More Letters of Charles Darwin Volume I

C >> Charles Darwin >> More Letters of Charles Darwin Volume I

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44

You give a poor picture of the philosophy of Botany. From my ignorance, I
suppose, I can hardly persuade myself that things are quite as bad as you
make them,--you might have been writing remarks on Ornithology! I shall
meditate much on your remarks, which will also come in very useful when I
write and consider my tables of big and small genera. I grieve for myself
to say that Watson agrees with your view, but with much doubt. I gave him
no guide what your opinion was. I have written to A. Gray and to X., who--
i.e. the latter--on this point may be looked at as S. Smith's Foolometer.

I am now working several of the large local Floras, with leaving out
altogether all the smallest genera. When I have done this, and seen what
the sections of the largest genera say, and seen what the results are of
range and commonness of varying species, I must come to some definite
conclusion whether or not entirely to give up the ghost. I shall then show
how my theory points, how the facts stand, then state the nature of your
grievous assault and yield entirely or defend the case as far as I can
honestly.

Again I thank you for your invaluable assistance. I have not felt the blow
[Hooker's criticisms] so much of late, as I have been beyond measure
interested on the constructive instinct of the hive-bee. Adios, you
terrible worrier of poor theorists!

LETTER 61. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down [1858?]

Many thanks for Ledebour and still more for your letter, with its admirable
resume of all your objections. It is really most kind of you to take so
very much trouble about what seems to you, and probably is, mere vagaries.

I will earnestly try and be cautious. I will write out my tables and
conclusion, and (when well copied out) I hope you will be so kind as to
read it. I will then put it by and after some months look at it with fresh
eyes. I will briefly work in all your objections and Watson's. I labour
under a great difficulty from feeling sure that, with what very little
systematic work I have done, small genera were more interesting and
therefore more attracted my attention.

One of your remarks I do not see the bearing of under your point of view--
namely, that in monotypic genera "the variation and variability" are "much
more frequently noticed" than in polytypic genera. I hardly like to ask,
but this is the only one of your arguments of which I do not see the
bearing; and I certainly should be very glad to know. I believe I am the
slowest (perhaps the worst) thinker in England; and I now consequently
fully admit the full hostility of Urticaceae, which I will give in my
tables.

I will make no remarks on your objections, as I do hope you will read my
MS., which will not cost you much trouble when fairly copied out. From my
own experience, I hardly believe that the most sagacious observers, without
counting, could have predicted whether there were more or fewer recorded
varieties in large or small genera; for I found, when actually making the
list, that I could never strike a balance in my mind,--a good many
varieties occurring together, in small or in large genera, always threw me
off the balance...

P.S.--I have just thought that your remark about the much variation of
monotypic genera was to show me that even in these, the smallest genera,
there was much variability. If this be so, then do not answer; and I will
so understand it.

LETTER 62. TO J.D. HOOKER.
February 23rd [1858].

Will you think of some of the largest genera with which you are well
acquainted, and then suppose 4/5 of the species utterly destroyed and
unknown in the sections (as it were) as much as possible in the centre of
such great genera. Then would the remaining 1/5 of the species, forming a
few sections, be, according to the general practice of average good
Botanists, ranked as distinct genera? Of course they would in that case be
closely related genera. The question, in fact, is, are all the species in
a gigantic genus kept together in that genus, because they are really so
very closely similar as to be inseparable? or is it because no chasms or
boundaries can be drawn separating the many species? The question might
have been put for Orders.

LETTER 63. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, February 9th [1858].

I should be very much obliged for your opinion on the enclosed. You may
remember in the three first volumes tabulated, all orders went right except
Labiatae. By the way, if by any extraordinary chance you have not thrown
away the scrap of paper with former results, I wish you would return it,
for I have lost my copy, and I shall have all the division to do again; but
DO NOT hunt for it, for in any case I should have gone over the calculation
again.

Now I have done the three other volumes. You will see that all species in
the six volumes together go right, and likewise all orders in the three
last volumes, except Verbenaceae. Is not Verbenaceae very closely allied
to Labiatae? If so, one would think that it was not mere chance, this
coincidence. The species in Labiatae and Verbenaceae together are between
1/5 and 1/6 of all the species (15,645), which I have now tabulated.

