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

I entirely agree with what you say about "chance," except in relation to
the variations of organic beings having been designed; and I imagine that
Mr. Graham must have used "chance" in relation only to purpose in the
origination of species. This is the only way I have used the word chance,
as I have attempted to explain in the last two pages of my "Variation under
Domestication."

On the other hand, if we consider the whole universe, the mind refuses to
look at it as the outcome of chance--that is, without design or purpose.
The whole question seems to me insoluble, for I cannot put much or any
faith in the so-called intuitions of the human mind, which have been
developed, as I cannot doubt, from such a mind as animals possess; and what
would their convictions or intuitions be worth? There are a good many
points on which I cannot quite follow Mr. Graham.

With respect to your last discussion, I dare say it contains very much
truth; but I cannot see, as far as happiness is concerned, that it can
apply to the infinite sufferings of animals--not only those of the body,
but those of the mind--as when a mother loses her offspring or a male his
female. If the view does not apply to animals, will it suffice for man?
But you may well complain of this long and badly-expressed note in my
dreadfully bad handwriting.

The death of my brother Erasmus is a very heavy loss to all of us in this
family. He was so kind-hearted and affectionate. Nor have I ever known
any one more pleasant. It was always a very great pleasure to talk with
him on any subject whatever, and this I shall never do again. The
clearness of his mind always seemed to me admirable. He was not, I think,
a happy man, and for many years did not value life, though never
complaining. I am so glad that he escaped very severe suffering during his
last few days. I shall never see such a man again.

Forgive me for scribbling this way, my dear Farrer.

LETTER 308. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(308/1. Romanes had reviewed Roux's "Struggle of Parts in the Organism" in
"Nature," September 20th, 1881, page 505. This led to an attack by the
Duke of Argyll (October 20th, page 581), followed by a reply by Romanes
(October 27th, page 604), a rejoinder by the Duke (November 3rd, page 6),
and finally by the letter of Romanes (November 10th, page 29) to which
Darwin refers. The Duke's "flourish" is at page 7: "I wish Mr. Darwin's
disciples would imitate a little of the dignified reticence of their
master. He walks with a patient and a stately step along the paths of
conscientious observation, etc., etc.")

Down, November 12th, 1881.

I must write to say how very much I admire your letter in the last
"Nature." I subscribe to every word that you say, and it could not be
expressed more clearly or vigorously. After the Duke's last letter and
flourish about me I thought it paltry not to say that I agreed with what
you had said. But after writing two folio pages I find I could not say
what I wished to say without taking up too much space; and what I had
written did not please me at all, so I tore it up, and now by all the gods
I rejoice that I did so, for you have put the case incomparably better than
I had done or could do.

Moreover, I hate controversy, and it wastes much time, at least with a man
who, like myself, can work for only a short time in a day. How in the
world you get through all your work astonishes me.

Now do not make me feel guilty by answering this letter, and losing some of
your time.

You ought not to swear at Roux's book, which has led you into this
controversy, for I am sure that your last letter was well worth writing--
not that it will produce any effect on the Duke.

LETTER 309. TO J. JENNER WEIR.

(309/1. On December 27th, 1881, Mr. Jenner Weir wrote to Mr. Darwin:
"After some hesitation in lieu of a Christmas card, I venture to give you
the return of some observations on mules made in Spain during the last two
years...It is a fact that the sire has the prepotency in the offspring, as
has been observed by most writers on that subject, including yourself. The
mule is more ass-like, and the hinny more horse-like, both in the
respective lengths of the ears and the shape of the tail; but one point I
have observed which I do not remember to have met with, and that is that
the coat of the mule resembles that of its dam the mare, and that of the
hinny its dam the ass, so that in this respect the prepotency of the sexes
is reversed." The hermaphroditism in lepidoptera, referred to below, is
said by Mr. Weir to occur notably in the case of the hybrids of Smerinthus
populi-ocellatus.)

Down, December 29th, 1881.

I thank you for your "Christmas card," and heartily return your good
wishes. What you say about the coats of mules is new to me, as is the
statement about hermaphroditism in hybrid moths. This latter fact seems to
me particularly curious; and to make a very wild hypothesis, I should be
inclined to account for it by reversion to the primordial condition of the
two sexes being united, for I think it certain that hybridism does lead to
reversion.

