, " Prichard's, i. 91, 116, ii. 73

"---- on Evolution of Stellar Systems, " ii. 179-80

"Revolt of Democracy, " Wallace's, ii. 104, 144, 145, 251

Rhynchæa, i. 183, 184

Rice, Dr. Hamilton, survey of Uaupés River, i. 29

Ridgeway, Dr. , Bishop of Salisbury, ii. 252

Ridley, Mr. H. N. , ii. 76

Ripon, Lord, i. 277

Rogers, H. D. , Darwin on, i. 141

Romanes, G. J. : theory of physiological selection, i. 218, ii. 36; Meldola's criticism of, 36, 49-50; Wallace's criticism of, 63 _et seq. _; his accusation against Wallace, 235-7

"Root Principles, " Child's, ii. 83

Rothschild, the Hon. Lionel (Lord), Wallace's admiration of his butterflies, ii. 88, 129

Royal Geographical Society, and exploration of Uaupés River, i. 29

---- Institute, the, Wallace's lecture at, ii. 87, 127, 222

Rudimentary organs, i. 100

Russell, Mr. Alfred, letter to, ii. 158

Russia, Czar of, manifesto of, ii. 158

---- Wallace on, ii. 161

Rütimeyer, researches on mammals in Switzerland by, i. 251

Ryle, Bishop, and the medallion of Wallace, 254; sermon at its unveiling, 254-5

S

Sadong River, Wallace's exploration of, i. 93

Salisbury, Bishop of, at funeral of Wallace, ii. 252

---- Marquis of, view of Natural Selection, ii. 59, 60; translation of his address, 65

Santiago, Darwin at, i. 34

Sarawak, Wallace in, i. 28, 38-40, 93, 106

Scandinavia, distribution of plants in, i. 293

Schaffhausen, Dr. , almost anticipates Natural Selection, i. 142

"Scientific Aspect of the Supernatural, " Wallace's, ii. 186

"---- Demonstration of a Future Life, " Hudson's, ii. 203

Sclater, P. H. , on Wallace's "Malay Archipelago, " i. 139-140; and Lemuria, 290 (note); division of earth into zoological regions, ii. 8; distrust of Gould, 24

Scott, Dr. Dukinfield H. , speech at presentation of Darwin-Wallace Medals, i. 110-112; at Wallace's funeral, ii. 252; and the Wallace memorial in Westminster Abbey, 254

Scott's "Antarctic Voyage, " ii. 82

Sedgwick, Prof. , and Darwin, i. 17, 18; attacks Darwin at Cambridge Philosophical Society, 142

See, T. J. J. , ii. 179-80

Seeman, Berthold, i. 199, 201, 210, 211

Segregation of the unfit, Wallace on, ii. 160-1, 246

Selection, domestic, i. 130, 134, 136, 160, 161, 167, 181, 183, 186, 189 (note), 192, 208, 215, 226, 228, 231, 257, 299

---- natural, theory of, i. 155, 156, 170 _et seq. _, 195 _et seq. _, 218, 240, 267, 298, 301, ii. 16-17, 63, 75, 94, 96, 98, 101, 150; discovery of, i. 2, 89-126; anticipations of, 116, 142, 176; Spencer's alternative term for, 125, 171; Lord Salisbury's conception of, ii. 59, 60, 65; Neo-Lamarckians and, 64

---- physiological, Romanes' theory of, i. 218, ii. 36, 49-50, 63 _et seq. _, 235-7

---- sexual, i. 157, 159, 177, 179, 182, 185-6, 194, 199, 203, 204, 212 _et seq. _, 216-17, 220, 224-5, 227 _et seq. _, 256, 261, 298, 299

Self-fertilisation, i. 169, 297, ii. 46

"Shall we have Common Sense?" Sleeper's, ii. 98, 99

Sharpe, Mr. J. W. , reminiscences of Wallace, ii. 107-9

Shells, Lyell on, ii. 24

Shipley, Dr. A. E. , and Wallace medallion in Westminster Abbey, ii. 253

Shrewsbury Grammar School, Darwin and, i. 12, 15

Sidgwick, Prof, and Mrs. H. , telepathic experiments by, ii. 199, 200; Wallace's remarks on, 200-1

"Siege of the South Pole, " Mill's, ii. 82

Silk, George, i. 52, 87; Wallace's friendship with, 10; walking tour in Switzerland with Wallace, 35