Now, bearing in mind the many local Floras which I have tabulated (belting
the whole northern hemisphere), and considering that they (and authors of
D.C. Prodromus) would probably take different degrees of care in recording
varieties, and the genera would be divided on different principles by
different men, etc., I am much surprised at the uniformity of the result,
and I am satisfied that there must be truth in the rule that the small
genera vary less than the large. What do you think? Hypothetically I can
conjecture how the Labiatae might fail--namely, if some small divisions of
the Order were now coming into importance in the world and varying much and
making species. This makes me want to know whether you could divide the
Labiatae into a few great natural divisions, and then I would tabulate them
separately as sub-orders. I see Lindley makes so many divisions that there
would not be enough in each for an average. I send the table of the
Labiatae for the chance of your being able to do this for me. You might
draw oblique lines including and separating both large and small genera. I
have also divided all the species into two equal masses, and my rule holds
good for all the species in a mass in the six volumes; but it fails in
several (four) large Orders--viz. Labiatae, Scrophulariaceae, Acanthaceae,
and Proteaceae. But, then, when the species are divided into two almost
exactly equal divisions, the divisions with large genera are so very few:
for instance, in Solanaceae, Solanum balances all others. In Labiatae
seven gigantic genera balance all others (viz. 113), and in Proteaceae five
genera balance all others. Now, according to my hypothetical notions, I am
far from supposing that all genera go on increasing forever, and therefore
I am not surprised at this result, when the division is so made that only a
very few genera are on one side. But, according to my notions, the
sections or sub-genera of the gigantic genera ought to obey my rule (i.e.,
supposing a gigantic genus had come to its maximum, whatever increase was
still going on ought to be going on in the larger sub-genera). Do you
think that the sections of the gigantic genera in D.C. Prodromus are
generally NATURAL: i.e. not founded on mere artificial characters? If you
think that they are generally made as natural as they can be, then I should
like very much to tabulate the sub-genera, considering them for the time as
good genera. In this case, and if you do not think me unreasonable to ask
it, I should be very glad of the loan of Volumes X., XI., XII., and XIV.,
which include Acanthaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Labiatae, and Proteaceae,--
that is, the orders which, when divided quite equally, do not accord with
my rule, and in which a very few genera balance all the others.

I have written you a tremendous long prose.

LETTER 64. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, June 8th [1858].

I am confined to the sofa with boils, so you must let me write in pencil.
You would laugh if you could know how much your note pleased me. I had the
firmest conviction that you would say all my MS. was bosh, and thank God,
you are one of the few men who dare speak the truth. Though I should not
have much cared about throwing away what you have seen, yet I have been
forced to confess to myself that all was much alike, and if you condemned
that you would condemn all my life's work, and that I confess made me a
little low; but I could have borne it, for I have the conviction that I
have honestly done my best. The discussion comes in at the end of the long
chapter on variation in a state of nature, so that I have discussed, as far
as I am able, what to call varieties. I will try to leave out all allusion
to genera coming in and out in this part, till when I discuss the
"Principle of Divergence," which, with "Natural Selection," is the keystone
of my book; and I have very great confidence it is sound. I would have
this discussion copied out, if I could really think it would not bore you
to read,--for, believe me, I value to the full every word of criticism from
you, and the advantage which I have derived from you cannot be told...

I am glad to hear that poor old Brown is dying so easily...

You will think it paltry, but as I was asked to pay for printing the
Diploma [from a Society of which he had been made an honorary member], I
did not like to refuse, so I send 1 pound. But I think it a shabby
proceeding. If a gentleman did me some service, though unasked to do it,
and then demanded payment, I should pay him, and think him a shabby dog;
and on this principle I send my 1 pound.

(65/1. The following four letters refer to an inquiry instituted in 1858
by the Trustees of the British Museum as to the disposal of the Natural
History Collections. The inquiry was one of the first steps towards the
establishment of the Cromwell Road Museum, which was effected in 1875.)

