The Project Gutenberg eBook of Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences, Vol. 1

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences, Vol. 1

Author: Alfred Russel Wallace

Sir James Marchant

Release date: June 7, 2005 [eBook #15997]
Most recently updated: December 14, 2020

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Digital & Multimedia Center, Michigan State
University Libraries., Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Josephine
Paolucci, Joshua Hutchinson and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE: LETTERS AND REMINISCENCES, VOL. 1 *** 








Alfred Russel Wallace - Letters and Reminiscences


By


James Marchant


With Two Photogravures and Eight Half-tone Plates

IN TWO VOLUMES

Volume I


CASSELL AND COMPANY, LTD

London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne

1916








To the Memory of


ANNIE WALLACE









Alfred R. Wallace


Alfred R. Wallace









PREFACE


These two volumes consist of a selection from several
thousands of letters entrusted to me by the Wallace family
and dating from the dawn of Darwinism to the second
decade of the twentieth century, supplemented by such
biographical particulars and comments as are required for
the elucidation of the correspondence and for giving movement
and continuity to the whole.


The wealth and variety of Wallace's own correspondence,
excluding the large collection of letters which he received
from many eminent men and women, and the necessity for
somewhat lengthy introductions and many annotations, have
expanded the work to two (there was, indeed, enough good
material to make four) volumes. The family has given me
unstinted confidence in using or rejecting letters and reminiscences,
and although I have consulted scientific and
literary friends, I alone must be blamed for sins of omission
or commission. Nothing has been suppressed in the
unpublished letters, or in any of the letters which appear
in these volumes, because there was anything to hide.
Everything Wallace wrote, all his private letters, could
be published to the world. His life was an open book—"no
weakness, no contempt, dispraise, or blame, nothing
but well and fair."


The profoundly interesting and now historic correspondence
between Darwin and Wallace, part of which
has already appeared in the "Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin" and "More Letters," and part in Wallace's autobiography,
entitled "My Life," is here published, with new
additions, for the first time as a whole, so that the reader
now has before him the necessary material to form a true
estimate of the origin and growth of the theory of Natural
Selection, and of the personal relationships of its noble co-discoverers.


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


J.M.


March, 1916.






Contents







LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME I


A.R. WALLACE (1912) Photogravure Frontispiece


A.R. WALLACE (SINGAPORE, 1862)


A.R. WALLACE'S MOTHER


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







[pg 001]

Alfred Russel Wallace


Letters and Reminiscences







INTRODUCTION


In Westminster Abbey there repose, almost side by side,
by no conscious design yet with deep significance,
the mortal remains of Isaac Newton and of Charles
Darwin. "'The Origin of Species,'" said Wallace, "will
live as long as the 'Principia' of Newton." Near by
are the tombs of Sir John Herschel, Lord Kelvin and Sir
Charles Lyell; and the medallions in memory of Joule,
Darwin, Stokes and Adams have been rearranged so as
to admit similar memorials of Lister, Hooker and Alfred
Russel Wallace. Now that the plan is completed, Darwin
and Wallace are together in this wonderful galaxy of the
great men of science of the nineteenth century. Several
illustrious names are missing from this eminent company;
foremost amongst them being that of Herbert Spencer, the
lofty master of that synthetic philosophy which seemed to his
disciples to have the proportions and qualities of an enduring
monument, and whose incomparable fertility of creative
thought entitled him to share the throne with Darwin. It
was Spencer, Darwin, Wallace, Hooker, Lyell and Huxley
who led that historic movement which garnered the work of
Lamarck and Buffon, and gave new direction to the ceaseless
interrogation of nature to discover the "how" and
the "why" of the august progression of life.
[pg 002]
Looking over the long list of the departed whose names
are enshrined in our Minster, one has sorrowfully to observe
that contemporary opinion of their place in history and
abiding worth was not infrequently astray; that memory
has, indeed, forgotten their works; and their memorials
might be removed to some cloister without loss of respect
for the dead, perhaps even with the silent approval of
their own day and generation could it awake from its endless
sleep and review the strange and eventful course of
human life since they left "this bank and shoal of time."
But may it not be safely prophesied that of all the names
on the starry scroll of national fame that of Charles Darwin
will, surely, remain unquestioned? And entwined
with his enduring memory, by right of worth and work,
and we know with Darwin's fullest approval, our successors
will discover the name of Alfred Russel Wallace.
Darwin and Wallace were pre-eminent sons of light.


Among the great men of the Victorian age Wallace
occupied a unique position. He was the co-discoverer of
the illuminating theory of Natural Selection; he watched
its struggle for recognition against prejudice, ignorance,
ridicule and misrepresentation; its gradual adoption by
its traditional enemies; and its final supremacy. And he
lived beyond the hour of its signal triumph and witnessed
the further advance into the same field of research of
other patient investigators who are disclosing fresh phases
of the same fundamental laws of development, and are
accumulating a vast array of new facts which tell of still
richer light to come to enlighten every man born into the
world. To have lived through that brilliant period and
into the second decade of the twentieth century; to have
outlived all contemporaries, having been the co-revealer of
the greatest and most far-reaching generalisation in an era
which abounded in fruitful discoveries and in revolutionary
[pg 003]advances in the application of science to life, is verily to
have been the chosen of the gods.


Who and what manner of man was Alfred Russel
Wallace? Who were his forbears? How did he obtain his
insight into the closest secrets of nature? What was the
extent of his contributions to our stock of human knowledge?
In which directions did he most influence his
age? What is known of his inner life? These are some
of the questions which most present-day readers and all
future readers into whose hands this book may come
will ask.


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


It may be stated here that Wallace had suggested to the
present writer that he should undertake a new work, to be
[pg 004]called "Darwin and Wallace," which was to have been a
comparative study of their literary and scientific writings,
with an estimate of the present position of the theory of
Natural Selection as an adequate explanation of the process
of organic evolution. Wallace had promised to give as much
assistance as possible in selecting the material without
which the task on such a scale would obviously have been
impossible. Alas! soon after the agreement with the
publishers was signed and in the very month that the plan
of the work was to have been shown to Wallace, his hand
was unexpectedly stilled in death; and the book remains
unwritten. But as the names of Darwin and Wallace are
inseparable even by the scythe of time, a slight attempt
is here made, in the first sections of Part I. and Part II.,
to take note of their ancestry and the diversities and
similarities in their respective characters and environments—social
and educational; to mark the chief characteristics
of their literary works and the more salient
conditions and events which led them, independently, to
the idea of Natural Selection.


Finally, it may be remarked that up to the present time
the unique work and position of Wallace have not been fully
disclosed owing to his great modesty and to the fact that he
outlived all his contemporaries. "I am afraid," wrote Sir
W.T. Thiselton-Dyer to him in one of his letters (1893),
"the splendid modesty of the big men will be a rarer commodity
in the future. No doubt many of the younger ones
know an immense deal; but I doubt if many of them will
ever exhibit the grasp of great principles which we owe to
you and your splendid band of contemporaries." If this
work helps to preserve the records of the influence and
achievements of this illustrious and versatile genius and of
the other eminent men who brought the great conception of
Evolution to light, it will surely have justified its existence.
[pg 005]













PART I





I.—Wallace and Darwin—Early Years


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


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


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


The autobiography of Darwin was written for the
benefit of his family only, when he was 67; while the two
[pg 006]large volumes entitled "My Life" were written by Wallace
when he was 82, for the pleasure of reviewing his long
career. These records are characterised by that charming
modesty and simplicity of life and manner which was so
marked a feature of both men.


In the circumstances surrounding their early days there
was very little to indicate the similarity in character
and mental gifts which became so evident in their later
years. A brief outline of the hereditary influences immediately
affecting them will enable us to trace something of
the essential differences as well as the similarities which
marked their scientific and literary attainments.


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


Passing over a generation, we find that a brother of
Dr. Erasmus Darwin "cultivated botany," and, when far
advanced in years, published a volume entitled "Principia
Botanica," while Erasmus developed into a poet and philosopher.
The eldest son of the latter "inherited a strong
taste for various branches of science ... and at a very
early age collected specimens of all kinds." The youngest
son, Robert Waring, father of Charles Darwin, became a
successful physician, "a man of genial temperament,
strong character, fond of society," and was the possessor
of great psychic power by which he could readily sum up
the characters of others, and even occasionally read their
thoughts. A judicious use of this gift was frequently
[pg 007]found to be more efficacious than actual medicine! To the
end of his life Charles Darwin entertained the greatest
affection and reverence for his father, and frequently
spoke of him to his own children.


From this brief summary of the family history it is easy
to perceive the inherited traits which were combined in the
attractive personality of the great scientist. From his early
forbears came the keen love of sport and outdoor exercise
(to which considerable reference is made in his youth and
early manhood); the close application of the philosopher;
and the natural aptitude for collecting specimens of all
kinds. To his grandfather he was doubtless indebted for
his poetic imagination, which, consciously or unconsciously,
pervaded his thoughts and writings, saving them from the
cold scientific atmosphere which often chills the lay mind.
Lastly, the geniality of his father was strongly evidenced
by his own love of social intercourse, his courtesy and
ready wit, whilst the gentleness of his mother—who unfortunately
died when he was 7 years old—left a delicacy
of feeling which pervaded his character to the very last.


No such sure mental influences, reaching back through
several generations, can be traced in the records of the
Wallace family, although what is known reveals the source
of the dogged perseverance with which Wallace faced the
immense difficulties met with by all early pioneer travellers,
of that happy diversity of mental interests which
helped to relieve his periods of loneliness and inactivity,
and of that quiet determination to pursue to the utmost
limit every idea which impressed his mind as containing
the germ of a wider and more comprehensive truth than
had yet been generally recognised and accepted.


The innate reticence and shyness of manner which
were noticeable all through his life covered a large-heartedness
even in the most careful observation of facts, and
[pg 008]produced a tolerant disposition towards his fellow-men
even when he most disagreed with their views or dogmas.
He was one of those of whom it may be truly said in
hackneyed phrases that he was "born great," whilst
destined to have "greatness thrust upon him" in the
shape of honours which he received with hesitation.


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


It was undoubtedly from his father that he acquired an
appreciation of good literature, as they were in the habit
of hearing Shakespeare and similar works read aloud round
the fireside on winter nights; whilst from his mother came
artistic and business-like instincts—several of her relatives
[pg 009]having been architects of no mean skill, combining with their
art sound business qualities which placed them in positions
of civic authority and brought them the respect due to men
of upright character and good parts.


During the chequered experiences which followed the
marriage of Thomas Vere Wallace and Mary Ann Greenell
there appears to have been complete mutual affection and
understanding. Although Wallace makes but slight reference
to his mother's character and habits, one may readily
conclude that her disposition and influence were such as
to leave an indelible impression for good on the minds
of her children, amongst her qualities being a talent for
not merely accepting circumstances but in a quiet way
making the most of each experience as it came—a talent
which we find repeated on many occasions in the life of
her son Alfred.


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


With remarkable clearness Dr. Wallace could recall
events and scenes back to the time when he was only 4
years of age. His first childish experiment occurred about
that time, due to his being greatly impressed by the story
of the "Fox and the Pitcher" in Æsop's Fables. Finding
a jar standing in the yard outside their house, he
promptly proceeded to pour a small quantity of water into
it, and then added a handful of small stones. The water
not rising to the surface, as it did in the fable, he found a
spade and scraped up a mixture of earth and pebbles which
he added to the stones already in the jar. The result, however,
proving quite unsatisfactory, he gave up the experiment
[pg 010]in disgust and refused to believe in the truth of the
fable. His restless brain and vivid imagination at this
early period is shown by some dreams which he could
still recall when 82 years of age; whilst the strong impression
left on his mind by certain localities, with all
their graphic detail of form and colour, enabled him to
enjoy over again many of the simple pleasures that made
up his early life in the beautiful grounds of the ancient
castle in which he used to play.


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


The morning after their arrival an incident occurred
which left its trace as of a slender golden thread running
throughout the fabric of his long life. Alfred, with child-like
curiosity about his new surroundings, wandered into
the yard behind their house, and presently heard a voice
coming from the other side of the low wall, saying, "Hallo!
who are you?" and saw a boy about his own age peering
over the top. Explanations followed, and soon, by the
aid of two water-butts, the small boys found themselves
sitting side by side on the top of the wall, holding a long
and intimate conversation. Thus began his friendship
with George Silk, and by some curious trend of circumstances
the two families became neighbours on several subsequent
occasions,1 so that the friendship was maintained
until in due course the boys separated each to his own way
[pg 011]in life—the one to wander in foreign lands, the other to
occupy a responsible position at home.


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


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


It is curious to note that one destined to become a
great traveller and explorer should have found the study
of geography "a painful subject." But this was, as he
afterwards understood, entirely due to the method of
teaching then, and sometimes now, in vogue, which made
no appeal whatever to the imagination by creating a
mental picture of the peoples and nations, or the varied
wonders and beauties of nature which distinguish one
[pg 012]country from another. "No interesting facts were ever
given, no accounts of the country by travellers were ever
read, no good maps ever given us, nothing but the horrid
stream of unintelligible place names to be learnt." The
only subjects in which he considered that he gained some
valuable grounding at school were Latin, arithmetic, and
writing.


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


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


He also speaks of himself as having been a very "simple
little fellow" by the manner in which he was either himself
deceived or tried to deceive others in a harmless way. As
an instance of this, he remembered declaring that he could
"produce variously coloured polyanthuses and primroses
by watering them with certain coloured fluids," though he
knew all the time it was untrue. His feeling of tenderness
towards all animals and insects is revealed in the fact that
he could not remember—except on one occasion—ever taking
more than one egg out of a bird's nest; and though a keen
[pg 013]angler, as soon as he heard that he could kill the worms
with salt and water he never afterwards "spitted a living
worm, though at the expense, probably, of some loss of
success!"