Sims, Mrs. (sister of A. R. Wallace), i. 30, 44, 56, 60, 62, 64, 85

---- Thomas, i. 63, 73

Singapore, Wallace at, i. 36

Slade, prosecution of, ii. 197

Sleeper, George W. , ii. 98, 99, 100

Smedley, Mr. E. , ii. 83, 100, 163, 175, 215

Smith, Dr. Edwin, ii. 210

"Social Environment and Moral Progress, " Wallace's, ii. 104, 144-5, 250

"---- Statics, " Spencer's, i. 123, 150, ii. 143

Socialism, Wallace's first lessons in, and later views of, i. 15, 16, ii. 139 _et seq. _; "individualistic, " 114; Wallace's definition of, 152

Society for Psychical Research, foundation of, ii. 196

"Sociology, Principles of, " i. 126

"---- Study of, " Spencer's, i. 283

Solar nebula, lecture by Sir R. Ball on, ii. 174

---- system, central position of, ii. 171

South America, fauna of, ii. 10

Special creation, i. 189 (note), 190, 192, ii. 23, 185

Species, mutability of, i. 78, 137; law of introduction of, 96, 101-2; extinction of, 98. (_See also_ Selection, natural)

Spencer, Herbert, birth of, i. 5; and Evolution, 122, 123; arguments with Huxley on Evolution, 123; sends Darwin a copy of his Essays, 124; suggests "survival of the fittest" as alternative to "natural selection, " 125, 171; Wallace's relations with, 125; Darwin's approval of "survival of the fittest, " 174; autobiography of, ii. 211

---- letters from: on "Origin of the Races of Man, " ii. 18; on theory of flight, 27-8; on "Darwinism, " 47; on Lord Salisbury's view of Natural Selection, 59, 60, 65; on Land Nationalisation Society, 154; on "Progress and Poverty, " etc. , 154-5

Spilosoma menthastri, i. 179

Spiritualism, Wallace's belief in, ii. 122, 167, 178, 181 _et seq. _, 239-40; Huxley on, 187; Lord Avebury on, 212

Spiritualists, Association of, ii. 198, 199

Spontaneous generation, i. 274

Spruce, Mr. , i. 150, 161, 166, 232

Stanley, Dean, at Linlathen, ii. 228

Stephens' "Illustrations of British Insects, " i. 23 (note)

Sterility, Natural Selection and, Meldola on, ii. 41-2

Stevens, Samuel, i. 26, 48, 49, 54, 71, 72, 102, 105, 143

Stewart, Prof. Balfour, and telepathy, ii. 200

Strahan, Dr. A. , and Wallace memorial, ii. 253

Strang, Mr. , chalk portrait of Wallace by, ii. 224

Strasburger, Prof. Eduard, receives Darwin-Wallace Medal, i. 120; tribute to Wallace, 120; on Wallace's "Malay Archipelago, " ii. 231

Stuart-Menteith, C. G. , ii. 160

"Studies, Scientific and Social, " Wallace's, ii. 143, 147

"Study of Variation, with regard to Discontinuity in Origin of Species, " Bateson's, ii. 60-1

"Subsidence and Elevation of Land, " Sir H. H. Howorth's, i. 277

---- theory of, i. 132, 160, 212, 238, 286, 309

Survival of the fittest, i. 125, 171, 174-5, ii. 59 (_see also_ Selection, natural)

Sus papuensis, i. 161, 162

---- scrofa, i. 162

Swinton, Mr. A. C. , ii. 155

Synthetic philosophy, Spencer's, i. 1, 123, 124

Switzerland, Wallace's visits to, i. 35, ii. 204

T

Telepathy, ii. 181, 186 _et seq. _, 196, 199

"Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from Original Type, " Wallace's, i. 109; loss of MS. , 127, ii. 7

Ternate, Wallace at, i. 36, 68, 107, 108; volcanic eruption of 1849 in, 68; Wallace's paper on Natural Selection sent to Darwin from, i. 106, ii. 39

Tertiary Period, i. 159, 292, 294, 295

Thayer's theory of animal colouring, ii. 36

"Theories of Evolution, " Poulton's, ii. 61

"Theory of Development and Heredity, " Orr's, ii. 60

"---- of Natural Selection from a Mathematical Point of View, " Bennett's, i. 253

"---- of Population, " Spencer's, i. 124

Thiselton-Dyer, Sir W. T. : appreciation of Wallace by, i. 4; at Darwin-Wallace Jubilee, 122; paper on geographical distribution of plants by, ii. 90

---- letters from: on Darwin Commemoration volume, ii. 91; on Sir F. Darwin's "Foundations" and the Darwin celebration, 92; on Evolution and the fundamental powers and properties of life, 95-8; asking Wallace to join Royal Society, 219, 220-1; on Romanes' charge of plagiarism, 236-7

Thompson, Prof. Silvanus P. , signs petition for national memorial to Wallace, ii. 253

Thomson, Prof. J. A. , ii. 12 (note)