LETTER 65. TO R.I. MURCHISON.
Down, June 19th [1858].

I have just received your note. Unfortunately I cannot attend at the
British Museum on Monday. I do not suppose my opinion on the subject of
your note can be of any value, as I have not much considered the subject,
or had the advantage of discussing it with other naturalists. But my
impression is, that there is much weight in what you say about not breaking
up the natural history collection of the British Museum. I think a
national collection ought to be in London. I can, however, see that some
weighty arguments might be advanced in favour of Kew, owing to the immense
value of Sir W. Hooker's collection and library; but these are private
property, and I am not aware that there is any certainty of their always
remaining at Kew. Had this been the case, I should have thought that the
botanical collection might have been removed there without endangering the
other branches of the collections. But I think it would be the greatest
evil which could possibly happen to natural science in this country if the
other collections were ever to be removed from the British Museum and
Library.

LETTER 66. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(66/1. The memorial referred to in the following letter was addressed on
November 18th to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was signed by Huxley,
Bentham, W.H. Harvey, Henfrey, Henslow, Lindley, Busk, Carpenter, and
Darwin. The memorial, which is accessible, as published in the "Gardeners'
Chronicle," November 27th, 1858, page 861, recommended, speaking generally,
the consolidation of the National Botanical collections at Kew.

In February, 1900, a Committee was appointed by the Lords Commissioners of
the Treasury "to consider the present arrangements under which botanical
work is done and collections maintained by the Trustees of the British
Museum, and under the First Commissioner of Works at Kew, respectively; and
to report what changes (if any) in those arrangements are necessary or
desirable in order to avoid duplication of work and collections at the two
institutions." The Committee published their report in March, 1901,
recommending an arrangement similar to that proposed in 1858.)

Down, October 23rd [1858].

The names which you give as supporting your memorial make me quite distrust
my own judgment; but, as I must say yea or nay, I am forced to say that I
doubt the wisdom of the movement, and am not willing at present to sign.
My reasons, perhaps of very little value, are as follows. The governing
classes are thoroughly unscientific, and the men of art and of archaeology
have much greater weight with Government than we have. If we make a move
to separate from the British Museum, I cannot but fear that we may go to
the dogs. I think we owe our position in large part to the hundreds of
thousands of people who visit the British Museum, attracted by the
heterogeneous mixture of objects. If we lost this support, as I think we
should--for a mere collection of animals does not seem very attractive to
the masses (judging from the Museum of the Zoological Society, formerly in
Leicester Square)--then I do not think we should get nearly so much aid
from Government. Therefore I should be inclined to stick to the mummies
and Assyrian gods as long as we could. If we knew that Government was
going to turn us out, then, and not till then, I should be inclined to make
an energetic move. If we were to separate, I do not believe that we should
have funds granted for the many books required for occasional reference:
each man must speak from his own experience. I have so repeatedly required
to see old Transactions and old Travels, etc., that I should regret
extremely, when at work at the British Museum, to be separated from the
entire library. The facilities for working at certain great classes--as
birds, large fossils, etc.--are no doubt as bad as possible, or rather
impossible, on the open days; but I have found the working rooms of the
Assistants very convenient for all other classes on all days.

In regard to the botanical collections, I am too ignorant to express any
opinion. The point seems to be how far botanists would object to travel to
Kew; but there are evidently many great advantages in the transportation.

If I had my own way, I would make the British Museum collection only a
typical one for display, which would be quite as amusing and far more
instructive to the populace (and I think to naturalists) than the present
enormous display of birds and mammals. I would save expense of stuffing,
and would keep all skins, except a few "typicals," in drawers. Thus much
room would be saved, and a little more space could be given to real
workers, who could work all day. Rooms fitted up with thousands of drawers
would cost very little. With this I should be contented. Until I had
pretty sure information that we were going to be turned out, I would not
stir in the matter. With such opponents as you name, I daresay I am quite
wrong; but this is my best, though doubtful, present judgment...