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


Whilst Charles Darwin occupied himself with outdoor
sport and collecting, with a very moderate amount of
reading thrown in at intervals, Wallace, on the contrary,
devoured all the books he could get; and fortunately for
him, his father having been appointed Librarian to the
Hertford Town Library, Alfred had access to all the
books that appealed to his mental appetite; and these,
especially the historical novels, supplemented the lack of
interesting history lessons at school, besides giving him an
insight into many kinds of literature suited to his varied
tastes and temperament. In addition, however, to the
hours spent in reading, he and his brother John found endless
delight in turning the loft of an outhouse adjoining
their yard into a sort of mechanical factory. Here they
contrived, by saving up all their pence (the only pocket-money
that came to them), to make crackers and other
simple fireworks, and to turn old keys into toy cannon,
besides making a large variety of articles for practical
domestic purposes. Thus he cultivated the gift of resourcefulness
and self-reliance on which he had so often to depend
[pg 014]when far removed from all civilisation during his travels
on the Amazon and in the Malay Archipelago.


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


In another letter he describes the garden and live stock
he had been able to obtain where he was living; and in
yet another he gives a long list of his domestic woes and
tribulations—which, however, were overcome with the
patience inculcated in early life by his hobbies, and also
by the fact that the family was always more or less in
straitened circumstances, so that the children were taught
to make themselves useful in various ways in order to
assist their mother in the home.


As he grew from childhood into youth, Alfred Wallace's
extreme sensitiveness developed to an almost painful degree.
He grew rapidly, and his unusual height made him still more
shy when forced to occupy any prominent position amongst
boys of his own age. During the latter part of his time
at Hertford Grammar School his father was unable to pay
the usual fees, and it was agreed that Alfred should act
[pg 015]as pupil teacher in return for the lessons received. This
arrangement, while acceptable on the one hand, caused
him actual mental and physical pain on the other, as it
increased his consciousness of the disabilities under which
he laboured in contrast with most of the other boys of his
own age.


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


As one of our aims in this section is to suggest an outline
of the contrasting influences governing the early lives
of Wallace and Darwin, it is interesting to note that at
the ages of 14 and 16 respectively, and immediately on
leaving school, they came under the first definite mental
influence which was to shape their future thought and
action. Yet how totally different from Wallace's trials
as a pupil teacher was the removal of Darwin from Dr.
Butler's school at Shrewsbury because "he was doing no
good" there, and his father thought it was "time he
settled down to his medical study in Edinburgh," never
[pg 016]heeding the fact that his son had already one passion in
life, apart from "shooting, dogs, and rat-catching," which
stood a very good chance of saving him from becoming the
disgrace to the family that his good father feared. So that
while Wallace was imbibing his first lessons in Socialism
at 14 years of age, Darwin at 16 found himself merely enduring,
with a feeling of disgust, Dr. Duncan's lectures,
which were "something fearful to remember," on materia
medica at eight o'clock on a winter's morning, and, worse
still, Dr. Munro's lectures on human anatomy, which were
"as dull as he was himself." Yet he always deeply regretted
not having been urged to practise dissection,
because of the invaluable aid it would have been to him
as a naturalist.


By mental instinct, however, Darwin soon found himself
studying marine zoology and other branches of natural
science. This was in a large measure due to his intimacy
with Dr. Grant, who, in a later article on Flustra, made
some allusion to a paper read by Darwin before the Linnean
Society on a small discovery which he had made by
the aid of a "wretched microscope" to the effect that the
so-called ova of Flustra were really larvæ and had the power
of independent action by means of cilia.


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


Then came the final move which, all unknowingly, was
to lead Darwin into the pursuit of a science which up to
that time had only been a hobby and not in any sense the
serious profession of his life. But again how wide the
difference between his change from Edinburgh to Cambridge,
and that of Wallace from a month's association
with a working-class Socialistic community in London to
[pg 017]land surveying under the simplest rural conditions prevalent
amongst the respectable labouring farmers of Bedfordshire—Darwin
to the culture and privileges of a great University
with the object of becoming a clergyman, and Wallace taking
the first road that offered towards earning a living, with no
thought as to the ultimate outcome of this life in the open
and the systematic observation of soils and land formation.


But the inherent tendencies of Darwin's nature drew
him away from theology to the study of geology, entomology
and botany. The ensuing four years at Cambridge
were very happy ones. While fortunate in being able to
follow his various mental and scientific pursuits with the
freedom which a good social and financial position secured
for him, he found himself by a natural seriousness of manner,
balanced by a cheerful temperament and love of sport, the
friend and companion of men many years his seniors and
holding positions of authority in the world of science.
Amongst these the name of Professor Henslow will always
take precedence. "This friendship," says Darwin, "influenced
my whole career more than any other." Henslow's
extensive knowledge of botany, geology, entomology,
chemistry and mineralogy, added to his sincere and attractive
personality, well-balanced mind and excellent judgment,
formed a strong and effective bias in the direction Darwin
was destined to follow.


Apart, however, from the strong personal influence of
Henslow, Sedgwick and others with whom he came much
in contact, two books which he read at this time aroused
his "burning zeal to add the most humble contribution to
the noble structure of Natural Science"; these were Sir
J. Herschel's "Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy,"
and Humboldt's "Personal Narrative." Indeed, so
fascinated was he by the description given of Teneriffe in the
latter that he at once set about a plan whereby he might
[pg 018]spend a holiday, with Henslow, in that locality, a holiday
which was, indeed, to form part of his famous voyage.


By means of his explorations in the neighbourhood of
Cambridge, and one or two visits to North Wales, Darwin's
experimental knowledge of geology and allied sciences
was considerably increased. In his zeal for collecting beetles
he employed a labourer to "scrape the moss off old trees in
winter, and place it in a bag, and likewise to collect the
rubbish at the bottom of the barges in which reeds were
brought from the fens, and thus ... got some very rare
species."


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


This tour was the introduction to a momentous change
in his life. On returning to Shrewsbury he found a letter
awaiting him which contained the offer of a voyage in
H.M.S. Beagle. But owing to several objections raised by
Dr. Darwin, he wrote and declined the offer; and if it had
not been for the immediate intervention of his uncle, Mr.
Josiah Wedgwood (to whose house he went the following
day to begin the shooting season), who took quite a different
view of the proposition, the "Journal of Researches during
the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle," by Charles Darwin, would
never have been written.


At length, however, after much preparation and many
[pg 019]delays, the Beagle sailed from Plymouth on December 27th,
1831, and five years elapsed before Darwin set foot again on
English soil. The period, therefore, in Darwin's life which
we find covered by his term at Edinburgh and Cambridge,
until at the age of 22 he found himself suddenly launched
on an entirely new experience full of adventure and fresh
association, was spent by Wallace in a somewhat similar
manner in so far as his outward objective in life was more
or less distinct from the pursuits which gradually dawned
upon his horizon, though they were followed as a "thing
apart" and not as an ultimate end.


With Wallace's removal into Bedfordshire an entirely
new life opened up before him. His health, never very
good, rapidly improved; both brain and eye were trained
to practical observations which proved eminently valuable.
His descriptions of the people with whom he came in
contact during these years of country life reveal the
quiet toleration of the faults and foibles of others,
not devoid of the keen sense of humour and justice
which characterised his lifelong attitude towards his
fellow-men.


The many interests of his new life, together with the
use of a pocket sextant, prompted him to make various
experiments for himself. The only sources from which he
could obtain helpful information, however, were some
cheap elementary books on mechanics and optics which he
procured from the Society for the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge; these he studied and "puzzled over" for
several years. "Having no friends of my own age," he
wrote, "I occupied myself with various pursuits in which
I had begun to take an interest. Having learnt the use
of the sextant in surveying, and my brother having a book
on Nautical Astronomy, I practised a few of the simpler
observations. Among these were determining the meridian
[pg 020]by equal altitudes of the sun, and also by the pole-star at
its upper or lower culmination; finding the latitude by the
meridian altitude of the sun, or of some of the principal stars;
and making a rude sundial by erecting a gnomon towards
the pole. For these simple calculations I had Hannay and
Dietrichsen's Almanac, a copious publication which gave all
the important data in the Nautical Almanac, besides much
other interesting matter useful for the astronomical amateur
or the ordinary navigator. I also tried to make a telescope
by purchasing a lens of about 2 ft. focus at an optician's
in Swansea, fixing it in a paper tube and using the eye-piece
of a small opera-glass. With it I was able to observe the
moon and Jupiter's satellites, and some of the larger star-clusters;
but, of course, very imperfectly. Yet it served to
increase my interest in astronomy, and to induce me to study
with some care the various methods of construction of the
more important astronomical instruments; and it also led
me throughout my life to be deeply interested in the grand
onward march of astronomical discovery."2


At the same time Wallace became attracted by, and interested
in, the flowers, shrubs and trees growing in that
part of Bedfordshire, and he acquired some elementary knowledge
of zoology. "It was," he writes, "while living at
Barton that I obtained my first information that there was
such a science as geology.... My brother, like most land-surveyors,
was something of a geologist, and he showed me
the fossil oysters of the genus Gryphæa and the Belemnites ... and
several other fossils which were abundant in the
chalk and gravel around Barton.... It was here, too, that
during my solitary rambles I first began to feel the influence
of nature and to wish to know more of the various flowers,
shrubs and trees I daily met with, but of which for the most
part I did not even know the English names. At that time
[pg 021]I hardly realised that there was such a science as systematic
botany, that every flower and every meanest and most insignificant
weed had been accurately described and classified,
and that there was any kind of system or order in the endless
variety of plants and animals which I knew existed. This
wish to know the names of wild plants, to be able to speak
... about them, had arisen from a chance remark I had overheard
about a year before. A lady ... whom we knew at
Hertford, was talking to some friends in the street when
I and my father met them ... [and] I heard the lady say,
'We found quite a rarity the other day—the Monotropa; it
had not been found here before.' This I pondered over, and
wondered what the Monotropa was. All my father could tell
me was that it was a rare plant; and I thought how nice it
must be to know the names of rare plants when you found
them."3


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


It was in 1841, four years later, that he heard of, and at
once procured, a book published at a shilling by the S.P.C.K.
(the title of which he could not recall in after years), to which
he owed his first scientific glimmerings of the vast study of
botany. The next step was to procure, at much self-sacrifice,
Lindley's "Elements of Botany," published at half a guinea,
which to his immense disappointment he found of very little
use, as it did not deal with British plants! His disappointment
was lessened, however, by the loan from a Mr. Hayward
of London's "Encyclopedia of Plants," and it was with
the help of these two books that he made his first classification
[pg 022]of the specimens which he had collected and carefully
kept during the few preceding years.


"It must be remembered," he says in "My Life," "that
my ignorance of plants at this time was extreme. I knew
the wild rose, bramble, hawthorn, buttercup, poppy, daisy
and foxglove, and a very few others equally common....
I knew nothing whatever as to genera and species, nor of
the large number of distinct forms related to each and
grouped into natural orders. My delight, therefore, was
great when I was ... able to identify the charming little
eyebright, the strange-looking cow-wheat and louse-wort,
the handsome mullein and the pretty creeping toad-flax,
and to find that all of them, as well as the lordly foxglove,
formed parts of one great natural order, and that under
all their superficial diversity of form was a similarity of
structure which, when once clearly understood, enabled me
to locate each fresh species with greater ease." This, however,
was not sufficient, and the last step was to form a
herbarium.


"I soon found," he wrote, "that by merely identifying
the plants I found in my walks I lost much time in gathering
the same species several times, and even then not being
always quite sure that I had found the same plant before.
I therefore began to form a herbarium, collecting good
specimens and drying them carefully between drying papers
and a couple of boards weighted with books or stones....
I first named the species as nearly as I could do so, and then
laid them out to be pressed and dried. At such times," he
continues—and I have quoted the passage for the sake of
this revealing confession—"I experienced the joy which
every discovery of a new form of life gives to the lover of
nature, almost equal to those raptures which I afterwards
felt at every capture of new butterflies on the Amazon, or
at the constant stream of new species of birds, beetles
[pg 023]and butterflies in Borneo, the Moluccas, and the Aru
Islands."4


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


"A catalogue published by a great nurseryman in Bristol
... contained a number of tropical orchids, of whose wonderful
variety and beauty I had obtained some idea from the
woodcuts in Loudon's 'Encyclopedia.' The first epiphytal
orchid I ever saw was at a flower show in Swansea ...
which caused in me a thrill of enjoyment which no other
plant in the show produced. My interest in this wonderful
order of plants was further enhanced by reading in
the Gardener's Chronicle an article by Dr. Lindley on one
of the London flower shows, where there was a good display
of orchids, in which ... he added, 'and Dendrobium Devonianum,
too delicate and beautiful for a flower of earth.' This
and other references ... gave them, in my mind, a weird
and mysterious charm ... which, I believe, had its share
in producing that longing for the tropics which a few years
later was satisfied in the equatorial forests of the Amazon."5


For a brief period, when there was a lull in the surveying
business and his prospects of continuing in this
profession looked uncertain, he tried watchmaking, and
would probably—though not by choice—have been apprenticed
to it but for an unexpected circumstance which caused
his master to give up his business. Alfred gladly, when the
occasion offered, returned to his outdoor life, which had
[pg 024]begun to make the strongest appeal to him, stronger, perhaps,
than he was really aware.


Early in 1844 another break occurred, due to the sudden
falling off of land surveying as a profitable business. His
brother could no longer afford to keep him as assistant, finding
it indeed difficult to obtain sufficient employment for
himself. As Wallace knew no other trade or profession,
the only course which occurred to his mind as possible
by which to earn a living was to get a post as school
teacher.