I keep fairly well, but have not much strength, and feel very old.

LETTER 310. TO R. MELDOLA.
Down, February 2nd, 1882.

I am very sorry that I can add nothing to my very brief notice, without
reading again Weismann's work and getting up the whole subject by reading
my own and other books, and for so much labour I have not strength. I have
now been working at other subjects for some years, and when a man grows as
old as I am, it is a great wrench to his brain to go back to old and half-
forgotten subjects. You would not readily believe how often I am asked
questions of all kinds, and quite lately I have had to give up much time to
do a work, not at all concerning myself, but which I did not like to
refuse. I must, however, somewhere draw the line, or my life will be a
misery to me.

I have read your preface, and it seems to me excellent. (310/1. "Studies
in the Theory of Descent." By A. Weismann. Translated and Edited by
Raphael Meldola; with a Prefatory Notice by C. Darwin and a Translator's
Preface. See Letter 291.) I am sorry in many ways, including the honour
of England as a scientific country, that your translation has as yet sold
badly. Does the publisher or do you lose by it? If the publisher, though
I shall be sorry for him, yet it is in the way of business; but if you
yourself lose by it, I earnestly beg you to allow me to subscribe a trifle,
viz., ten guineas, towards the expense of this work, which you have
undertaken on public grounds.

LETTER 311. TO W. HORSFALL.
Down, February 8th, 1882.

In the succession of the older Formations the species and genera of
trilobites do change, and then they all die out. To any one who believes
that geologists know the dawn of life (i.e., formations contemporaneous
with the first appearance of living creatures on the earth) no doubt the
sudden appearance of perfect trilobites and other organisms in the oldest
known life-bearing strata would be fatal to evolution. But I for one, and
many others, utterly reject any such belief. Already three or four piles
of unconformable strata are known beneath the Cambrian; and these are
generally in a crystalline condition, and may once have been charged with
organic remains.

With regard to animals and plants, the locomotive spores of some algae,
furnished with cilia, would have been ranked with animals if it had not
been known that they developed into algae.

LETTER 312. TO JOHN COLLIER.
Down, February 16th, 1882.

I must thank you for the gift of your Art Primer, which I have read with
much pleasure. Parts were too technical for me who could never draw a
line, but I was greatly interested by the whole of the first part. I wish
that you could explain why certain curved lines and symmetrical figures
give pleasure. But will not your brother artists scorn you for showing
yourself so good an evolutionist? Perhaps they will say that allowance
must be made for him, as he has allied himself to so dreadful a man as
Huxley. This reminds me that I have just been reading the last volume of
essays. By good luck I had not read that on Priestley (312/1. "Science
and Culture, and other Essays": London, 1881. The fifth Essay is on
Joseph Priestley (page 94).), and it strikes me as the most splendid essay
which I ever read. That on automatism (312/2. Essay IX. (page 199) is
entitled "On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and its history.")
is wonderfully interesting: more is the pity, say I, for if I were as well
armed as Huxley I would challenge him to a duel on this subject. But I am
a deal too wise to do anything of the kind, for he would run me through the
body half a dozen times with his sharp and polished rapier before I knew
where I was. I did not intend to have scribbled all this nonsense, but
only to have thanked you for your present.

Everybody whom I have seen and who has seen your picture of me is delighted
with it. I shall be proud some day to see myself suspended at the Linnean
Society. (312/3. The portrait painted by Mr. Collier hangs in the
meeting-room of the Linnean Society.)

CHAPTER 1.VI.--GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, 1843-1867.

LETTER 313. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, Tuesday [December 12th, 1843].