---- Sir W. (Lord Kelvin), on age of world, i. 242, 250, 268, ii. 75

Thought transference (_see_ Telepathy)

"Threading my Way, " R. D. Owen's, ii. 225

Timor, birds of, i. 80, ii. 4; mammalia of, i. 133, ii. 4; fossils of, i. 138, 148, 290; Darwin receives honeycomb from, 143, 146; flora of, 237

Transmutation of species, i. 123, ii. 23

"Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro, " Wallace's, i, 30, 35

Trees, tropical, i. 86

Trimen, Mr. , paper on mimetic butterflies by, i. 200, 201

Trimorphism in plants, i. 161, 202, 220

Tropical forests, Darwin's description of, i. 31-2; denizens of, 31

"---- Nature, " Wallace's, ii. 11

Turner, Dr. , orchids of, ii. 114

---- Mr. H. H. , signs petition for national memorial of Wallace, ii. 253

Tylor, E. B. , "Early History of Mankind, " i. 164; Wallace on, 165; "Anthropology, " ii. 65

Tyndall, John, birth of, i. 5; and psychical research, ii. 198

U

Uaupés, Indians of, i. 31; exploration of, i. 29

Unfit, segregation of, ii. 160-1, 246

United States, Wallace's lecturing tour in, ii. 14

"Unparalleled Discoveries of Mr. T. J. J. See, Account of, " ii. 178

Utricularia, i. 284-5

V

Vaccination, Wallace and, ii. 149, 202, 237, 240-1; Rev. H. Price Hughes on, 158; Frederic Myers and, 206

"Variation, Heredity, and Evolution, " Lock's, ii. 84

---- of birds, i. 162-3

"Variations of Animals and Plants under Domestication, " Darwin's, i. 112, 189, 195, 197, 199, ii. 2

Variety, Wallace's differentiation of, from species, i. 91-2, 96, 97, 101, 115, 167 (note), 169, 173, 205, 210, 234, ii. 21, 62, 63, 70

Varley, C. F. , i. 244

Vegetarianism, Wallace on, ii. 158

"Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, " i. 91, 92 (note)