After one or two rather amusing experiences, he eventually
found himself in very congenial surroundings under
the Rev. Abraham Hill, headmaster of the Collegiate School
at Leicester. Here he stayed for a little more than a year,
during which time—in addition to his school work and a
considerable amount of hard reading on subjects to which
he had not hitherto been able to devote himself—he was led
to become greatly interested in phrenology and mesmerism,
and before long found himself something of an expert in
giving mesmeric demonstrations before small audiences.
Phrenology, he believed, proved of much value in determining
his own characteristics, good and bad, and in guiding
him to a wise use of the faculties which made for his
ultimate success; while his introduction to mesmerism had
not a little to do with his becoming interested and finally
convinced of the part played by spiritualistic forces and
agencies in human life.


The most important event, however, during this year
at Leicester was his meeting with H.W. Bates, through
whom he was introduced to the absorbing study of beetles
and butterflies, the link which culminated in their mutual
exploration of the Amazon. It is curious that Wallace
retained no distinct recollection of how or when he met
Bates for the first time, but thought that "he heard
[pg 025]him mentioned as an enthusiastic entomologist and met
him at the Library." Bates was at this time employed
by his father, who was a hosiery manufacturer, and he
could therefore only devote his spare time to collecting
beetles in the surrounding neighbourhood. The friendship
brought new interests into both lives, and though
Wallace was obliged a few months later to leave Leicester
and return to his old work of surveying (owing to the
sudden death of his brother William, whose business affairs
were left in an unsatisfactory condition and needed personal
attention), he no longer found in it the satisfaction he had
previously experienced, and his letters to Bates expressed
the desire to strike out on some new line, one which would
satisfy his craving for a definite pursuit in the direction of
natural science.


Somewhere about the autumn of 1847, Bates paid a visit
to Wallace at Neath, and the plan to go to the Amazon which
had been slowly forming itself at length took shape, due to
the perusal of a little book entitled "A Voyage up the River
Amazon," by W.H. Edwards. Further investigations showed
that this would be particularly advantageous, as the district
had only been explored by the German zoologist, von Spix,
and the botanist von Martins, in 1817-20, and subsequently
by Count de Castelnau.


During this interval we find, in a letter to Bates, the
following allusion to Darwin, which is the first record of
Wallace's high estimate of the man with whom his own
name was to be dramatically associated ten years later.
"I first," he says, "read Darwin's Journal three or four
years ago, and have lately re-read it. As the journal of a
scientific traveller it is second only to Humboldt's Narrative;
as a work of general interest, perhaps superior to it.
He is an ardent admirer and most able supporter of Mr.
Lyell's views. His style of writing I very much admire, so
[pg 026]free from all labour, or egotism, yet so full of interest and
original thought."6


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


Wallace's previous vivid imaginings of what life in the
tropics would mean, so far as the surpassing beauty of nature
was concerned, were not immediately fulfilled. As a starting-point,
however, Para had many advantages. Besides the
pleasant climate, the country for some hundreds of miles
was found to be nearly level at an elevation of about 30
or 40 ft. above the river; the first distinct rise occurring
some 150 miles up the river Tocantins, south-west of
Para; the whole district was intersected by streams, with
cross channels connecting them, access by this means being
comparatively easy to villages and estates lying farther
inland.


Before making an extensive excursion into the interior,
he spent some time on the larger islands at the mouth of
[pg 027]the Amazon, on one of which he immediately noticed the
scarcity of trees, while "the abundance of every kind of
animal life crowded into a small space was here very
striking, compared with the sparse manner in which it is
scattered in the virgin forests. It seems to force us to
the conclusion that the luxuriance of tropical vegetation
is not favourable to the production of animal life. The
plains are always more thickly peopled than the forest;
and a temperate zone, as has been pointed out by Mr.
Darwin, seems better adapted to the support of large land
animals than the tropics."


We have already referred to the fact that at the very
early age of 14 Wallace had imbibed his first ideas of
Socialism, or how the "commonwealth" of a people or
nation was the outcome of cause and effect, largely due to
the form of government, political economy and progressive
commerce best suited to any individual State or country.
The seed took deep root, and during the years spent for
the most part amongst an agricultural people in England
and Wales his interest in these questions had been quickened
by observation and intelligent inquiry. It is no wonder,
therefore, that during the whole of his travels we find
many intimate references to such matters regarding the
locality in which he happened to find himself, but which
can only be noticed in a very casual manner in this section.
For instance, he soon discovered that the climate and soil
round Para conduced to the cultivation of almost every
kind of food, such as cocoa, coffee, sugar, farinha (the
universal bread of the country) from the mandioca plant,
with vegetables and fruits in inexhaustible variety; while
the articles of export included india-rubber, Brazil nuts,
and piassaba (the coarse, stiff fibre of a palm, used for
making brooms for street sweeping), as well as sarsaparilla,
balsam-capivi, and a few other drugs.
[pg 028]
The utter lack of initiative, or even ordinary interest, in
making the most of the opportunities lying at hand, struck
him again and again as he went from place to place and
was entertained hospitably by hosts of various nationalities;
until at times the impression is conveyed that apart from his
initial interest as a naturalist, a longing seized him to arouse
those who were primarily responsible for these conditions out
of the apathy into which they had fallen, and to make them
realise the larger pleasure which life offers to those who
recognise the opportunities at hand, not only for their own
advancement but also for the benefit of those placed under
their control. All of which we find happily illustrated
during his visit to Sarawak, in the Malay Archipelago.


The whole of these four years was crowded with valuable
experiences of one sort and another. Some of the most toilsome
journeys proved only a disappointment, while others
brought success beyond his most sanguine dreams. At the
end of two years it was agreed between himself and Bates
that they should separate, Wallace doing the northern parts
and tributaries of the Amazon, and Bates the main stream,
which, from the fork of the Rio Negro, is called the Upper
Amazon, or the Solimoes. By this arrangement they were
able to cover more ground, besides devoting themselves to
the special goal of research on which each was bent.


In the meantime, Wallace's younger brother, Herbert,
had come out to join him, and for some time their journeys
were made conjointly; but finding that his brother was
not temperamentally fitted to become a naturalist, it was
decided that he should return to England. Accordingly, they
parted at Barra when Wallace started on his long journey up
the Rio Negro, the duration of which was uncertain; and it
was not until many months after the sad event that he heard
the distressing news that Herbert had died of yellow fever on
the eve of his departure from Para for home. Fortunately,
[pg 029]Bates was in Para at the time, and did what he could for
the boy until stricken down himself with the same sickness,
from which, however, his stronger constitution enabled him
to recover.


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


From a communication received from the Royal Geographical
Society it appears that the first complete survey
of this river (a compass traverse supplemented by astronomical
observations) was made (1907-8) by Dr. Hamilton
Rice, starting from the side of Colombia, and tracing the
whole course of the river from a point near the source of its
head-stream. The result showed that the general course of
the lower river was much as represented by Wallace, though
considerable corrections were necessary both in latitude and
longitude. "I am assured by authorities on the Rio Negro
region," writes Dr. Scott Keltie to Mr. W.G. Wallace,
under date May 21, 1915, "that your father's work still
holds good."


In May, 1852, Wallace returned to Para, and sailed
for England the following July. The ship took fire at
sea, and all his treasures (not previously sent to England)
were unhappily lost. Ten days and nights were spent in
an open boat before another vessel picked them up, and in
describing this terrible experience he says: "When the
danger appeared past I began to feel the greatness of my
loss. With what pleasure had I looked upon every rare
and curious insect I had added to my collection! How
many times, when almost overcome by the ague, had
I crawled into the forest and been rewarded by some
[pg 030]unknown and beautiful species! How many places, which
no European foot but my own had trodden, would have
been recalled to my memory by the rare birds and insects
they had furnished to my collection! How many weary
days and weeks had I passed, upheld only by the fond
hope of bringing home many new and beautiful forms
from these wild regions ... which would prove that I
had not wasted the advantage I had enjoyed, and would
give me occupation and amusement for many years to
come! And now ... I had not one specimen to illustrate
the unknown lands I had trod, or to call back the recollection
of the wild scenes I had beheld! But such regrets
were vain ... and I tried to occupy myself with the state
of things which actually existed."7


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


In summing up the most vivid impressions left on his
mind, apart from purely scientific results, after his four
years in South America, he wrote that the feature which
he could never think of without delight was "the wonderful
variety and exquisite beauty of the butterflies and birds ... ever
new and beautiful, strange and even mysterious,"
so that he could "hardly recall them without a thrill of
admiration and wonder." But "the most unexpected
sensation of surprise and delight was my first meeting and
[pg 031]living with man in a state of nature—with absolute uncontaminated
savages!... and the surprise of it was that I
did not expect to be at all so surprised.... These true
wild Indians of the Uaupés ... had nothing that we call
clothes; they had peculiar ornaments, tribal marks, etc.;
they all carried tools or weapons of their own manufacture....
But more than all, their whole aspect and manner
was different—they were all going about their own
work or pleasure, which had nothing to do with white
men or their ways; they walked with the free step of the
independent forest-dweller, and, except the few that were
known to my companion, paid no attention whatever to
us, mere strangers of an alien race! In every detail they
were original and self-sustaining as are the wild animals
of the forest, absolutely independent of civilisation....
I could not have believed that there would have been so
much difference in the aspect of the same people in their
native state and when living under European supervision.
The true denizen of the Amazonian forest, like the forest
itself, is unique and not to be forgotten."


The foregoing "impressions" recall forcibly those expressed
by Darwin in similar terms at the close of his
"Journal": "Delight ... is a weak term to express the
feelings of a naturalist who, for the first time, has wandered
by himself in a Brazilian forest. The elegance of
the grasses, the novelty of the parasitical plants, the
beauty of the flowers, the glossy green of the foliage ...
the general luxuriance of the vegetation, filled me with
admiration. A paradoxical mixture of sound and silence
pervades the shady parts of the wood ... yet within the
recesses ... a universal silence appears to reign ... such
a day as this brings with it a deeper pleasure than he (a
naturalist) can ever hope to experience again."8 And in
[pg 032]another place: "Among the scenes which are deeply impressed
on my mind, none can exceed in sublimity the
primeval forests undefaced by the hand of man; ...
temples filled with the various productions of the God of
Nature; ... no one can stand in these solitudes unmoved,
and not feel that there is more in man than the mere breath
of his body."9


In complete contrast to the forest, the bare, treeless,
and uninhabited plains of Patagonia "frequently crossed
before" Darwin's eyes. Why, he could not understand,
except that, being so "boundless," they left "free scope
for the imagination."


As these travels,10 undertaken at comparatively the same
age, represent the foundation upon which their scientific
work and theories were based during the long years which
followed, a glance at the conditions governing the separate
expeditions—both mental and physical—may be of some
value. The most obvious difference lies, perhaps, in the
fact that Darwin was free from the thought of having to
"pay his way" by the immediate result of his efforts, and
likewise from all care and anxiety regarding domestic concerns;
the latter being provided for him when on board the
Beagle, or arranged by those who accompanied him on his
travels overland and by river. The elimination of these
minor cares tended to leave his mind free and open to
absorb and speculate at comparative leisure upon all the
strange phenomena which presented themselves throughout
the long voyage.


A further point of interest in determining the ultimate
gain or loss lies in the fact that Darwin's private excursions
had to be somewhat subservient to the movements of
[pg 033]the Beagle under the command of Captain Fitz-Roy. This,
in all probability, was beneficial to one of his temperament—unaccustomed
to be greatly restricted by outward circumstances
or conditions, though never flagrantly (or, perhaps,
consciously) going against them. The same applies in a
measure to Wallace, who, on more than one occasion, confessed
his tendency to a feeling of semi-idleness and dislike
to any form of enforced physical exertion; but as every
detail, involving constant forethought and arrangement, as
well as the execution, devolved upon himself, the latent
powers of methodical perseverance, which never failed him,
no matter what difficulties barred his way, were called
forth. Darwin's estimate of the "habit of mind" forced
upon himself during this period may not inaptly be applied
to both men: "Everything about which I thought or read
was made to bear directly on what I had seen, or was likely
to see; and this habit of mind was continued during the
five years of the voyage. I feel sure that it was this training
which enabled me to do whatever I have done in science."


It may be further assumed that Darwin was better
equipped mentally—from a scientific point of view—owing
to his personal intercourse with eminent scientific men
previous to his assuming this responsible position. Wallace,
on the contrary, had practically little beyond book-knowledge
and such experience as he had been able to gain
by solitary wanderings in the localities in which he had,
by circumstances, been forced to reside. His plan of
operations must, therefore, have been largely modified and
adapted as time went on, and as his finances allowed. To
both, therefore, credit is due for the adaptability evinced
under conditions not always congenial or conducive to the
pursuits they had undertaken.


Although the fact is not definitely stated by Wallace, it
may readily be inferred that the idea of making this the
[pg 034]starting-point of a new life was clearly in his mind; while
Darwin simply accepted the opportunity when it came,
and was only brought to a consciousness of its full meaning
and bearing on his future career whilst studying the
geological aspect of Santiago when "the line of white
rock revealed a new and important fact," namely, that
there had been afterwards subsidence round the craters,
which had since been in action and had poured forth
lava. "It then," he says, "first dawned on me that I
might perhaps write a book on the geology of the various
countries visited, and this made me thrill with delight.
That was a memorable hour to me; and how distinctly I
can call to mind the low cliff of lava, beneath which I
rested, with the sun glaring hot, a few strange desert
plants growing near, and with living corals in the tidal
pools at my feet!"11


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


Wallace's words have already been quoted; here are
Darwin's: "Nothing is more certain to create astonishment
than the first sight in his native haunt of a barbarian,
of man in his lowest and most savage state. One
asks: 'Could our progenitors have been men like these—men
whose very signs and expressions are less intelligible
to us than those of the domesticated animals; men
who do not possess the instinct of those animals, nor yet
appear to boast of human reason, or at least of arts consequent
on that reason?' I do not believe it is possible
to describe or paint the difference between a savage and
[pg 035]civilised man. It is the difference between a wild and
tame animal."12


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


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


It was due to his close study of the Insect and Bird
Departments of the British Museum that he decided on
Singapore as a new starting-point for his natural history
collections. As the region was generally healthy, and no
[pg 036]part of it (with the exception of the Island of Java)
had been explored, it offered unlimited attractions for his
special work. But as the journey out would be an expensive
one, he was advised to lay his plans before Sir
Roderick Murchison, then President of the Royal Geographical
Society, and it was through his kindly interest and
personal application to the Government that a passage was
provided in one of the P. and O. boats going to Singapore.
He left early in 1854. Arrived at Singapore, an entirely
new world opened up before him. New peoples and customs
thronged on all hands, a medley of nationalities such
as can only be seen in the East, where, even to-day, and
though forming part of one large community, each section
preserves its native dress, customs and religious habits.
After spending some time at Singapore he moved from
place to place, but finally decided upon making Ternate
his head-quarters, as he discovered a comfortable bungalow,
not too large, and adaptable in every way as a place
in which to collect and prepare his specimens between the
many excursions to other parts of the Archipelago. The
name is now indelibly associated with that particular
visit which ended after a trying journey in an attack of
intermittent fever and general prostration, during which
he first conceived the idea which has made Ternate famous
in the history of natural science.