I am very much obliged to you for your interesting letter. I have long
been very anxious, even for as short a sketch as you have kindly sent me of
the botanical geography of the southern hemisphere. I shall be most
curious to see your results in detail. From my entire ignorance of Botany,
I am sorry to say that I cannot answer any of the questions which you ask
me. I think I mention in my "Journal" that I found my old friend the
southern beech (I cannot say positively which species), on the mountain-
top, in southern parts of Chiloe and at level of sea in lat. 45 deg, in
Chonos Archipelago. Would not the southern end of Chiloe make a good
division for you? I presume, from the collection of Brydges and Anderson,
Chiloe is pretty well-known, and southward begins a terra incognita. I
collected a few plants amongst the Chonos Islands. The beech being found
here and peat being found here, and general appearance of landscape,
connects the Chonos Islands and T. del Fuego. I saw the Alerce (313/1.
"Alerse" is the local name of a South American timber, described in Capt.
King's "Voyages of the 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,'" page 281, and rather
doubtfully identified with Thuja tetragona, Hook. ("Flora Antarctica,"
page 350.)) on mountains of Chiloe (on the mainland it grows to an enormous
size, and I always believed Alerce and Araucaria imbricata to be
identical), but I am ashamed to say I absolutely forget all about its
appearance. I saw some Juniper-like bush in T. del Fuego, but can tell you
no more about it, as I presume that you have seen Capt. King's collection
in Mr. Brown's possession, provisionally for the British Museum. I fear
you will be much disappointed in my few plants: an ignorant person cannot
collect; and I, moreover, lost one, the first, and best set of the Alpine
plants. On the other hand, I hope the Galapagos plants (313/2. See "Life
and Letters," II., pages 20, 21, for Sir J.D. Hooker's notes on the
beginning of his friendship with Mr. Darwin, and for the latter's letter on
the Galapagos plants being placed in Hooker's hands.) (judging from
Henslow's remarks) will turn out more interesting than you expect. Pray be
careful to observe, if I ever mark the individual islands of the Galapagos
Islands, for the reasons you will see in my "Journal." Menzies and Cumming
were there, and there are some plants (I think Mr. Bentham told me) at the
Horticultural Society and at the British Museum. I believe I collected no
plants at Ascension, thinking it well-known.

Is not the similarity of plants of Kerguelen Land and southern S. America
very curious? Is there any instance in the northern hemisphere of plants
being similar at such great distances? With thanks for your letter and for
your having undertaken my small collection of plants,

Believe me, my dear Sir,
Yours very truly,
C. DARWIN.

Do remember my prayer, and write as well for botanical ignoramuses as for
great botanists. There is a paper of Carmichael (313/3. "Some Account of
the Island of Tristan da Cunha and of its Natural Productions."--"Linn.
Soc. Trans." XII., 1818, page 483.) on Tristan d'Acunha, which from the
want of general remarks and comparison, I found [torn out] to me a dead
letter.--I presume you will include this island in your views of the
southern hemisphere.

P.S.--I have been looking at my poor miserable attempt at botanical-
landscape-remarks, and I see that I state that the species of beech which
is least common in T. del Fuego is common in the forest of Central Chiloe.
But I will enclose for you this one page of my rough journal.

LETTER 314. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, March 31st (1844).

I have been a shameful time in returning your documents, but I have been
very busy scientifically, and unscientifically in planting. I have been
exceedingly interested in the details about the Galapagos Islands. I need
not say that I collected blindly, and did not attempt to make complete
series, but just took everything in flower blindly. The flora of the
summits and bases of the islands appear wholly different; it may aid you in
observing whether the different islands have representative species filling
the same places in the economy of nature, to know that I collected plants
from the lower and dry region in all the islands, i.e., in the Chatham,
Charles, James, and Albemarle (the least on the latter); and that I was
able to ascend into the high and damp region only in James and Charles
Islands; and in the former I think I got every plant then in flower.
Please bear this in mind in comparing the representative species. (You
know that Henslow has described a new Opuntia from the Galapagos.) Your
observations on the distribution of large mundane genera have interested me
much; but that was not the precise point which I was curious to ascertain;
it has no necessary relation to size of genus (though perhaps your
statements will show that it has). It was merely this: suppose a genus
with ten or more species, inhabiting the ten main botanical regions, should
you expect that all or most of these ten species would have wide ranges
(i.e. were found in most parts) in their respective countries? (314/1.
This point is discussed in a letter in "Life and Letters," Volume II., page
25, but not, we think in the "Origin"; for letters on large genera
containing many varieties see "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 102-7,
also in the "Origin," Edition I., page 53, Edition VI., page 44. In a
letter of April 5th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker gave his opinion: "On the whole
I believe that many individual representative species of large genera have
wide ranges, but I do not consider the fact as one of great value, because
the proportion of such species having a wide range is not large compared
with other representative species of the same genus whose limits are
confined."