Victoria, Queen, approves of pension to Wallace, i. 315

"Vignettes from Nature, " Grant Allen's, ii. 46

Vogt, Prof. , i. 221

Volcanic eruptions and migration, Lyell's theory of, ii. 19

"Voyage of the _Beagle_, " Darwin's, i. 31, 32, 34, ii. 2

"---- up the Amazon, " Edwards's, i. 25

W

Waddell's "Lhasa, " ii. 82

Waddington, Mr. Samuel, ii. 77

Wages, question of, ii. 156

Waimate (N. Z. ), missionary settlement at, i. 37

Wallace, Alfred Russel: co-discoverer of Natural Selection, i. 1, 2, 105, 106, 107, 111, 112, 113, 136, 139, 153, 158, ii. 39-40; early years, i. 5-44; nervousness, 7, 14, 35, ii. 134; his father, i. 8; his mother, 8, 9, 30; first experiments, 9, 19-20; schooldays, 11; geographical studies, 11; love of reading, 13; pupil teacher at Hertford Grammar School, 14; interest in Socialism, 15, 27, ii. 151 _et seq. _, 181; land-surveying, i. 15, 17, 19, ii. 139, 182; astronomical studies and writings, i. 20, ii. 167 _et seq. _; early interest in zoology and geology, i. 20; first telescope, 20, ii. 168; love of botany, i. 20, 21, ii. 106; his herbarium, i. 22; as watchmaker, 23; interest in phrenology and mesmerism, 24, ii. 181, 182; studies beetles and butterflies, i. 24, 114; school teacher at Leicester, 24; voyage to Amazon, 26 _et seq. _; explores Uaupés River, 29; fire at sea and loss of collections, 29, 30; first meeting with Darwin, 35, 105, ii. 62; meets Huxley, i. 35; visits Switzerland, 35, ii. 204; visits Singapore, i. 36; on missionaries, 37-8, 47, 48, 50, 62-3; in Sarawak, 38-40; beetle and butterfly collecting, i. 38, 41-2, 114, 237, ii. 4-5; ill-health of, i. 40, 79; enthusiasm as naturalist and collector, 40-2, 115; journey in a "prau, " 42; early letters, etc. , 45-88; Darwin-Wallace joint paper read before Linnean Society, 71, 89, 109, 118, 122; Darwin's appreciation of his magnanimity, 71, 106, 118, 134, 137, 139, 141, 153, 164, 242, 252, 287, 304; attack of intermittent fever, 107, 108; jubilee of Darwin-Wallace essay and his speech, 110 _et seq_; relations with Spencer, 125; Presidential Address to Entomological Society, 126; reads proofs of Spencer's "principles of Sociology, " 126; correspondence with Darwin, 127-320; inscription on envelope containing Darwin's first eight letters, 128; sends Darwin a honeycomb, 143; reads Spencer's works, 147, 150; "exposé" of Rev. S. Haughton's "Bee's Cell, " 148; his opinion of Agassiz, 149; and the origin of man, 152, 153, 154, 155 _et seq. _, 240; and Darwin's paper on climbing plants, 162; on a crested blackbird, 163; on the _Reader_, 165; on mimicry, 167 (note), 168, 176, 179; approves of term "survival of the fittest, " 171; birth of a son, 188; later views on Natural Selection, 217, 218; dedicates "Malayan Travels" to Darwin, 232; birth of a daughter, 234; visits Wales, 247; reviews "Descent of Man, " 260; on Chauncey Wright and Mivart, 265-7; Bethnal Green Museum directorship, 277; and second edition of "Descent of Man, " 281 (note), 282, 283; social and political views, 283, 317, 319, ii. 139-65, 245-7; at Dorking, i. 294, 297, ii. 106; and the superintendency of Epping Forest, i. 302, 303, 304, 306, ii. 106; writes a work on Geography, i. 304, ii. 14; recommended for a Civil List pension, i. 313-16; works on Biology, etc. , ii. 3 _et seq. _; articles for "Encyclopædia Britannica, " 11; lectures at Boston, U. S. A. , 15; correspondence on biology, geographical distribution, etc. , 18-102; on theory of flight, i. 145, ii. 25-8; and Mivart's "Genesis of Species, " 34; friendship with Meldola, 35; theory of animal heat, 35; and Romanes, 36 _et seq. _, 49 _et seq. _; on ferns, 40; on sterility and Natural Selection, 41 _et seq. _; admitted to Royal Society, 55, 56, 221, 222; on "discontinuous variation, " 62-3; theory of mouth-gesture as a factor in origin of language, 65; on non-heredity of acquired characters, 70; his last public lecture, 87, 222-3; two of his works translated into Japanese, 100; home life, 103-138; domesticity of, 104; skill at chess, 107; Examiner in Physiography at South Kensington, 109; as housebuilder, 110, 111, 119-120; honours from scientific societies, 113; enthusiasm for orchids, 114; his method of writing, 120-1, 243; and psychical research, 122, 167, 181-215, 239-40; daily routine, 123-4; sense of humour, 125-6, 132, 133, 134, 226, 227, 228; receives the Order of Merit, 127-9; his Sarawak spider, 131; failing health, 135 _et seq. _; death, 138, 252; funeral, 252; memorial in Westminster Abbey, 253-5; lists of writings, 257---- ---- ---- letters to his mother: announcing arrival at Singapore, i. 47; describing work at Singapore, 48; on Malacca and missionaries, 49; on his collections and visit to Rajah Brooke, 51; on the Rajah, 59; on correspondence from Darwin and Hooker, and his Aru collection, 71; on plans for collecting at Java, and impending return to England, 83

---- ---- ---- letter to his wife, sending plants from Furka Pass, ii. 115

---- ---- ---- letters to his son, Mr. W. G. Wallace: on building of house at Parkstone, ii. 111-13; on purchase of land at Broadstone and garden plans, 117-18; enclosing ground plan of house and describing progress, 118-20; on "Man's Place in the Universe, " and Spiritualism, 121-2; requesting revision of "Mars, " 122; on forthcoming lecture at the Royal Institution, and conferment of Order of Merit, 127-9; on discovery of a rare moth and beetles in root of an orchid, 129-30; on the railway strike, 163-4

---- ---- ---- letters to his daughter Violet: on "victims of Landlordism, " ii. 113; on "Freeland" and "Looking Backward, " 114; on orchid growing, 114; on use of a wagging tail, 115-16; on "Maha Bharata, " 116; on eight hours' movement, 156

---- ---- ---- letter to Lord Avebury, on Bill for bird preservation, i. 162

---- ---- ---- letters to Sir W. F. Barrett: on the nebular hypothesis, ii. 174; on Mars, 176; on experiments with sensitives and on prosecution of Slade, 197; on Dr. Carpenter, 198; regretting inability to attend Dublin meeting of British Association, 199; on the advocacy of vaccination, 206; on dowsing, 206-8; on presidency of Psychical Research Society, 208; on "Creative Thought" and on ministry of angels, 213; explaining his criticisms of "Creative Thought, " 214-15

---- ---- ---- letter to F. Bates, on exotic insect-collecting, i. 69

---- ---- ---- letters to H. W. Bates: on Darwin's Journal, i. 25; on "Law regulating Introduction of New Species" and Ternate, 65; congratulating him on arriving home, 72; on Darwin, 73