A.R. WALLACE Singapore, 1862


A.R. WALLACE Singapore, 1862


One or two points in the following letters recall certain
contrasts similar to those already drawn between Darwin's
impression of places and people and those made on the mind
of Wallace by practically the same conditions. A typical
instance is found in their estimate of the life and work of
the missionaries whom they met and from whom they received
the warmest hospitality. Their experience included
both Protestant and Roman Catholic, and from Darwin's
account the former appeared to him to have the more
[pg 037]civilising effect on the people, not only from a religious
but also from the economic and industrial points of view.


In the "Journal" (p. 419) we find a detailed account of
a visit to the missionary settlement at Waimate, New
Zealand. After describing the familiar English appearance
of the whole surroundings, he adds: "All this is
very surprising when it is considered that five years ago
nothing but the fern flourished here. Moreover, native
workmanship, taught by these missionaries, has effected
this change—the lesson of the missionary is the enchanter's
wand. The house had been built, the windows framed, the
fields ploughed, and even the trees grafted, by the New
Zealander. When I looked at the whole scene it was
admirable. It was not that England was brought vividly
before my mind; ... nor was it the triumphant feeling at
seeing what Englishmen could effect; but rather the high
hopes thus inspired for the future progress of this fine
island."


No such feeling was inspired by the conditions surrounding
the Roman Catholic missionaries whom he met
from time to time. In an earlier part of the "Journal" he
records an evening spent with one living in a lonely place
in South America who, "coming from Santiago, had contrived
to surround himself with some few comforts. Being
a man of some little education, he bitterly complained of
the total want of society. With no particular zeal for
religion, no business or pursuit, how completely must this
man's life be wasted."


In complete opposition to these views, passages occur
in the following letters which show that Wallace thought
more highly of the Roman Catholic than of the Protestant
missionaries. In one place, speaking of the former, he
says: "Most are Frenchmen ... well-educated men who
give up their lives for the good of the people they live
[pg 038]among, I think Catholics and Protestants are equally
wrong, but as missionaries I think Catholics are the best,
and I would gladly see none others rather than have, as
in New Zealand, sects of native Dissenters more rancorous
against each other than in England. The unity of the
Catholics is their strength, and an unmarried clergy can
do as missionaries what married men never can undertake."


As a sidelight on these contradictory estimates of the
same work, it should be borne in mind that Darwin had
but recently given up the idea of becoming a clergyman,
and doubtless retained some of the instinctive regard
for sincere Christian Protestantism (whether represented
by the Church of England or by Nonconformists), while
Wallace had long since relinquished all doctrinal ideas on
religion and all belief in the beneficial effect produced by
forms of worship on the individual.


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




It was in 1854 that Wallace came to Sarawak. I was
there then, sent by a private firm, which later became the
Borneo Company, to open up, by mining, manufacture and
trade, the resources of the country, and amongst these enterprises
was coal-mining on the west. Wallace came in search
of new specimens of animal and especially insect life. The
clearing of ancient forests at these mines offered a naturalist
great opportunities, and I gave Wallace an introduction to
our engineer in charge there. His collections of beetles and
butterflies there were phenomenal; but the district was also
the special home of the great ape, the orang-utan, or meias,
as the natives called them, of which he obtained so many
valuable specimens. Many notes must at that time have
passed between us, for I took much interest in his work.
We had put up a temporary hut for him at the mines, and
[pg 039]on my occasional visits there I saw him and his young
assistant, Charles Allen, at work, admired his beautiful
collections, and gave my help in forwarding them.


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


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


The Malay Archipelago, in the unregenerated days when
Wallace roamed the forests, and sailed the Straits in native
boats and canoes, was full of danger to wanderers of the
white race. Anarchy prevailed in many parts; usurping
nobles enslaved the people in their houses; and piratical
fleets scoured the sea, capturing and enslaving yearly
thousands of peaceful traders, women and children. The
writer was himself in 1862 besieged in a Bornean river by
[pg 040]a pirate fleet, which was eventually destroyed by a Sarawak
Government steamer with the following result of the
fight: 190 pirates and 140 captives were killed or drowned,
and 250 of the latter were liberated and sent to their homes;
showing how formidable these pirates were. But Wallace,
absorbed in his scientific pursuits, minded not these dangers,
nor the hardships of any kind which a roving life in untrodden
jungles and feverish swamps brings.


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




The eight years spent by Wallace in this almost unknown
part of the world were times of strenuous mental
and physical exertion, resulting in the gathering together
of an enormous amount of matter for future scientific investigation,
but counterbalanced unfortunately by more or
less continuous ill-health—which at times made the effort
of clear reasoning and close application to scientific pursuits
extremely difficult.


An indication of the unwearying application with
which he went about his task is seen in the fact that
during this period he collected 125,660 specimens of
natural history, travelled about 14,000 miles within the
Archipelago, and made sixty or seventy journeys, "each
involving some preparation and loss of time," so that
"not more than six years were really occupied in collecting."
[pg 041]
A faint idea of this long and solitary sojourn in lonely
places is given in a letter to his old friend Bates, dated
December 24th, 1860, in which he says: "Many thanks for
your long and interesting letter. I have myself suffered
much in the same way as you describe, and I think more
severely. The kind of tædium vitæ you mention I also
occasionally experience here. I impute it to a too monotonous
existence." And again when he begs his friend to
write, as he is "half froze for news."


As already stated, Wallace, at no time during these
wanderings, had any escort or protection, having to rely
entirely upon his own tact and patience, combined with
firmness, in his dealings with the natives. On one occasion
he was taken ill, and had to remain six weeks with none
but native Papuans around him, and he became so attached
to them that when saying good-bye it was with the full intention
of returning amongst them at a later period. In
another place he speaks of sleeping under cover of an
open palm-leaf hut as calmly as under the protection of
the Metropolitan Police!


Up to that time, also, he was the only Englishman who
had actually seen the beautiful "birds of paradise in their
native forests," this success being achieved after "five
voyages to different parts of the district they inhabit, each
occupying in its preparation and execution the larger part
of a year." And then only five species out of a possible
fourteen were procured. His enthusiasm as a naturalist
and collector knew no bounds, butterflies especially calling
into play all his feelings of joy and satisfaction. Describing
his first sight of the Ornithoptera croesus, he says that
the blood rushed to his head and he felt much more like
fainting than he had done when in apprehension of immediate
death; a similar sensation being experienced when
he came across another large bird-winged butterfly, Ornithoptera
poseidon.
[pg 042]"It is one thing," he says, "to see
such beauty in a cabinet, and quite another to feel it
struggling between one's fingers, and to gaze upon its
fresh and living beauty, a bright-green gem shining out
amid the silent gloom of a dark and tangled forest. The
village of Dobbo held that evening at least one contented
man."


These thrills of joy may be considered as some compensation
for such experiences as those contained in his graphic
account of a single journey in a "prau," or native boat.
"My first crew," he wrote, "ran away; two men were
lost for a month on a desert island; we were ten times
aground on coral reefs; we lost four anchors; our sails
were devoured by rats; the small boat was lost astern;
we were thirty-eight days on the voyage home which
should have taken twelve; we were many times short of
food and water; we had no compass-lamp owing to there
not being a drop of oil in Waigiou when we left; and to
crown it all, during the whole of our voyage, occupying
in all seventy-eight days (all in what was supposed to be
the favourable season), we had not one single day of fair
wind."


The scientific discoveries arising out of these eight years
of laborious work and physical hardship were first—with
the exception of the memorable Essay on Natural Selection—included
in his books on the Malay Archipelago, the
Geographical Distribution of Animals, Island Life, and
Australasia, besides a number of papers contributed to
various scientific journals.


A bare catalogue of the places visited and explored
includes Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Celebes, the Moluccas,
Timor, New Guinea, the Aru and Ké Islands. Comparing
this list with that given by Darwin at the close of the
"Journal," we find that though in some respects the
[pg 043]ground covered by the two men was similar, it never
actually overlapped. The countries and islands visited by
the Beagle came in the following order: Cape de Verde
Islands, St. Paul's Rocks, Fernando Noronha, South
America (including the Galapagos Archipelago, the Falkland
Isles, and Tierra del Fuego), Tahiti, New Zealand,
Australia, Tasmania, Keeling Island, Maldive coral atolls,
Mauritius, St. Helena, Ascension. Brazil was revisited for
a short time, and the Beagle touched at the Cape de Verde
Islands and the Azores on the homeward voyage.


The very nature of this voyage did not permit Darwin
to give unlimited time to the study of any particular
spot or locality; but his accurate observation of every
detail, together with his carefully kept journal, afforded
ample scope and foundation for future contemplation. To
Wallace, the outstanding result may be summed up in the
fact that he discovered that the Malay Archipelago is
divided into a western group of islands, which in their
zoological affinities are Asiatic, and an eastern, which
are Australian. The Oriental Borneo and Bali are respectively
divided from the Australian Celebes and Lombok
by a narrow belt of sea known as "Wallace's line," on
the opposite side of which the indigenous mammalia are
as widely divergent as in any two parts of the world.


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


Wallace's homeward journey was not so eventful as the
previous one had been, except for the unsuccessful efforts
to bring back several species of live birds, which, with the
exception of his birds of paradise, died on the way. On
[pg 044]reaching London in the spring of 1862, he again made his
home with his married sister, Mrs. Sims (who was living
in Westbourne Grove). In a large empty room at the top
of the house he found himself surrounded with packing-cases
which he had not seen for five or six years, and
which, together with his recent collections, absorbed his
time and interest for the first few weeks. Later, he settled
down to his literary work, and, with the exception of one
or two visits to the Continent and America, spent the remainder
of his life in England—a life full of activity, the
results of which still permeate scientific research.
[pg 045]









II.—Early Letters


[1854—62]




Of the few letters which have been preserved relating
to this period, a number have already been published
in "My Life," and need not be reprinted here.
But in some cases portions of these letters have been given
because they bring out aspects of Wallace's character which
are not revealed elsewhere. The various omissions which
have been made in other letters refer either to unimportant
personal matters or to technical scientific details. The first
of the letters was written during Wallace's voyage to the
Malay Archipelago.







TO G. SILK


Steamer "Bengal," Red Sea. March 26, [1854].


My dear George,— ... Of all the eventful days of
my life my first in Alexandria was the most striking.
Imagine my feelings when, coming out of the hotel
(whither I had been conveyed in an omnibus) for the
purpose of taking a quiet stroll through the city, I
found myself in the midst of a vast crowd of donkeys
and their drivers, all thoroughly determined to appropriate
my person to their own use and interest, without in the
least consulting my inclinations. In vain with rapid
strides and waving arms I endeavoured to clear a way
and move forward; arms and legs were seized upon, and
even the Christian coat-tails were not sacred from the profane
Mahometans. One would hold together two donkeys
[pg 046]by their tails while I was struggling between them, and
another, forcing together their heads, would thus hope
to compel me to mount upon one or both of them; and one
fellow more impudent than the rest I laid flat upon the
ground, and sending the donkey staggering after him, I
escaped a moment midst hideous yells and most unearthly
cries. I now beckoned to a fellow more sensible-looking
than the rest, and told him that I wished to walk and
would take him for a guide, and hoped now to be at rest;
but vain thought! I was in the hands of the Philistines,
and getting us up against a wall, they formed an impenetrable
phalanx of men and brutes thoroughly determined
that I should only get away from the spot on the legs of
a donkey. Bethinking myself now that donkey-riding was
a national institution, and seeing a fat Yankee (very like
my Paris friend) mounted, being like myself hopeless of
any other means of escape, I seized upon a bridle in hopes
that I should then be left in peace. But this was the signal
for a more furious onset, for, seeing that I would at length
ride, each one was determined that he alone should profit
by the transaction, and a dozen animals were forced suddenly
upon me and a dozen hands tried to lift me upon their respective
beasts. But now my patience was exhausted, so,
keeping firm hold of the bridle I had first taken with one
hand, I hit right and left with the other, and calling upon
my guide to do the same, we succeeded in clearing a little
space around us. Now then behold your friend mounted
upon a jackass in the streets of Alexandria, a boy behind
holding by his tail and whipping him up, Charles (who
had been lost sight of in the crowd) upon another, and my
guide upon a third, and off we go among a crowd of Jews
and Greeks, Turks and Arabs, and veiled women and yelling
donkey-boys to see the city. We saw the bazaars and
the slave market, where I was again nearly pulled to pieces
[pg 047]for "backsheesh" (money), the mosques with their elegant
minarets, and then the Pasha's new palace, the interior of
which is most gorgeous.


We have seen lots of Turkish soldiers walking in comfortable
irregularity; and, after feeling ourselves to be
dreadful guys for two hours, returned to the hotel whence
we were to start for the canal boats. You may think this
account is exaggerated, but it is not; the pertinacity, vigour
and screams of the Alexandrian donkey-drivers no description
can do justice to....—Yours sincerely,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO HIS MOTHER


Singapore, April 30, 1854.