It may be noted that in large genera the species often have small ranges
("Origin," Edition VI., page 45), and large genera are more commonly wide-
ranging than the reverse.) To give an example, the genus Felis is found in
every country except Australia, and the individual species generally range
over thousands of miles in their respective countries; on the other hand,
no genus of monkey ranges over so large a part of the world, and the
individual species in their respective countries seldom range over wide
spaces. I suspect (but am not sure) that in the genus Mus (the most
mundane genus of all mammifers) the individual species have not wide
ranges, which is opposed to my query.

I fancy, from a paper by Don, that some genera of grasses (i.e. Juncus or
Juncaceae) are widely diffused over the world, and certainly many of their
species have very wide ranges--in short, it seems that my question is
whether there is any relation between the ranges of genera and of
individual species, without any relation to the size of the genera. It is
evident a genus might be widely diffused in two ways: 1st, by many
different species, each with restricted ranges; and 2nd, by many or few
species with wide ranges. Any light which you could throw on this I should
be very much obliged for. Thank you most kindly, also, for your offer in a
former letter to consider any other points; and at some future day I shall
be most grateful for a little assistance, but I will not be unmerciful.

Swainson has remarked (and Westwood contradicted) that typical genera have
wide ranges: Waterhouse (without knowing these previous remarkers) made to
me the same observation: I feel a laudable doubt and disinclination to
believe any statement of Swainson; but now Waterhouse remarks it, I am
curious on the point. There is, however, so much vague in the meaning of
"typical forms," and no little ambiguity in the mere assertion of "wide
ranges" (for zoologists seldom go into strict and disagreeable arithmetic,
like you botanists so wisely do) that I feel very doubtful, though some
considerations tempt me to believe in this remark. Here again, if you can
throw any light, I shall be much obliged. After your kind remarks I will
not apologise for boring you with my vague queries and remarks.

LETTER 315. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, December 25th [1844].
Happy Christmas to you.

(315/1. The following letter refers to notes by Sir J.D. Hooker which we
have not seen. Though we are therefore unable to make clear many points
referred to, the letter seems to us on the whole so interesting that it is
printed with the omission of only one unimportant sentence.

The subjects dealt with in the letter are those which were occupying
Hooker's attention in relation to his "Flora Antarctica" (1844).)

I must thank you once again for all your documents, which have interested
me very greatly and surprised me. I found it very difficult to charge my
head with all your tabulated results, but this I perfectly well know is in
main part due to that head not being a botanical one, aided by the tables
being in MS.; I think, however, to an ignoramus, they might be made
clearer; but pray mind, that this is very different from saying that I
think botanists ought to arrange their highest results for non-botanists to
understand easily. I will tell you how, for my individual self, I should
like to see the results worked out, and then you can judge, whether this be
advisable for the botanical world.

Looking at the globe, the Auckland and Campbell I., New Zealand, and Van
Diemen's Land so evidently are geographically related, that I should wish,
before any comparison was made with far more distant countries, to
understand their floras, in relation to each other; and the southern ones
to the northern temperate hemisphere, which I presume is to every one an
almost involuntary standard of comparison. To understand the relation of
the floras of these islands, I should like to see the group divided into a
northern and southern half, and to know how many species exist in the
latter--

1. Belonging to genera confined to Australia, Van Diemen's Land and north
New Zealand.

2. Belonging to genera found only on the mountains of Australia, Van
Diemen's Land, and north New Zealand.

3. Belonging to genera of distribution in many parts of the world (i.e.,
which tell no particular story).

4. Belonging to genera found in the northern hemisphere and not in the
tropics; or only on mountains in the tropics.

I daresay all this (as far as present materials serve) could be extracted
from your tables, as they stand; but to any one not familiar with the names
of plants, this would be difficult. I felt particularly the want of not
knowing which of the genera are found in the lowland tropics, in
understanding the relation of the Antarctic with the Arctic floras.