---- ---- ---- letters to Mr. F. Birch: on "Mars, " ii. 177; announcing conferment of Order of Merit, 223-4

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. H. Jamyn Brooke, on monism, ii. 177

---- ---- ---- letters to Miss Buckley (Mrs. Fisher): on "Descent of Man, " ii. 31-2; on physiology of ferns, etc. , 40-1; on infinity of life-forms, 89-90; on house-planning at Broadstone, 119-20; on Turks, 153; on his "Reciprocity" article, 153; on the earth as only habitable planet, 175; on Spiritualism, 188-95; on psychical and other works, 203-4; on his visit to Switzerland, 204; on re-incarnation and theosophical writings, 205; on psychical research and Spencer's "Autobiography, " 211; on conferment of Order of Merit, 222; on his autobiography, and Owen, 224-5; on reviews of "My Life, " 225-6

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. Sydney C. Cockerell, on Kropotkin's Life, ii. 161

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. Theo. D. A. Cockerell, on fertilisation, ii. 49

---- ---- ---- letters to Charles Darwin: on the Timor honeycomb, i. 143; on Darwin's "Orchids, " 143; on theory of flight, 145; on Spencer's "Social Statics, " 150; on Borneo exploration and his contribution to theory of man's origin, 152; on his paper on Man and Natural Selection, 155; on the Aru Islands, 161; on a case of variation becoming hereditary, 162; on the _Reader_, 165; on dimorphism, 168; suggesting "survival of the fittest" in preference to "natural selection, " 170; on mimicry and glacier action, 176; on expression, 180; on "Creation by Law, " 188, 192; on superintendency of a Museum, 193; on sterility of hybrids, 196; on natural selection as producing sterility of hybrids, and pangenesis, 199; on Trimen's paper at the Linnean Society, 201; on selective sterility, 203, 205, 210; on Darwin's "Cross Unions of Dimorphic Plants, " 218; on protection and sexual selection, 221, 222, 227; on the dedication of "Malayan Travels, " etc. , 232; on single variations, 234; on colouring of caterpillars, 235; on his "unscientific" opinions on Man, 243, 250, 255; on wing-scales of butterflies, 244; on Dr. Meyer, 248; on "Descent of Man, " 255, 259, 284; recommending two remarkable books, 263; on Mivart and Chauncey Wright's critique, 265; on Darwin's answer to Mivart, 271; on Dr. Bree, and Bastian's "Beginnings of Life, " 273; on a Bethnal Green Museum appointment, 277; on Darwin's "Expression of the Emotions, " 279; on invitation to undertake revision work for Darwin, 281, 282; on "Climbing Plants, " 285; on Darwin's criticism of "Geographical Distribution, " 288, 294; on Darwin's "Crossing Plants, " 296; on Darwin's "Orchids, " 297; on Darwin's "Forms of Flowers, " and glacial theory, 298; on sufficiency of Natural Selection, 300; on Epping Forest superintendency, 302, 303; on "Island Life, " 305, 306; on Darwin's criticism of "Island Life, " 308; on Darwin's "Movements of Plants, " 311; on land migration of plants, 311; on Civil List pension, 314, 315; on "Progress and Poverty, " 317; on Darwin's "Earthworms, " 320

---- ---- ---- letters to Sir Francis Darwin: on Darwin's "Life and Letters, " ii. 39; on descent with modification, 78; on mutation, 80

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. W. J. Farmer, on final cause of varying colour of hairs, etc. , ii. 101-2

---- ---- ---- letter to Dr. W. B. Hemsley, on insular floras, ii. 43-4

---- ---- ---- letter to Rev. J. B. Henderson, on Christianity, ii. 209

---- ---- ---- letter to Sir J. Hooker, on Natural Selection, etc. , ii. 81-2

---- ---- ---- letters to Huxley: enclosing a copy of "The Scientific Aspect of the Supernatural, " ii. 187; on psychical research, 188

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. J. Hyder, on land nationalisation, ii. 161

---- ---- ---- letter to Prof. Knight, on immortality, ii. 178

---- ---- ---- letter to Dr. Littledale, acknowledging birthdaycongratulations, ii. 136

---- ---- ---- letters to Sir Oliver Lodge: on proof of constant variability, and Lord Kelvin's calculations, ii. 74-5; on principle of continuity, etc. , 178-9; acknowledging Romanes' lecture and criticising lectures by Mr. See, 179-80

---- ---- ---- letter to Sir C. Lyell, on colour of man, ii. 29

---- ---- ---- letters to Mr. J. W. Marshall: on Hudson's observations and theories, ii. 53-4; conveying condolences, and views on a hereafter, 209; on his autobiography, 226