My dear Mother,—We arrived here safe on the 20th of
this month, having had very fine weather all the voyage.
On shore I was obliged to go to a hotel, which was very
expensive, so I tried to get out into the country as soon
as I could, which, however, I did not manage in less than
a week, when I at last got permission to stay with a French
Roman Catholic missionary who lives about eight miles out
of the town and close to the jungle. The greater part of
the inhabitants of Singapore are Chinese, many of whom
are very rich, and all the villages about are almost entirely
of Chinese, who cultivate pepper and gambir. Some of the
English merchants here have splendid country houses. I
dined with one to whom I brought an introduction. His
house was most elegant, and full of magnificent Chinese and
Japanese furniture. We are now at the Mission of Bukit
Tima. The missionary speaks English, Malay and Chinese,
as well as French, and is a very pleasant man. He has
built a very pretty church here, and has about 300 Chinese
converts. Having only been here four days, I cannot tell
[pg 048]much about my collections yet. Insects, however, are
plentiful....


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


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


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


Love to Fanny and Thomas,—I remain your affectionate
son,


ALFRED B. WALLACE.







TO HIS MOTHER


Bukit Tama, Singapore. May 28, 1854.


My dear Mother,—I send you a few lines through G.
Silk as I thought you would like to hear from me. I am
very comfortable here living with a Roman Catholic missionary.... I
send by this mail a small box of insects
for Mr. Stevens—I think a very valuable one—and I hope
it will go safely. I expected a letter from you by the
last mail, but received only two Athenoeums of March 18
and 25....


The forest here is very similar to that of South America.
Palms are very numerous, but they are generally small and
horridly spiny. There are none of the large and majestic
species so abundant on the Amazon. I am so busy with
insects now that I have no time for anything else, I send
[pg 049]now about a thousand beetles to Mr. Stevens, and I have
as many other insects still on hand which will form part
of my next and principal consignment. Singapore is very
rich in beetles, and before I leave I think I shall have a
most beautiful collection.



A.R. WALLACE'S MOTHER


A.R. WALLACE'S MOTHER


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


Adieu, with love to all.—Your affectionate son,


ALFRED E. WALLACE.







TO HIS MOTHER


In the Jungle near Malacca. July, 1854.


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


We came from Singapore in a small schooner with about
fifty Chinese, Hindoos and Portuguese passengers, and were
[pg 050]two days on the voyage, with nothing but rice and curry
to eat, not having made any provision, it being our first
experience of these country vessels. Malacca is an old
Dutch city, but the Portuguese have left the strongest
mark of their possession in the common language of the
place being still theirs. I have now two Portuguese servants,
a cook and a hunter, and find myself thus almost
brought back again to Brazil by the similarity of language,
the people, and the jungle life. In Malacca we
stayed only two days, being anxious to get into the country
as soon as possible. I stayed with a Roman Catholic missionary;
there are several here, each devoted to a particular
part of the population, Portuguese, Chinese and wild Malays
of the jungle. The gentleman we were with is building a
large church, of which he is architect himself, and superintends
the laying of every brick and the cutting of every
piece of timber. Money enough could not be raised here,
so he took a voyage round the world! and in the United
States, California, and India got subscriptions sufficient
to complete it.


It is a curious and not very creditable thing that in the
English colonies of Singapore and Malacca there is not a
single Protestant missionary; while the conversion, education
and physical and moral improvement of the inhabitants
(non-European) is entirely left to these French missionaries,
who without the slightest assistance from our Government
devote their lives to the Christianising and civilising of the
varied populations which we rule over.


Here the birds are abundant and most beautiful, more
so than on the Amazon, and I think I shall soon form a
most beautiful collection. They are, however, almost all
common, and so are of little value except that I hope they
will be better specimens than usually come to England.
My guns are both very good, but I find powder and shot
[pg 051]in Singapore cheaper than in London, so I need not have
troubled myself to take any. So far both I and Charles
have enjoyed excellent health. He can now shoot pretty
well, and is so fond of it that I can hardly get him to do
anything else. He will soon be very useful, if I can cure
him of his incorrigible carelessness. At present I cannot
trust him to do the smallest thing without watching that
he does it properly, so that I might generally as well do
it myself. I shall remain here probably two months, and
then return to Singapore to prepare for a voyage to Cambodia
or somewhere else, so do not be alarmed if you do
not hear from me regularly. Love to all.—Your affectionate
son,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO HIS MOTHER


Singapore. September 30, 1854.


My dear Mother,—I last wrote to you from Malacca in
July. I have now just returned to Singapore after two
months' hard work. At Malacca I had a pretty strong
touch of fever with the old Rio Negro symptoms, but the
Government doctor made me take a great quantity of
quinine every day for a week together and so killed it,
and in less than a fortnight I was quite well and off to
the jungle again. I see now how to treat the fever, and
shall commence at once when the symptoms again appear.
I never took half enough quinine in America to cure me.
Malacca is a pretty place, and I worked very hard. Insects
are not very abundant there, still by perseverance I got a
good number and many rare ones. Of birds, too, I made
a good collection. I went to the celebrated Mount Ophir
and ascended to the top. The walk was terrible—thirty
miles through jungle, a succession of mud holes. My boots
did good service. We lived there a week at the foot of the
[pg 052]mountain, in a little hut built by our men, and I got some
fine new butterflies there and hundreds of other new and
rare insects. We had only rice and a little fish and tea,
but came home quite well. The height of the mountain is
about 4,000 feet.... Elephants and rhinoceroses, as well
as tigers, are abundant there, but we had our usual bad
luck in not seeing any of them.


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


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


Sir James Brooke is here. I have called on him. He
received me most cordially, and offered me every assistance
at Sarawak. I shall go there next, as the missionary does
not go to Cambodia for some months. Besides, I shall have
some pleasant society at Sarawak, and shall get on in Malay,
which is very easy, but I have had no practice—though still
I can ask for most common things. My books and instruments
arrived in beautiful condition. They looked as if
they had been packed up but a day. Not so the unfortunate
eatables....—I remain your affectionate son,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO G. SILK


Singapore. October 15, 1854.


Dear G.,—To-morrow I sail for Sarawak. Sir J. Brooke
has given me a letter to his nephew, Capt. Brooke, to make
me at home till he arrives, which may be a month, perhaps.
I look forward with much interest to see what he has done
[pg 053]and how he governs. I look forward to spending a very
pleasant time at Sarawak....


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


I am much obliged to Latham for quoting me, and hope
to see it soon. That ought to make my name a little known.
I have not your talent at making acquaintances, and find
Singapore very dull. I have not found a single companion.
I long for you to walk about with and observe the queer
things in the streets of Singapore. The Chinamen and their
ways are inexhaustibly amusing. My revolver is too heavy
for daily use. I wish I had had a small one.—Yours sincerely,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO AN UNKNOWN CORRESPONDENT13


Si Munjon Coal Works, Borneo. May, 1855.


One of the principal reasons which induced me to come
here was that it is the country of those most strange and
interesting animals, the orang-utans, or "mias" of the
Dyaks. In the Sarawak district, though scarce twenty
miles distant, they are quite unknown, there being some
boundary line in this short space which, obeying the inexplicable
laws of distribution, they never pass. The
Dyaks distinguish three different kinds, which are known
in Europe by skulls or skeletons only, much confusion still
existing in their synonymy, and the external characters of
the adult animals being almost or quite unknown. I have
already been fortunate enough to shoot two young animals
[pg 054]of two of the species, which were easily distinguishable
from each other, and I hope by staying here some time to
get adult specimens of all the species, and also to obtain
much valuable information as to their habits. The jungle
here is exceedingly monotonous; palms are scarce and
flowers almost wanting, except some species of dwarf gingerwort.
It is high on the trees that flowers are alone to
be found.... Oak trees are rather plentiful, as I have
already found three species with red, brown, and black
acorns. This is confirmatory of Dr. Hooker's statement
that, contrary to the generally received opinion, oaks are
equally characteristic of a tropical as of a temperate climate.
I must make an exception to the scarcity of flowers, however,
tall slender trees occurring not unfrequently, whose
stems are flower-bearing. One is a magnificent object, 12
or 15 ft. of the stem being almost hidden by rich orange-coloured
flowers, which in the gloomy forest have, as I
have before remarked of tropical insects under similar circumstances,
an almost magical effect of brilliancy. Not
less beautiful is another tree similarly clothed with spikes
of pink and white berries.


The only striking features of the animal world are the
hornbills, which are very abundant and take the place of
the toucans of Brazil, though I believe they have no real
affinity with them; and the immense flights of fruit-eating
bats which frequently pass over us. They extend as far
as the eye can reach, and continue passing for hours. By
counting and estimation I calculated that at least 30,000
passed one evening while we could see them, and they continued
on some time after dark. The species is probably
the Pteropus edulis; its expanded wings are near 5 ft.
across, and it flies with great ease and rapidity. Fruit
seems so scarce in these jungles that it is a mystery where
they find enough to supply such vast multitudes.
[pg 055]
Our mode of life here is very simple—rather too much
so, as we have a continual struggle to get enough to eat.
The Sarawak market is to a great extent supplied with
rice, fowls, and sweet potatoes from this river, yet I have
been obliged to send to Sarawak to purchase these very
articles. The reason is that the Dyaks are almost all in
debt to the Malay traders, and will therefore not sell
anything, fearful of not having sufficient to satisfy their
creditors. They have now just got in their rice harvest,
and though it is not a very abundant one there is no
immediate pressure of hunger to induce them to earn anything
by hunting or snaring birds, etc. This also prevents
them from being very industrious in seeking for the "mias,"
though I have offered a high price for full-grown animals.
The old men here relate with pride how many heads they
have taken in their youth, and though they all acknowledge
the goodness of the present Rajah's government, yet they
think that if they could still take a few heads they would
have better harvests. The more I see of uncivilised people,
the better I think of human nature on the whole, and the
essential differences between so-called civilised and savage
man seem to disappear. Here are we, two Europeans surrounded
by a population of Chinese, Malays, and Dyaks.
The Chinese are generally considered, and with some truth,
to be thieves, liars, and careless of human life, and these
Chinese are coolies of the very lowest and least educated
class. The Malays are invariably characterised as treacherous
and bloodthirsty, and the Dyaks have only recently
ceased to think head-taking an absolute necessity. We
are two days' journey from Sarawak, where, though the
Government is European, yet it only exists by the consent
and support of the native population. Now I can safely
say that in any part of Europe, if the same facilities for
crime and disturbance existed, things would not go on so
[pg 056]smoothly as they do here. We sleep with open doors and
go about constantly unarmed; one or two petty robberies
and a little private fighting have taken place among the
Chinese, but the great proportion of them are quiet, honest,
decent sort of men. They did not at first like the strictness
and punctuality with which the English manager kept them
to their work, and two or three ringleaders tried to get up
a strike for short hours and higher wages, but Mr. G.'s
energy and decision soon stopped this by sending off the
ringleaders at once, and summoning all the Dyaks and
Malays in the neighbourhood to his assistance in case of
any resistance being attempted. It was very gratifying to
see how rapidly they came up at his summons, and this
display of power did much good, for since then everything
has gone on smoothly. Preparations are now making for
building a "joss house," a sure sign that the Chinese have
settled to the work, and giving every promise of success in
an undertaking which must have a vast influence on the
progress of commerce and civilisation of Borneo and the
surrounding countries. India, Australia, and every country
with which they have communication must also be incalculably
benefited by an abundant supply of good coal
within two days' steam of Singapore. Let us wish success,
then, to the Si Munjon Coal Works!—A.R.W.







TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS


Sadong River Borneo]. June 25, 1855.


My dear Fanny,— ... I am now obliged to keep fowls
and pigs, or we should get nothing to eat. I have three
pigs now and a China boy to attend to them, who also
assists in skinning "orang-utans," which he and Charles
are doing at this moment. I have also planted some onions
and pumpkins, which were above ground in three days and
[pg 057]are growing vigorously. I have been practising salting pork,
and find I can make excellent pickled pork here, which I
thought was impossible, as everyone I have seen try has
failed. It is because they leave it to servants, who will not
take the necessary trouble. I do it myself. I shall therefore
always keep pigs in the future. I find there will not
be time for another box round the Cape, so must have a
small parcel overland. I should much like my lasts, but
nothing else, unless some canvas shoes are made.


If the young man my mother and Mr. Stevens mentioned
comes, he can bring them. I shall write to Mr. Stevens about
the terms on which I can take him. I am, however, rather
shy about it, having hitherto had no one to suit me. As you
seem to know him, I suppose he comes to see you sometimes.
Let me know what you think of him. Do not tell me merely
that he is "a very nice young man." Of course he is. So
is Charles a very nice boy, but I could not be troubled with
another like him for any consideration whatever. I have
written to Mr. Stevens to let me know his character, as
regards neatness and perseverance in doing anything he is
set about. From you I should like to know whether he is
quiet or boisterous, forward or shy, talkative or silent,
sensible or frivolous, delicate or strong. Ask him whether
he can live on rice and salt fish for a week on an occasion—whether
he can do without wine or beer, and sometimes
without tea, coffee or sugar—whether he can sleep on a
board—whether he likes the hottest weather in England—whether
he is too delicate to skin a stinking animal—whether
he can walk twenty miles a day—whether he can
work, for there is sometimes as hard work in collecting as
in anything. Can he draw (not copy)? Can he speak
French? Does he write a good hand? Can he make anything?
Can he saw a piece of board straight? (Charles
cannot, and every bit of carpenter work I have to do myself.)
[pg 058]Ask him to make you anything—a little card box,
a wooden peg or bottle-stopper, and see if he makes them
neat, straight and square. Charles never does anything
the one or the other. Charles has now been with me more
than a year, and every day some such conversation as this
ensues: "Charles, look at these butterflies that you set out
yesterday." "Yes, sir." "Look at that one—is it set
out evenly?" "No, sir." "Put it right then, and all
the others that want it." In five minutes he brings me
the box to look at. "Have you put them all right?"
"Yes, sir." "There's one with the wings uneven, there's
another with the body on one side, then another with the
pin crooked. Put them all right this time." It most
frequently happens that they have to go back a third time.
Then all is right. If he puts up a bird, the head is on one
side, there is a great lump of cotton on one side of the
neck like a wen, the feet are twisted soles uppermost, or
something else. In everything it is the same, what ought
to be straight is always put crooked. This after twelve
months' constant practice and constant teaching! And not
the slightest sign of improvement. I believe he never will
improve. Day after day I have to look over everything
he does and tell him of the same faults. Another with a
similar incapacity would drive me mad. He never, too, by
any chance, puts anything away after him. When done
with, everything is thrown on the floor. Every other day
an hour is lost looking for knife, scissors, pliers, hammer,
pins, or something he has mislaid. Yet out of doors he
does very well—he collects insects well, and if I could get
a neat, orderly person in the house I would keep him
almost entirely at out-of-door work and at skinning, which
he does also well, but cannot put into shape....—Your
affectionate brother,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.