If the Fuegian flora was treated in the analogous way (and this would
incidentally show how far the Cordillera are a high-road of genera), I
should then be prepared far more easily and satisfactorily to understand
the relations of Fuegia with the Auckland Islands, and consequently with
the mountains of Van Diemen's Land. Moreover, the marvellous facts of
their intimate botanical relation (between Fuegia and the Auckland Islands,
etc.) would stand out more prominently, after the Auckland Islands had been
first treated of under the purely geographical relation of position. A
triple division such as yours would lead me to suppose that the three
places were somewhat equally distant, and not so greatly different in size:
the relation of Van Diemen's Land seems so comparatively small, and that
relation being in its alpine plants, makes me feel that it ought only to be
treated of as a subdivision of the large group, including Auckland,
Campbell, New Zealand...

I think a list of the genera, common to Fuegia on the one hand and on the
other to Campbell, etc., and to the mountains of Van Diemen's Land or New
Zealand (but not found in the lowland temperate, and southern tropical
parts of South America and Australia, or New Zealand), would prominently
bring out, at the same time, the relation between these Antarctic points
one with another, and with the northern or Arctic regions.

In Article III. is it meant to be expressed, or might it not be understood
by this article, that the similarity of the distant points in the Antarctic
regions was as close as between distant points in the Arctic regions? I
gather this is not so. You speak of the southern points of America and
Australia, etc., being "materially approximated," and this closer proximity
being correlative with a greater similarity of their plants: I find on the
globe, that Van Diemen's Land and Fuegia are only about one-fifth nearer
than the whole distance between Port Jackson and Concepcion in Chile; and
again, that Campbell Island and Fuegia are only one-fifth nearer than the
east point of North New Zealand and Concepcion. Now do you think in such
immense distances, both over open oceans, that one-fifth less distance, say
4,000 miles instead of 5,000, can explain or throw much light on a material
difference in the degree of similarity in the floras of the two regions?

I trust you will work out the New Zealand flora, as you have commenced at
end of letter: is it not quite an original plan? and is it not very
surprising that New Zealand, so much nearer to Australia than South
America, should have an intermediate flora? I had fancied that nearly all
the species there were peculiar to it. I cannot but think you make one
gratuitous difficulty in ascertaining whether New Zealand ought to be
classed by itself, or with Australia or South America--namely, when you
seem (bottom of page 7 of your letter) to say that genera in common
indicate only that the external circumstances for their life are suitable
and similar. (315/2. On December 30th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker replied,
"Nothing was further from my intention than to have written anything which
would lead one to suppose that genera common to two places indicate a
similarity in the external circumstances under which they are developed,
though I see I have given you excellent grounds for supposing that such
were my opinions.") Surely, cannot an overwhelming mass of facts be
brought against such a proposition? Distant parts of Australia possess
quite distinct species of marsupials, but surely this fact of their having
the same marsupial genera is the strongest tie and plainest mark of an
original (so-called) creative affinity over the whole of Australia; no one,
now, will (or ought) to say that the different parts of Australia have
something in their external conditions in common, causing them to be pre-
eminently suitable to marsupials; and so on in a thousand instances.
Though each species, and consequently genus, must be adapted to its
country, surely adaptation is manifestly not the governing law in
geographical distribution. Is this not so? and if I understand you
rightly, you lessen your own means of comparison--attributing the presence
of the same genera to similarity of conditions.

You will groan over my very full compliance with your request to write all
I could on your tables, and I have done it with a vengeance: I can hardly
say how valuable I must think your results will be, when worked out, as far
as the present knowledge and collections serve.

Now for some miscellaneous remarks on your letter: thanks for the offer to
let me see specimens of boulders from Cockburn Island; but I care only for
boulders, as an indication of former climate: perhaps Ross will give some
information...

Watson's paper on the Azores (315/3. H.C. Watson, "London Journal of
Botany," 1843-44.) has surprised me much; do you not think it odd, the
fewness of peculiar species, and their rarity on the alpine heights? I
wish he had tabulated his results; could you not suggest to him to draw up
a paper of such results, comparing these Islands with Madeira? surely does
not Madeira abound with peculiar forms?