---- ---- ---- letters to Prof. Meldola: on physiological selection, ii. 36-8; on Natural Selection, 41, 42-3; on Meldola's controversy with Romanes, 50-1; on individual adaptability, 55-6; on "discontinuous variation, " 62-3; on Weismann's "Germinal Selection, " 68-70; on Weismann's doctrine of non-inheritance of acquired characters, 70-1; on Weismann's "Germ Plasm, " 72; on Fisher's "Physics of the Earth's Crust, " 74; on Meldola's offer to read Wallace's paper at Royal Institute, 87-8

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. Ben. R. Miller, on Sleeper's "Shall we have Common Sense?" ii. 98-9

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. John (Lord) Morley, on Socialism, ii. 159

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. M. J. Murphy, on Mr. Lloyd George, ii. 164-5

---- ---- ---- letter to Dr. Norris, on increasing weakness, ii. 136-7

---- letter to Miss Norris, on health and diet, ii. 136

---- ---- ---- letters to Prof. E. B. Poulton: on "Protective Value of Colour and Markings in Insects, " ii. 39; on Weismann's "Essays upon Heredity, " 44, 45; on Grant Allen's theory of origin of wheat, 46; on Cope's "Origin of the Fittest, " 47; on Weismann's additional essays, 51-3; on non-heredity of acquired characters, 54-5; on maternal impression, 56-8; on Bateson's "Material for the Study of Variation, " 60-1; on Poulton's "Theories of Evolution, " 61-2; criticising Romanes, 63-5; on Poulton's Presidential Address to British Association, 71-2; on denudation and deposition, 73; on mutation, 79; on Poulton's Presidential Address to Entomological Society, 79; on Mendelism and mutation, 84; on Poulton's Introduction to "Essays on Evolution, " 85-6; on invitation to lecture at Royal Institution, 87; on Lord Rothschild's butterflies, and Royal Institution lecture, 88-9; on an article in the _Times_, 89; on Bergson, 98; on Sleeper's alleged anticipation of Darwinism, 99-100; on declining the Oxford D. C. L. Degree, 217-18; agreeing to accept the degree, 218

---- ---- ---- letters to Dr. Archdall Reid: on "Present Evolution of Man, " ii. 67-8; on instinctive knowledge, 68; on "Ancient Britain and Invasions of Cæsar, " 86; on Mendelism and Evolution, 92-3

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. Clement Reid, on discovery of Miocene or Pliocene Man in India, ii. 62

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. H. N. Ridley, on De Rougemont, ii. 76

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. Alfred Russell, on vegetarianism, ii. 158

---- ---- ---- letters to Mr. G. Silk: on Alexandrian donkey-drivers, i. 45; on forthcoming visit to Sarawak, 52; on marriage, 87

---- ---- ---- letters to Mrs. Sims (his sister): on his assistant, i. 56, 60; on missionaries, 62; on life in Macassar, 64; on Java and its flora, 85

---- ---- ---- letters to Thomas Sims: on Singapore, i. 61; on monocular and binocular vision, Darwin's "Descent of Species, " and belief and disbelief, 73

---- ---- ---- letters to Mr. E. Smedley: on Child's "Root Principles, " ii. 83-4, 100-1; on prayer, 163; on Mars, 175; on horoscope, 215

---- ---- ---- letter to Dr. Edwin Smith, on Spiritualism, ii. 210

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. C. G. Stuart-Menteith, on segregation of the unfit, ii. 160-1

---- ---- ---- letter to Mr. A. C. Swinton, on suggested lecture tour in Australia, ii. 155

---- ---- ---- letters to Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer: on botanical distribution and migration, ii. 34-5; on Darwin Commemoration volume, 90-1; on "World of Life, " 93-5; on election to Royal Society, 221-2; on Romanes' charge against Wallace of plagiarism, 235-6

---- ---- ---- letter to Samuel Waddington, on origin of all living things, ii. 77-8

---- ---- ---- letters to Mr. A. Wiltshire: on the Liberal Government, ii. 162; on necessity for increased wages, 165

---- ---- ---- letter to an unknown correspondent, on fauna and flora of Borneo district, and Dyaks, i. 53

---- Annie (A. R. Wallace's wife), ii. 115, 252

---- Herbert (A. R. Wallace's brother), i. 28, ii. 182, 229

---- John (A. R. Wallace's brother), i. 11, 13, 15

---- Mary Ann (A. R. Wallace's mother), i. 9

---- Thomas Vere (A. R. Wallace's father), i. 8; Librarian of Hertford, 13; straitened circumstances of, 14, 15