[pg 059]




TO HIS MOTHER


Sarawak. Christmas Day, 1855.


My dear Mother,—You will see I am spending a second
Christmas Day with the Rajah.... I have lived a month
with the Dyaks and have been a journey about sixty miles
into the interior. I have been very much pleased with the
Dyaks. They are a very kind, simple and hospitable people,
and I do not wonder at the great interest Sir J. Brooke takes
in them. They are more communicative and lively than the
American Indians, and it is therefore more agreeable to live
with them. In moral character they are far superior to
either Malays or Chinese, for though head-taking has been
a custom among them it is only as a trophy of war. In
their own villages crimes are very rare. Ever since Sir J.
has been here, more than twelve years, in a large population
there has been but one case of murder in a Dyak tribe, and
that one was committed by a stranger who had been adopted
into the tribe. One wet day I got a piece of string to show
them how to play "scratch cradle," and was quite astonished
to find that they knew it better than I did and could make
all sorts of new figures I had never seen. They were also
very clever with tricks with string on their fingers, which
seemed to be a favourite amusement. Many of the distant
tribes think the Rajah cannot be a man. They ask all sorts
of curious questions about him, whether he is not as old as
the mountains, whether he cannot bring the dead to life,
and I have no doubt for many years after his death he will
be looked upon as a deity and expected to come back again.
I have now seen a good deal of Sir James, and the more I
see of him the more I admire him. With the highest talents
for government he combines the greatest goodness of heart
and gentleness of manner. At the same time he has such
confidence and determination, that he has put down with the
[pg 060]greatest ease some conspiracies of one or two Malay chiefs
against him. It is a unique case in the history of the world,
for a European gentleman to rule over two conflicting
races of semi-savages with their own consent, without any
means of coercion, and depending solely upon them for
protection and support, and at the same time to introduce
the benefits of civilisation and check all crime and semi-barbarous
practices. Under his government, "running
amuck," so frequent in all other Malay countries, has
never taken place, and with a population of 30,000 Malays,
all of whom carry their "creese" and revenge an insult
by a stab, murders do not occur more than once in five or
six years.


The people are never taxed but with their own consent,
and Sir J.'s private fortune has been spent in the government
and improvement of the country; yet this is the man
who has been accused of injuring other parties for his own
private interests, and of wholesale murder and butchery to
secure his government!...—Your ever affectionate son,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS


Singapore.. February 20, 1856.


My dear Fanny,— ... I have now left Sarawak, where
I began to feel quite at home, and may perhaps never return
to it again; but I shall always look back with pleasure to
my residence there and to my acquaintance with Sir James
Brooke, who is a gentleman and a nobleman in the noblest
sense of both words....


Charles has left me. He has stayed with the Bishop of
Sarawak, who wants teachers and is going to try to educate
him for one. I offered to take him on with me, paying him
a fair price for all the insects, etc., he collected, but he preferred
[pg 061]to stay. I hardly know whether to be glad or sorry
he has left. It saves me a great deal of trouble and annoyance,
and I feel it quite a relief to be without him. On the
other hand, it is a considerable loss for me, as he had just
begun to be valuable in collecting. I must now try and teach
a China boy to collect and pin insects. My collections in
Borneo have been very good, but some of them will, I fear,
be injured by the long voyages of the ships. I have collected
upwards of 25,000 insects, besides birds, shells, quadrupeds,
and plants. The day I arrived here a vessel sailed
for Macassar, and I fear I shall not have another chance
for two months unless I go a roundabout way, and perhaps
not then, so I have hardly made up my mind what to
do,—Your affectionate brother,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW, THOMAS SIMS


Singapore. [Probably about March, 1856.]


Dear Thomas,— ... You and Fanny talk of my
coming back for a trifling sore as if I was within an
omnibus ride of Conduit St. I am now perfectly well,
and only waiting to go eastward. The far east is to
me what the far west is to the Americans. They both
meet in California, where I hope to arrive some day. I
quite enjoy being a few days at Singapore now. The
scene is at once so familiar and strange. The half-naked
Chinese coolies, the neat shopkeepers, the clean, fat, old,
long-tailed merchants, all as busy and full of business as
any Londoners. Then the handsome Klings, who always
ask double what they take, and with whom it is most amusing
to bargain. The crowd of boatmen at the ferry, a dozer
begging and disputing for a farthing fare, the Americans,
the Malays, and the Portuguese make up a scene doubly
interesting to me now that I know something about them
[pg 062]and can talk to them in the general language of the place.
The streets of Singapore on a fine day are as crowded and
busy as Tottenham Court Road, and from the variety of
nations and occupations far more interesting. I am more
convinced than ever that no one can appreciate a new
country in a short visit. After two years in the country
I only now begin to understand Singapore and to marvel
at the life and bustle, the varied occupations, and strange
population, on a spot which so short a time ago was an
uninhabited jungle....—Yours affectionately,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS


Singapore. April 21, 1856.


My dear Fanny,—I believe I wrote to you last mail, and
have now little to say except that I am still a prisoner in
Singapore and unable to get away to my land of promise,
Macassar, with whose celebrated oil you are doubtless
acquainted. I have been spending three weeks with my
old friend the French missionary, going daily into the
jungle, and fasting on Fridays on omelet and vegetables,
a most wholesome custom which I think the Protestants
were wrong to leave off. I have been reading Huc's travels
in China in French, and talking with a French missionary
just arrived from Tonquin. I have thus obtained a great
deal of information about these countries and about the
extent of the Catholic missions in them, which is astonishing.
How is it that they do their work so much more
thoroughly than the Protestant missionaries? In Cochin
China, Tonquin, and China, where all Christian missionaries
are obliged to live in secret and are subject to persecution,
expulsion, and often death, yet every province, even
those farthest in the interior of China, have their regular
[pg 063]establishment of missionaries constantly kept up by fresh
supplies who are taught the languages of the countries they
are going to at Penang or Singapore. In China there are
near a million Catholics, in Tonquin and Cochin China
more than half a million! One secret of their success is
the cheapness of their establishments. A missionary is
allowed about £30 a year, on which he lives, in whatever
country he may be. This has two good effects. A large
number of missionaries can be employed with limited
funds, and the people of the countries in which they
reside, seeing they live in poverty and with none of the
luxuries of life, are convinced they are sincere. Most are
Frenchmen, and those I have seen or heard of are well-educated
men, who give up their lives to the good of the
people they live among. No wonder they make converts,
among the lower orders principally. For it must be a
great comfort to these poor people to have a man among
them to whom they can go in any trouble or distress, whose
sole object is to comfort and advise them, who visits them
in sickness, who relieves them in want, and whom they see
living in daily danger of persecution and death only for
their benefit.


You will think they have converted me, but in point
of doctrine I think Catholics and Protestants are equally
wrong. As missionaries I think Catholics are best, and I
would gladly see none others, rather than have, as in New
Zealand, sects of native Dissenters more rancorous against
each other than in England. The unity of the Catholics
is their strength, and an unmarried clergy can do as missionaries
what married men can never undertake. I have
written on this subject because I have nothing else to write
about. Love to Thomas and Edward.—Believe me, dear
Fanny, your ever affectionate brother,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 064]






TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS


Macassar. December 10, 1856.


My dear Fanny,—I have received yours of September,
and my mother's of October, and as I am now going out
of reach of letters for six months I must send you a few
lines to let you know that I am well and in good spirits,
though rather disappointed with the celebrated Macassar....
For the last fortnight, since I came in from the
country, I have been living here rather luxuriously, getting
good rich cow's milk to my tea and coffee, very good
bread and excellent Dutch butter (3s. a lb.). The bread
here is raised with toddy just as it is fermenting, and it
imparts a peculiar sweet taste to the bread which is very
nice. At last, too, there is some fruit here. The mangoes
have just come in, and they are certainly magnificent. The
flavour is something between a peach and a melon, with
the slightest possible flavour of turpentine, and very juicy.
They say they are unwholesome, and it is a good thing for
me I am going away now. When I come back there will
be not one to be had....—I remain, dear Fanny, your
ever affectionate brother,


A.R. WALLACE.







H.W. BATES TO A.R. WALLACE


Tunantins, Upper Amazon. November 19, 1856.


Dear Wallace,— ... I received about six months ago
a copy of your paper in the Annals on "The Laws which
have Governed the Introduction of New Species." I was
startled at first to see you already ripe for the enunciation
of the theory. You can imagine with what interest I read
and studied it, and I must say that it is perfectly well done.
The idea is like truth itself, so simple and obvious that those
who read and understand it will be struck by its simplicity;
[pg 065]and yet it is perfectly original. The reasoning is close and
clear, and although so brief an essay, it is quite complete,
embraces the whole difficulty, and anticipates and annihilates
all objections.


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


Many details I could supply, in fact a great deal remains
to be done to illustrate and confirm the theory: a new
method of investigating and propounding zoology and botany
inductively is necessitated, and new libraries will have to
be written; in part of this task I hope to be a labourer for
many happy and profitable years. What a noble subject
would be that of a monograph of a group of beings peculiar
to one region but offering different species in each province
of it—tracing the laws which connect together the modifications
of forms and colour with the local circumstances of a
province or station—tracing as far as possible the actual
affiliation of the species.


Two of such groups occur to me at once, in entomology,
in Heliconiidæ and Erotylidæ of South America; the latter
I think more interesting than the former for one reason—the
species are more local, having feebler means of locomotion
than the Heliconiidæ....—Yours very truly,


HENRY WALTER BATES.







TO H.W. BATES


Amboyna. January 4, 1858.


My dear Bates,—My delay of six months in answering
your very interesting and most acceptable letter dated
[pg 066]an ideal absurdity put forth when such a simple hypothesis
will explain all the facts.


I have been much gratified by a letter from Darwin, in
which he says that he agrees with "almost every word" of
my paper. He is now preparing for publication his great
work on species and varieties, for which he has been collecting
information twenty years. He may save me the
trouble of writing the second part of my hypothesis by
proving that there is no difference in nature between the
origin of species and varieties, or he may give me trouble
by arriving at another conclusion, but at all events his facts
will be given for me to work upon. Your collections and
my own will furnish most valuable material to illustrate
and prove the universal applicability of the hypothesis.
The connection between the succession of affinities and the
geographical distribution of a group, worked out species
by species, has never yet been shown as we shall be able
to show it. In this Archipelago there are two distinct
faunas rigidly circumscribed, which differ as much as
those of South America and Africa, and more than those
of Europe and North America: yet there is nothing on
the map or on the face of the islands to mark their limits.
The boundary line often passes between islands closer than
others in the same group. I believe the western part to be
a separated portion of continental Asia, the eastern the
fragmentary prolongation of a former Pacific continent.
In mammalia and birds the distinction is marked by
genera, families, and even orders confined to one region;
in insects by a number of genera and little groups of
peculiar species, the families of insects having generally a
universal distribution.
[pg 067]an ideal absurdity put forth when such a simple hypothesis
will explain all the facts.


I have been much gratified by a letter from Darwin, in
which he says that he agrees with "almost every word" of
my paper. He is now preparing for publication his great
work on species and varieties, for which he has been collecting
information twenty years. He may save me the
trouble of writing the second part of my hypothesis by
proving that there is no difference in nature between the
origin of species and varieties, or he may give me trouble
by arriving at another conclusion, but at all events his facts
will be given for me to work upon. Your collections and
my own will furnish most valuable material to illustrate
and prove the universal applicability of the hypothesis.
The connection between the succession of affinities and the
geographical distribution of a group, worked out species
by species, has never yet been shown as we shall be able
to show it. In this Archipelago there are two distinct
faunas rigidly circumscribed, which differ as much as
those of South America and Africa, and more than those
of Europe and North America: yet there is nothing on
the map or on the face of the islands to mark their limits.
The boundary line often passes between islands closer than
others in the same group. I believe the western part to be
a separated portion of continental Asia, the eastern the
fragmentary prolongation of a former Pacific continent.
In mammalia and birds the distinction is marked by
genera, families, and even orders confined to one region;
in insects by a number of genera and little groups of
peculiar species, the families of insects having generally a
universal distribution.



[pg 068]




Ternate, January 25, 1858.


I have not done much here yet, having been much occupied
in getting a house repaired and put in order. This island is
a volcano with a sloping spur on which the town is situated.
About ten miles to the east is the coast of the large Island
of Gilolo, perhaps the most perfect entomological terra incognita
now to be found. I am not aware that a single
insect has ever been collected there, and cannot find it
given as the locality of any insects in my catalogues or
descriptions. In about a week I go for a month collecting
there, and then return to prepare for a voyage to
New Guinea. I think I shall stay in this place two or
three years, as it is the centre of a most interesting
and almost unknown region. Every house here was
destroyed in 1840 by an earthquake during an eruption of
the volcano....


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


ALFRED R. WALLACE.