It seems to me dangerous even to hint at a new Scientific Museum--a popular
Museum, and to subsidise the Zoological Gardens; it would, I think,
frighten any Government.

LETTER 67. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Moor Park, Farnham, Surrey [October] 29th [1858].

As you say that you have good private information that Government does
intend to remove the collection from the British Museum, the case to me
individually is wholly changed; and as the memorial now stands, with such
expression at its head, I have no objection whatever to sign. I must
express a very strong opinion that it would be an immense evil to remove to
Kensington, not on account of the men of science so much as for the masses
in the whole eastern and central part of London. I further think it would
be a great evil to separate a typical collection (which I can by no means
look at as only popular) from the collection in full. Might not some
expression be added, even stronger than those now used, on the display
(which is a sort of vanity in the curators) of such a vast number of birds
and mammals, with such a loss of room. I am low at the conviction that
Government will never give money enough for a really good library.

I do not want to be crotchety, but I should hate signing without some
expression about the site being easily accessible to the populace of the
whole of London.

I repeat, as things now stand, I shall be proud to sign.

LETTER 68. TO T.H. HUXLEY.
Down, November 3rd [1858].

I most entirely subscribe to all you say in your note. I have had some
correspondence with Hooker on the subject. As it seems certain that a
movement in the British Museum is generally anticipated, my main objection
is quite removed; and, as I have told Hooker, I have no objection whatever
to sign a memorial of the nature of the one he sent me or that now
returned. Both seem to me very good. I cannot help being fearful whether
Government will ever grant money enough for books. I can see many
advantages in not being under the unmotherly wing of art and archaeology,
and my only fear was that we were not strong enough to live without some
protection, so profound, I think, is the contempt for and ignorance of
Natural Science amongst the gentry of England. Hooker tells me that I
should be converted into favour of Kensington Gore if I heard all that
could be said in its favour; but I cannot yet help thinking so western a
locality a great misfortune. Has Lyell been consulted? His would be a
powerful name, and such names go for much with our ignorant Governors. You
seem to have taken much trouble in the business, and I honour you for it.

LETTER 69. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, November 9th [1858].

I am quite delighted to hear about the Copley and Lyell. (69/1. The
Copley Medal of the Royal Society was awarded to Lyell in 1858.) I have
grown hot with indignation many times thinking of the way the proposal was
met last year, according to your account of it. I am also very glad to
hear of Hancock (Albany Hancock received a Royal Medal in 1858.); it will
show the provincials are not neglected. Altogether the medals are capital.
I shall be proud and bound to help in any way about the eloge, which is
rather a heavy tax on proposers of medals, as I found about Richardson and
Westwood; but Lyell's case will be twenty times as difficult. I will begin
this very evening dotting down a few remarks on Lyell; though, no doubt,
most will be superfluous, and several would require deliberate
consideration. Anyhow, such notes may be a preliminary aid to you; I will
send them in a few days' time, and will do anything else you may wish...

P.S.--I have had a letter from Henslow this morning. He comes here on
[Thursday] 25th, and I shall be delighted to see him; but it stops my
coming to the Club, as I had arranged to do, and now I suppose I shall not
be in London till December 16th, if odds and ends do not compel me to come
sooner. Of course I have not said a word to Henslow of my change of plans.
I had looked forward with pleasure to a chat with you and others.

P.S. 2.--I worked all yesterday evening in thinking, and have written the
paper sent by this post this morning. Not one sentence would do, but it is
the sort of rough sketch which I should have drawn out if I had had to do
it. God knows whether it will at all aid you. It is miserably written,
with horridly bad metaphors, probably horrid bad grammar. It is my
deliberate impression, such as I should have written to any friend who had
asked me what I thought of Lyell's merits. I will do anything else which
you may wish, or that I can.

LETTER 70. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, December 30th [1858].

I have had this copied to save you trouble, as it was vilely written, and
is now vilely expressed.