---- Violet (daughter of A. R. Wallace), reminiscences of her father, ii. 103-38

---- W. G. (son of A. R. Wallace), reminiscences of his father, ii. 103-38

"Wallace's line, " i. 43, ii. 19, 232, 233

War, Wallace's abhorrence of, ii. 245

Ward, Mr. , on muscular fibres of whales, i. 145

Warington, Mr. , and "Origin of Species, " i. 191

Webb, Mr. W. L. , ii. 179-80

Wedgwood, Josiah, and Darwin, i. 18

Weir, Jenner, on moths, i. 179; on plumage of birds, 205; Darwin's appreciation of, 220; paper at the Entomological Society, 235

Weismann, Prof. A. , receives Darwin-Wallace Medal, i. 120; on colouring of caterpillars, 299; "Essays upon Heredity, " ii. 44 _et seq_. , 51-2 (_see also_ Non-inheritance of acquired characters)

Wells, Dr. , and Natural Selection, i. 116, 176

Westminster Abbey, graves and memorials of men of science in, i. 1; petition to Dean and Chapter as to medallion to Wallace in, ii. 253; unveiling of the medallion, 254

Westwood and theory of flight, i. 145; Darwin on, 146-7

Whale, muscular fibres of, i. 145

Wilberforce, Bishop, reviews Darwin's "Origin of Species, " 144

Williams, Dr. , ii. 192

---- Matthieu, i. 264

Wilson, Mr. D. A. , reminiscences of Wallace, ii. 151-2

Wiltshire, Mr. A. , letters to, ii. 162, 165

Wimborne, Lord, sale of land to Wallace, ii. 119

Wollaston, Dr. , reviews "Origin of Species, " i. 142; tribute to Wallace, ii. 230

Wollaston's "Coleoptera Atlantidum, " ii. 22-3

Woman, independence and future of, Wallace's views on, ii. 149-51, 245

"Wonderful Century, " Wallace's, ii. 144, 168, 169, 238

"Wonders of the World, " i. 13

Wood, J. G. , book on the horse, ii. 113

Woodbury, Mr. , researches of, i. 146

"World of Life, " Wallace's, ii. 8, 94, 167, 172, 176, 178, 182

"Worms, Formation of Vegetable Mould by Action of, " Darwin's, i. 320

Wright, Chauncey, reviews Mivart's "Genesis of Species, " i. 264, 265-7

Z

Zöllner, Prof. , and supernormal phenomena, ii. 198, 199

"Zoological Geography of the Malay Archipelago, " Wallace's, i, 137, ii. 232

Zoology, lectures on, at Edinburgh, i, 16; Darwin's study of, at Cambridge, 17

PRINTED BY

CASSELL & COMPANY, LIMITED, LA BELLE SAUVAGE, LONDON, E. C. 

F 15. 316

FOOTNOTES:

[1] "It is no doubt the chief work of my life. "--C. DARWIN. 

[2] "My Life, " i. 396-7. 

[3] "My Life, " ii. 94-5. 

[4] "My Life, " pp. 97-8. 

[5] "My Life, " pp. 98-9. 

[6] Dr. Henry Forbes in a note to the Editor writes: "In his 'IslandLife' Wallace extended his philosophical observations to a wider field, and it is in philosophical biology that Wallace's name must standpre-eminent for all time. " "In our own science of biology, " say Profs. Geddes and Thomson in a recent work, "we may recall the 'Grand Old Men, 'surely second to none in history--Darwin, Wallace, and Hooker. "

[7] "My Life, " ii. 99-101. 

[8] "My Life, " ii. 22. 

[9] "The Origin of the Races of Man. "

[10] "The Malay Archipelago. "

[11] Private Secretary to Sir Charles Lyell. 

[12] "The Descent of Man. "

[13] Probably refers to "The Geographical Distribution of Animals. "

[14] The book referred to is Wallace's "Island Life, " published in 1880. 

[15] For the work on "Darwinism. "

[16] Printed in full as a footnote to Weismann's "Essays upon Heredity, "etc. 

[17] _See_ footnote 3, pp. 172-3, of Weismann's "Essays upon Heredity, "etc. 

[18] "The Origin of Floral Structures through Insect and OtherAgencies. " Internat. Sci. Series. 1888. 

[19] "The Origin of the Fittest. " London, 1887. 

[20] "Essays upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems, " Vol. II. 1892. 

[21] _Trans. Ent. Soc. , London_, 1892, p. 293. 

[22] As Hope Professor of Zoology in the University of Oxford. 

[23] A member of a family which has produced several eminent medicalmen. 

[24] Vol. I. , p. 445, a review of "A Theory of Development andHeredity, " by Henry B. Orr. 1893. 