[pg 069]




TO F. BATES


Ternate. March 2, 1858.


My dear Mr. Bates,—When I received your very acceptable
letter (a month ago) I had just written one to your
brother, which I thought I could not do better than send
to you to forward to him, as I shall thereby be able to
confine myself solely to the group you are studying and
to other matters touched upon in your letter. I had heard
from Mr. Stevens some time ago that you had begun collecting
exotic Geodephaga, but were confining yourself to
one or two illustrations of each genus. I was sure, however,
that you would soon find this unsatisfactory. Nature
must be studied in detail, and it is the wonderful variety
of the species of a group, their complicated relations and
their endless modification of form, size and colours, which
constitute the pre-eminent charm of the entomologist's
study. It is with the greatest satisfaction, too, I hail
your accession to the very limited number of collectors
and students of exotic insects, and sincerely hope you may
be sufficiently favoured by fortune to enable you to form
an extensive collection and to devote the necessary time to
its study and ultimately to the preparation of a complete
and useful work. Though I cannot but be pleased that you
are able to do so, I am certainly surprised to find that you
indulge in the expensive luxury of from three to seven specimens
of a species. I should have thought that in such a
very extensive group you would have found one or, at most,
a pair quite sufficient. I fancy very few collectors of exotic
insects do more than this, except where they can obtain additional
specimens by gift or by exchange. Your remarks on
my collections are very interesting to me, especially as I have
kept descriptions with many outline figures of my Malacca
and Sarawak Geodephaga, so that with one or two exceptions
[pg 070]I can recognise and perfectly remember every species you
mention....


Now with regard to your request for notes of habits,
etc. I shall be most willing to comply with it to some
extent, first informing you that I look forward to undertaking
on my return to England a "Coleoptera Malayana,"
to contain descriptions of the known species of the
whole Archipelago, with an essay on their geographical distribution,
and an account of the habits of the genera and
species from my own observations. Of course, therefore, I
do not wish any part of my notes to be published, as this
will be a distinctive feature of the work, so little being
known of the habits, stations and modes of collecting
exotic Coleoptera, ...


You appear to consider the state of entomological literature
flourishing and satisfactory: to me it seems quite the
contrary. The number of unfinished works and of others
with false titles is disgraceful to science....


I think ... on the whole we may say that the Archipelago
is very rich, and will bear a comparison even with
the richest part of South America. In the country between
Ega and Peru there is work for fifty collectors for fifty years.
There are hundreds and thousands of Andean valleys every
one of which would bear exploring. Here it is the same
with islands. I could spend twenty years here were life
long enough, but feel I cannot stand it, away from home
and books and collections and comforts, more than four
or five, and then I shall have work to do for the rest of
my life. What would be the use of accumulating materials
which one could not have time to work up? I trust your
brother may give us a grand and complete work on the
Coleoptera of the Amazon Valley, if not of all South
America....—Yours faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.



[pg 071]




TO HIS MOTHER


October 6, 1858.


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


I have received letters from Mr. Darwin and Dr. Hooker,
two of the most eminent naturalists in England, which has
highly gratified me. I sent Mr. Darwin an essay on a subject
on which he is now writing a great work. He showed
it to Dr. Hooker and Sir C. Lyell, who thought so highly
of it that they immediately read it before the Linnean
Society. This assures me the acquaintance and assistance
of these eminent men on my return home.


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


If I had sent the large and handsome shells from Aru,
which are what you expected to see, they would not have
paid expenses, whereas the cigar box of small ones has sold
for £50. You must not think I shall always do so well as
at Aru; perhaps never again, because no other collections
will have the novelty, all the neighbouring countries producing
birds and insects very similar, and many even the
very same. Still, if I have health I fear not to do very
well. I feel little inclined now to go to California; as
soon as I have finished my exploration of this region I
[pg 072]shall be glad to return home as quickly and cheaply as
possible. It will certainly be by way of the Cape or by
second class overland. May I meet you, dear old Mother,
and all my other relatives and friends, in good health.
Perhaps John and his trio will have had the start of me....







TO H.W. BATES


Ceram, November 25, 1859.


Dear Bates,—Allow me to congratulate you on your safe
arrival home with all your treasures; a good fortune which
I trust is this time14 reserved for me. I hope you will write
to me and tell me your projects. Stevens hinted at your
undertaking a "Fauna of the Amazon Valley." It would
be a noble work, but one requiring years of labour, as of
course you would wish to incorporate all existing materials
and would have to spend months in Berlin and Milan and
Paris to study the collections of Spix, Natterer, Oscolati,
Castituan and others, as well as most of the chief private
collections of Europe. I hope you may undertake it and
bring it to a glorious conclusion. I have long been contemplating
such a work for this Archipelago, but am convinced
that the plan must be very limited to be capable of completion....—I
remain, dear Bates, yours very sincerely,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO H.W. BATES


Ternate. December 24, 1860.


Dear Bates,—Many thanks for your long and interesting
letter. I have myself suffered much in the same way as you
describe, and I think more severely. The kind of tædium
vitæ you mention I also occasionally experience here. I
impute it to a too monotonous existence.
[pg 073]
I know not how or to whom to express fully my admiration
of Darwin's book. To him it would seem flattery, to
others self-praise; but I do honestly believe that with however
much patience I had worked up and experimented on
the subject, I could never have approached the completeness
of his book—its vast accumulation of evidence, its
overwhelming argument, and its admirable tone and spirit.
I really feel thankful that it has not been left to me to give
the theory to the public. Mr. Darwin has created a new
science and a new philosophy, and I believe that never has
such a complete illustration of a new branch of human knowledge
been due to the labours and researches of a single man.
Never have such vast masses of widely scattered and hitherto
utterly disconnected facts been combined into a system, and
brought to bear upon the establishment of such a grand and
new and simple philosophy!...—In haste, yours faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW, THOMAS SIMS


Delli, Timor. March 15, 186115


My dear Thomas,—I will now try and write you a few
lines in reply to your last three letters, which I have not
before had time and inclination to do. First, about your
one-eyed and two-eyed theory of art, etc. etc. I do not
altogether agree with you. We do not see all objects wider
with two eyes than with one. A spherical or curved object
we do see so, because our right and left eye each see a portion
of the surface not seen by the other, but for that very
reason the portion seen perfectly with both eyes is less than
with one. Thus [see diagram on next page] we only see from
A to A with both our eyes, the two side portions Ab Ab being
[pg 074]seen with but one eye, and therefore (when we are using both
eyes) being seen obscurely. But if we look at a flat object,
whether square or oblique to the line of vision, we see it of
exactly the same size with two eyes as with one because the
one eye can see no part of it that the other does not see also.
But in painting I believe that this difference of proportion,
where it does exist, is far too small to be given by any artist
and also too small to affect the picture if given.



Figure 1


Again, I entirely deny that by any means the exact effect of a
landscape with objects at various distances from the eye can be given on
a fiat surface; and moreover that the monocular clear outlined view is
quite as true and good on the whole as the binocular hazy outlined view,
and for this reason: we cannot and do not see clearly or look at two
objects at once, if at different distances from us. In a real view our
eyes are directed successively at every object, which we then see
clearly and with distinct outlines, everything else—nearer and
farther—being indistinct; but being able to change the focal angle of
our two eyes and their angle of direction with great rapidity, we are
enabled to glance rapidly at each object in succession and thus obtain a
general and detailed view of the whole. A house, a tree, a spire, the
leaves of a shrub in the foreground, are each seen (while we direct our
eyes to them) with perfect definition and sharpness of outline. Now a
monocular photo gives the clearness of outline and accuracy of
definition, and thus
[pg 075]represents every individual part of a landscape just as we
see it when looking at that part. Now I maintain that this
is right, because no painting can represent an object both
distinct and indistinct. The only question is, Shall a painting
show us objects as we see them when looking at them,
or as we see them when looking at something else near them?
The only approach painters can make to this varying effect
of binocular vision, and what they often do, is to give the
most important and main feature of their painting distinct
as we should see it when looking at it in nature, while all
around has a subdued tone and haziness of outline like that
produced by seeing the real objects when our vision is not
absolutely directed to them. But then if, as in nature, when
you turn your gaze to one of these objects in order to see
it clearly, you cannot do so, this is a defect. Again, I
believe that we actually see in a good photograph better
than in nature, because the best camera lenses are more
perfectly adjusted than our eyes, and give objects at varying
distances with better definition. Thus in a picture we
see at the same time near and distinct objects easily and
clearly, which in reality we cannot do. If we could do
so, everyone must acknowledge that our vision would be
so much the more perfect and our appreciation of the
beauties of nature more intense and complete; and in so
far as a good landscape painting gives us this power it is
better than nature itself; and I think this may account for
that excessive and entrancing beauty of a good landscape
or of a good panorama. You will think these ideas horribly
heterodox, but if we all thought alike there would be
nothing to write about and nothing to learn. I quite agree
with you, however, as to artists using both eyes to paint
and to see their paintings, but I think you quite mistake
the theory of looking through the "catalogue"; it is not
because the picture can be seen better with one eye, but
[pg 076]because its effect can be better seen when all lateral objects
are hidden—the catalogue does this. A double tube would
be better, but that cannot be extemporised so easily. Have
you ever tried a stereograph taken with the camera only the
distance apart of the eyes? That must give nature. When
the angle is greater the views in the stereoscope show us, not
nature, but a perfect reduced model of nature seen nearer
the eye.


It is curious that you should put Turner and the Pre-Raphaelites
as opposed and representing binocular and
monocular painting when Turner himself praises up the
Pre-Raphaelites and calls Holman Hunt the greatest living
painter!!...


Now for Mr. Darwin's book. You quite misunderstand
Mr. D.'s statement in the preface and his sentiments. I
have, of course, been in correspondence with him since I
first sent him my little essay. His conduct has been most
liberal and disinterested. I think anyone who reads the
Linnean Society papers and his book will see it. I do back
him up in his whole round of conclusions and look upon
him as the Newton of Natural History.


You begin by criticising the title. Now, though I consider
the title admirable, I believe it is not Mr. Darwin's
but the Publisher's, as you are no doubt aware that publishers
will have a taking title, and authors must and do
give way to them. Mr. D. gave me a different title before
the book came out. Again, you misquote and misunderstand
Huxley, who is a complete convert. Prof. Asa
Gray and Dr. Hooker, the two first botanists of Europe
and America, are converts. And Lyell, the first geologist
living, who has all his life written against such conclusions
as Darwin arrives at, is a convert and is about to declare
or already has declared his conversion—a noble and almost
unique example of a man yielding to conviction on a subject
[pg 077]which he has taught as a master all his life, and confessing
that he has all his life been wrong.


It is clear that you have not yet sufficiently read the
book to enable you to criticise it. It is a book in which
every page and almost every line has a bearing on the
main argument, and it is very difficult to bear in mind
such a variety of facts, arguments and indications as are
brought forward. It was only on the fifth perusal that I
fully appreciated the whole strength of the work, and as
I had been long before familiar with the same subjects I
cannot but think that persons less familiar with them cannot
have any clear idea of the accumulated argument by
a single perusal.


Your objections, so far as I can see anything definite
in them, are so fully and clearly anticipated and answered
in the book itself that it is perfectly useless my saying anything
about them. It seems to me, however, as clear as
daylight that the principle of Natural Selection must act in
nature. It is almost as necessary a truth as any of mathematics.
Next, the effects produced by this action cannot be
limited. It cannot be shown that there is any limit to them
in nature. Again, the millions of facts in the numerical
relations of organic beings, their geographical distribution,
their relations of affinity, the modification of their parts
and organs, the phenomena of intercrossing, embryology
and morphology—all are in accordance with his theory,
and almost all are necessary results from it; while on
the other theory they are all isolated facts having no connection
with each other and as utterly inexplicable and
confusing as fossils are on the theory that they are special
creations and are not the remains of animals that have
once lived. It is the vast chaos of facts, which are explicable
and fall into beautiful order on the one theory,
which are inexplicable and remain a chaos on the other,
[pg 078]which I think must ultimately force Darwin's views on
any and every reflecting mind. Isolated difficulties and
objections are nothing against this vast cumulative argument.
The human mind cannot go on for ever accumulating
facts which remain unconnected and without any mutual
bearing and bound together by no law. The evidence for the
production of the organic world by the simple laws of inheritance
is exactly of the same nature as that for the production
of the present surface of the earth—hills and valleys,
plains, rocks, strata, volcanoes, and all their fossil remains—by
the slow and natural action of natural causes now in
operation. The mind that will ultimately reject Darwin
must (to be consistent) reject Lyell also. The same arguments
of apparent stability which are thought to disprove
that organic species can change will also disprove any
change in the inorganic world, and you must believe with
your forefathers that each hill and each river, each inland
lake and continent, were created as they stand, with their
various strata and their various fossils—all appearances
and arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. I can
only recommend you to read again Darwin's account of
the horse family and its comparison with pigeons; and if
that does not convince and stagger you, then you are unconvertible.
I do not expect Mr. Darwin's larger work will add anything to
the general strength of his argument.
It will consist chiefly of the details (often numerical) and
experiments and calculations of which he has already given
the summaries and results. It will therefore be more confusing
and less interesting to the general reader. It will
prove to scientific men the accuracy of his details, and
point out the sources of his information, but as not one
in a thousand readers will ever test these details and references
the smaller work will remain for general purposes
the best....
[pg 079]
I see that the Great Exhibition for 1862 seems determined
on. If so it will be a great inducement to me to cut short
the period of my banishment and get home in time to see
it. I assure you I now feel at times very great longings
for the peace and quiet of home—very much weariness of
this troublesome, wearisome, wandering life. I have lost
some of that elasticity and freshness which made the overcoming
of difficulties a pleasure, and the country and people
are now too familiar to me to retain any of the charms of
novelty which gild over so much that is really monotonous
and disagreeable. My health, too, gives way, and I cannot
now put up so well with fatigue and privations as at first.
All these causes will induce me to come home as soon as
possible, and I think I may promise, if no accident happens,
to come back to dear and beautiful England in the summer
of next year. C. Allen will stay a year longer and complete
the work which I shall not be able to do.