Your letter has interested me greatly; but how inextricable are the
subjects which we are discussing! I do not think I said that I thought the
productions of Asia were HIGHER (70/1. On the use of the terms "higher"
and "lower" see Letters 35 and 36.) than those of Australia. I intend
carefully to avoid this expression (70/2. In a paper of pencilled notes
pinned into Darwin's copy of the "Vestiges" occur the words: "Never use
the word (sic) higher and lower."), for I do not think that any one has a
definite idea what is meant by higher, except in classes which can loosely
be compared with man. On our theory of Natural Selection, if the organisms
of any area belonging to the Eocene or Secondary periods were put into
competition with those now existing in the same area (or probably in any
part of the world) they (i.e. the old ones) would be beaten hollow and be
exterminated; if the theory be true, this must be so. In the same manner,
I believe, a greater number of the productions of Asia, the largest
territory in the world, would beat those of Australia, than conversely. So
it seems to be between Europe and North America, for I can hardly believe
in the difference of the stream of commerce causing so great a difference
in the proportions of immigrants. But this sort of highness (I wish I
could invent some expression, and must try to do so) is different from
highness in the common acceptation of the word. It might be connected with
degradation of organisation: thus the blind degraded worm-like snake
(Typhlops) might supplant the true earthworm. Here then would be
degradation in the class, but certainly increase in the scale of
organisation in the general inhabitants of the country. On the other hand,
it would be quite as easy to believe that true earthworms might beat out
the Typhlops. I do not see how this "competitive highness" can be tested
in any way by us. And this is a comfort to me when mentally comparing the
Silurian and Recent organisms. Not that I doubt a long course of
"competitive highness" will ultimately make the organisation higher in
every sense of the word; but it seems most difficult to test it. Look at
the Erigeron canadensis on the one hand and Anacharis (70/3. Anacharis
(Elodea canadensis) and Erigeron canadensis are both successful immigrants
from America.) on the other; these plants must have some advantage over
European productions, to spread as they have. Yet who could discover it?
Monkeys can co-exist with sloths and opossums, orders at the bottom of the
scale; and the opossums might well be beaten by placental insectivores,
coming from a country where there were no monkeys, etc. I should be sorry
to give up the view that an old and very large continuous territory would
generally produce organisms higher in the competitive sense than a smaller
territory. I may, of course, be quite wrong about the plants of Australia
(and your facts are, of course, quite new to me on their highness), but
when I read the accounts of the immense spreading of European plants in
Australia, and think of the wool and corn brought thence to Europe, and not
one plant naturalised, I can hardly avoid the suspicion that Europe beats
Australia in its productions. If many (i.e. more than one or two)
Australian plants are TRULY naturalised in India (N.B. Naturalisation on
Indian mountains hardly quite fair, as mountains are small islands in the
land) I must strike my colours. I should be glad to hear whether what I
have written very obscurely on this point produces ANY effect on you; for I
want to clear my mind, as perhaps I should put a sentence or two in my
abstract on this subject. (70/4. Abstract was Darwin's name for the
"Origin" during parts of 1858 and 1859.)

I have always been willing to strike my colours on former immense tracts of
land in oceans, if any case required it in an eminent degree. Perhaps
yours may be a case, but at present I greatly prefer land in the Antarctic
regions, where now there is only ice and snow, but which before the Glacial
period might well have been clothed by vegetation. You have thus to invent
far less land, and that more central; and aid is got by floating ice for
transporting seed.

I hope I shall not weary you by scribbling my notions at this length.
After writing last to you I began to think that the Malay Land might have
existed through part of the Glacial epoch. Why I at first doubted was from
the difference of existing mammals in different islands; but many are very
close, and some identical in the islands, and I am constantly deceiving
myself from thinking of the little change which the shells and plants,
whilst all co-existing in their own northern hemisphere, have undergone
since the Glacial epoch; but I am convinced that this is most false
reasoning, for the relations of organism to new organisms, when thrown
together, are by far the most important.

When you speak of plants having undergone more change since old geological
periods than animals, are you not rather comparing plants with higher
animals? Think how little some, indeed many, mollusca have changed.
Remember Silurian Nautilus, Lingula and other Brachiopods, and Nucula, and
amongst Echinoderms, the Silurian Asterias, etc.