[25] "Material for the Study of Variation, treated with especial regardto Discontinuity in the Origin of Species. " 1894. 

[26] Reprinted in "Essays on Evolution, " p. 95. 1908. 

[27] "The Present Evolution of Man. " 1896. 

[28] Presidential Address in Section D of British Association, 1896, reprinted in "Essays on Evolution, " p. 1. 

[29] To the British Association at Edinburgh, 1892. 

[30] Vol. Ixx. (1904), p. 313, a review of T. H. Morgan's "Evolution andAdaptation. "

[31] "The Bearing of the Study of Insects upon the Question, AreAcquired Characters Hereditary?" The Presidential Address to theEntomological Society of London, 1905, reprinted in "Essays onEvolution, " p. 139. 

[32] Probably "Root Principles, " by Child. 

[33] "Essays on Evolution. " 1908. 

[34] Of the Introduction to "Essays on Evolution. "

[35] Vol. Lxxvii. , p. 54, a note "On the Interpretation of MendelianPhenomena. "

[36] The Oxford Celebration of the Hundredth Anniversary of the Birth ofCharles Darwin, February 12, 1809. An account of the celebration isgiven in "Darwin and 'The Origin, '" by E. B. Poulton, p. 78. 1909. 

[37] The Darwin Celebration. 

[38] "The World of Life. "

[39] _Bedrock_, April, 1912, p. 48. 

[40] "Shall we have Common Sense? Some Reeeat Lectures. " By George W. Sleeper. Boston, 1849. 

[41] _See_ footnote to preceding letter. The book formed the subject ofProf. Poulton's Presidential Addresses (May 24, 1913, and May 25, 1914)to the Linnean Society (_Proceedings_, 1912-13, p. 26, and 1913-14, p. 23). The above letter is in part quoted in the former address. 

[42] This letter relates to evidences, favourable to Sleeper, which hadnot at the time been critically examined, but broke down when carefullyscrutinised. _See_ Prof. Poulton's address to the Linnean Society, May25, 1914 (_Proc_. , 1913-14, p. 23). 

[43] For many years he was Examiner in Physiography at South Kensington. 

[44] _See_ footnote on p. 109. 

[45] For letters from Wallace describing Col. Legge's visit with theOrder, _see_ pp. 128 and 224. 

[46] The present Lord Rothschild. 

[47] On his ninetieth birthday. 

[48] See his book, "Land Nationalisation, its Necessity and its Aims"(1882). 

[49] Although this book was his last published work, it was writtenbefore "Social Environment and Moral Progress. " He handed me the MS. Afew months before his death. --The Editor. 

[50] A full account of this scheme is given in his "Studies, Scientificand Social, " chap. Xxvi. 

[51] "My Life, " ii. 237-8

[52] Advocating Eugenics and the segregation of the unfit. 

[53] Hon. Sec. Of the Federated Trades and Labour Council, Bournemouth. 

[54] At an Old Age Pension meeting. 

[55] _See_ Vol. I. , p. 20. 

[56] "The World of Life, " p. 374. 

[57] "Life and Letters, " i. 58. 

[58] Considerable reference is made to Mrs. Hardinge in "Miracles andModern Spiritualism" pp. 117-21. 

[59] The "spirits" are supposed to produce the faces. 

[60] This is a strange accompaniment of most advanced spiritualphenomena. 

[61] Against vaccination. 

[62] Psychical Research Society Report. 

[63] "The Wonderful Century. "

[64] A medium. 

[65] The lecture at the Royal Institution, when he wore the Order. 

[66] In _Nature_, Nov. 20, 1913, p. 348. 

[67] "The Wonderful Century, " p. 437. 

[68] "I have been speculating last night, " wrote C. Darwin to his sonHorace, "what makes a man a discoverer of undiscovered things; and amost perplexing problem it is. Many men who are very clever--muchcleverer than the discoverers--never originate anything. As far as I canconjecture, the art consists in habitually searching for the causes andmeaning of everything which occurs. "--"Emma Darwin, " p. 207. 

[69] It is interesting to compare this with Darwin's manner of writing. Darwin confessed: "There seems to be a sort of fatality in my mindleading me to put at first my statement or proposition in a wrong orawkward form. Formerly I used to think about my sentences before writingthem down; but for several years I have found that it saves time toscribble in a vile hand whole pages as quickly as I possibly can, contracting half the words; and then correct deliberately. Sentencesthus scribbled down are often better ones than I could have writtendeliberately. "

[70] See pp. 227, 234. 

[71] But see _ante_, p. 153. 

[72] Wallace's section of the Darwin-Wallace Essay entitled "On theTendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation ofVarieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. "