I have been pretty comfortable here, having for two
months had the society of Mr. Geach, a Cornish mining
engineer who has been looking for copper here. He is a
very intelligent and pleasant fellow, but has now left.
Another Englishman, Capt. Hart, is a resident here. He
has a little house on the foot of the hills two miles out of
town; I have a cottage (which was Mr. Geach's) a quarter
of a mile farther. He is what you may call a speculative
man: he reads a good deal, knows a little and wants to
know more, and is fond of speculating on the most
abstruse and unattainable points of science and philosophy.
You would be astonished at the number of men among the
captains and traders of these parts who have more than
an average amount of literary and scientific taste; whereas
among the naval and military officers and various Government
officials very few have any such taste, but find their
only amusements in card-playing and dissipation. Some of
[pg 080]the most intelligent and best informed Dutchmen I have
met with are trading captains and merchants.


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


Having now paid you off my literary debts, I trust you
will give me credit again for some long letters on things in
general. Address now to care of Hamilton, Gray and Co.,
Singapore, and with love and remembrances to all friends,
I remain, my dear Thomas, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.— ... Will you, next time you visit my mother,
make me a little plan of her cottage, showing the rooms
and their dimensions, so that I may see if there will be
room enough for me on my return? I shall want a good-sized
room for my collections, and when I can decide exactly
on my return it would be as well to get a little larger house
[pg 081]beforehand if necessary. Please do not forget this.—Yours,
A.R.W.


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


P.S.—You allude in your last letter to a subject I never
touch upon because I know we cannot agree upon it. However,
I will now say a few words, that you may know my
opinions, and if you wish to convert me to your way of
thinking, take more vigorous measures to effect it. You
intimate that the happiness to be enjoyed in a future state
will depend upon, and be a reward for, our belief in certain
doctrines which you believe to constitute the essence of true
religion. You must think, therefore, that belief is voluntary
and also that it is meritorious. But I think that a little consideration
will show you that belief is quite independent of
our will, and our common expressions show it. We say, "I
wish I could believe him innocent, but the evidence is too
clear "; or, "Whatever people may say, I can never believe
he can do such a mean action." Now, suppose in any similar
case the evidence on both sides leads you to a certain belief
or disbelief, and then a reward is offered you for changing
your opinion. Can you really change your opinion and
belief, for the hope of reward or the fear of punishment?
Will you not say, "As the matter stands I can't change
my belief. You must give me proofs that I am wrong or
show that the evidence I have heard is false, and then I
may change my belief "? It may be that you do get more
and do change your belief. But this change is not voluntary
on your part. It depends upon the force of evidence upon
your individual mind, and the evidence remaining the same
and your mental faculties remaining unimpaired—you cannot
believe otherwise any more than you can fly.


Belief, then, is not voluntary. How, then, can it be
[pg 082]meritorious? When a jury try a case, all hear the same
evidence, but nine say "Guilty" and three "Not guilty,"
according to the honest belief of each. Are either of these
more worthy of reward on that account than the others?
Certainly you will say No! But suppose beforehand they
all know or suspect that those who say "Not guilty" will
be punished and the rest rewarded: what is likely to be
the result? Why, perhaps six will say "Guilty" honestly
believing it, and glad they can with a clear conscience escape
punishment; three will say "Not guilty" boldly, and rather
bear the punishment than be false or dishonest; the other
three, fearful of being convinced against their will, will
carefully stop their ears while the witnesses for the defence
are being examined, and delude themselves with the idea
they give an honest verdict because they have heard only
one side of the evidence. If any out of the dozen deserve
punishment, you will surely agree with me it is these.
Belief or disbelief is therefore not meritorious, and when
founded on an unfair balance of evidence is blameable.


Now to apply the principles to my own case. In my early
youth I heard, as ninety-nine-hundredths of the world do,
only the evidence on one side, and became impressed with
a veneration for religion which has left some traces even
to this day. I have since heard and read much on both
sides, and pondered much upon the matter in all its bearings.
I spent, as you know, a year and a half in a clergyman's
family and heard almost every Tuesday the very best,
most earnest and most impressive preacher it has ever been
my fortune to meet with, but it produced no effect whatever
on my mind. I have since wandered among men of many
races and many religions. I have studied man, and nature
in all its aspects, and I have sought after truth. In my
solitude I have pondered much on the incomprehensible
subjects of space, eternity, life and death. I think I have
[pg 083]fairly heard and fairly weighed the evidence on both sides,
and I remain an utter disbeliever in almost all that you consider
the most sacred truths. I will pass over as utterly contemptible
the oft-repeated accusation that sceptics shut out
evidence because they will not be governed by the morality
of Christianity. You I know will not believe that in my
case, and I know its falsehood as a general rule. I only
ask, Do you think I can change the self-formed convictions
of twenty-five years, and could you think such a
change would have anything in it to merit reward from
justice? I am thankful I can see much to admire in all
religions. To the mass of mankind religion of some kind
is a necessity. But whether there be a God and whatever
be His nature; whether we have an immortal soul or not,
or whatever may be our state after death, I can have no
fear of having to suffer for the study of nature and the
search for truth, or believe that those will be better off in
a future state who have lived in the belief of doctrines inculcated
from childhood, and which are to them rather a
matter of blind faith than intelligent conviction.—A.R.W.


This for yourself; show the letter only to my mother.







TO HIS MOTHER


Sourabaya, Java. July 20, 1861.


My dear Mother,—I am, as you will see, now commencing
my retreat westwards, and have left the wild and savage
Moluccas and New Guinea for Java, the Garden of the East,
and probably without any exception the finest island in the
world. My plans are to visit the interior and collect till
November, and then work my way to Singapore so as to
return home and arrive in the spring. Travelling here will
be a much pleasanter business than in any other country I
have visited, as there are good roads, regular posting stages,
[pg 084]and regular inns or lodging-houses all over the interior, and
I shall no more be obliged to carry about with me that miscellaneous
lot of household furniture—bed, blankets, pots,
kettles and frying pan, plates, dishes and wash-basin, coffee-pots
and coffee, tea, sugar and butter, salt, pickles, rice,
bread and wine, pepper and curry powder, and half a hundred
more odds and ends, the constant looking after which,
packing and repacking, calculating and contriving, have been
the standing plague of my life for the last seven years. You
will better understand this when I tell you that I have made
in that time about eighty movements, averaging one a month,
at every one of which all of these articles have had to be rearranged
and repacked by myself according to the length of
the trip, besides a constant personal supervision to prevent
waste or destruction of stores in places where it is impossible
to supply them.


Fanny wrote me last month to know about how I should
like to live on my return. Of course, my dear mother, I
should not think of living anywhere but with you, after
such a long absence, if you feel yourself equal to housekeeping
for us both; and I have always understood that
your cottage would be large enough. The accommodation
I should require is, besides a small bedroom, one large
room, or a small one if there is, besides, a kind of lumber
room where I could keep my cases and do rough and dirty
work. I expect soon from Thomas a sketch-plan of your
cottage, by which I can at once tell if it will do. If not,
I must leave you and Fanny to arrange as you like about
a new residence. I should prefer being a little way out
of town in a quiet neighbourhood and with a garden, but
near an omnibus route, and if necessary I could lodge at
any time for a week in London. This, I think, will be
better and much cheaper than living close to town, and
rents anywhere in the West End are sure now to rise
[pg 085]owing to the approaching Great Exhibition. I must of
course study economy, as the little money I have made will
not be all got in for a year or two after my return....


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


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


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO HIS SISTER, MRS. SIMS


In the Mountains of Java. October 10, 1861.


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


I have been staying here a fortnight 4,000 feet above the
sea in a fine cool climate, but it is unfortunately dreadfully
wet and cloudy. I have just returned from a three days' excursion
to one of the great Java volcanoes 10,000 feet high.
I slept two nights in a house 7,500 feet above the sea. It
was bitterly cold at night, as the hut was merely of plaited
bamboo, like a sieve, so that the wind came in on all sides.
I had flannel jackets and blankets and still was cold, and
my poor men, with nothing but their usual thin cotton
clothes, passed miserable nights lying on a mat on the
ground round the fire which could only warm one side at
a time. The highest peak is an extinct volcano with the
crater nearly filled up, forming merely a saucer on the
[pg 086]top, in which is a good house built by the Government for
the old Dutch naturalists who surveyed and explored the
mountain. There are a lot of strawberries planted there,
which do very well, but there were not many ripe. The
common weeds and plants of the top were very like English
ones, such as buttercups, sow-thistle, plantain, wormwood,
chickweed, charlock, St. John's wort, violets and many
others, all closely allied to our common plants of those
names, but of distinct species. There was also a honey-suckle,
and a tall and very pretty kind of cowslip. None
of these are found in the low tropical lands, and most
of them only on the tops of these high mountains. Mr.
Darwin supposed them to have come there during a glacial
or very cold period, when they could have spread over the
tropics and, as the heat increased, gradually rose up the
mountains. They were, as you may imagine, most interesting
to me, and I am very glad that I have ascended
one lofty mountain in the tropics, though I had miserable
wet weather and had no view, owing to constant clouds
and mist.


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


The lower parts of the mountains of Java, from 3,000 to
6,000 feet, have the most beautiful tropical vegetation I have
ever seen. Abundance of splendid tree ferns, some 50 ft. high,
and some hundreds of varieties of other ferns, beautiful-leaved
plants as begonias, melastomas, and many others,
and more flowers than are generally seen in the tropics.
In fact, this region exhibits all the beauty the tropics can
produce, but still I consider and will always maintain
that our own meadows and woods and mountains are more
beautiful. Our own weeds and wayside flowers are far
[pg 087]prettier and more varied than those of the tropics. It is
only the great leaves and the curious-looking plants, and
the deep gloom of the forests and the mass of tangled
vegetation that astonish and delight Europeans, and it is
certainly grand and interesting and in a certain sense
beautiful, but not the calm, sweet, warm beauty of our
own fields, and there is none of the brightness of our own
flowers; a field of buttercups, a hill of gorse or of heather,
a bank of foxgloves and a hedge of wild roses and purple
vetches surpass in beauty anything I have ever seen in the
tropics. This is a favourite subject with me, but I cannot
go into it now.


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


Give my kind love to mother, to whom I will write next
time.—Your affectionate brother,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







TO G. SILK16


Singapore. January 20, 1862.


My dear George,— ... On the question of marriage we
probably differ much. I believe a good wife to be the greatest
blessing a man can enjoy, and the only road to happiness,
but the qualifications I should look for are probably not such
as would satisfy you. My opinions have changed much on
[pg 088]this point: I now look at intellectual companionship as
quite a secondary matter, and should my good stars ever
send me an affectionate, good-tempered and domestic wife,
I shall care not one iota for accomplishments or even for
education.


I cannot write more now. I do not yet know how long I
shall be here, perhaps a month. Then ho! for England!—In
haste, yours most affectionately,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







[pg 089]






PART II







I.—The Discovery of Natural Selection




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




The social and scientific atmosphere in which Wallace
found himself on his return from his eight years'
exile in the Malay Archipelago was considerably more
genial than that which he had enjoyed during his previous
stay in London following his exploration of the Amazon.
His position as one of the leading scientists of the day was
already recognised, dating from the memorable 1st of July,
1858, when the two Papers, his own and Darwin's, on the
theory of Natural Selection had been read before the Linnean
Society.


During the four years which had elapsed since that date
[pg 090]the storm of criticism had waxed and waned; subsiding for
a time only to burst out afresh from some new quarter where
the theory bade fair to jeopardise some ancient belief in
which scientist or theologian had rested with comparative
satisfaction until so rudely disturbed.


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


In order to follow the story of how the conception of
the theory of Natural Selection grew and eventually took
definite form in Wallace's mind, independently of the same
development in the mind of Darwin, we must go back to a
much earlier period in his life, and as nearly as possible
link up, the scattered remarks which here and there act as
signposts pointing towards the supreme solution which has
made his name famous for all time.


In Part I., Section I., many passages occur which
clearly reveal his awakening to the study of nature. A
chance remark overheard in conversation in the quiet
street of Hertford touched the hidden spring of interest
in a subject which was to become the one great purpose
of his life. Then his enthusiastic yielding to the simple
and natural attraction which flowers and trees have always
exerted upon the sympathetic observer led step by step to
the study of groups and families, until, on his second
sojourn at Neath, and about a year before his journey to
South America with H.W. Bates, we find him deliberately
pondering over the problem which many years later he described
by saying that he "had in fact been bitten by the
passion for species and their description."
[pg 091]
In a letter to Bates dated November 9th, 1847, he concludes
by asking, "Have you read 'Vestiges of the Natural
History of Creation,' or is it out of your line?" and in the
next (dated December 28th), in reply to one from his friend,
he continues, "I have a rather more favourable opinion of
the 'Vestiges' than you appear to have, I do not consider
it a hasty generalisation, but rather an ingenious hypothesis
strongly supported by some striking facts and analogies, but
which remains to be proved by more facts and the additional
light which more research may throw upon the problem....
It furnishes a subject for every observer of nature to attend
to; every fact," he observes, "will make either for or against
it, and it thus serves both as an incitement to the collection
of facts, and an object to which they can be applied when
collected. Many eminent writers support the theory of the
progressive development of animals and plants. There is a
very philosophical work bearing directly on the question—Lawrence's
'Lectures on Man'.... The great object of
these 'Lectures' is to illustrate the different races of mankind,
and the manner in which they probably originated,
and he arrives at the conclusion (as also does Prichard
in his work on the 'Physical History of Man') that the
varieties of the human race have not been produced by
any external causes, but are due to the development of
certain distinctive peculiarities in some individuals which
have thereafter become propagated through an entire race.
Now, I should say that a permanent peculiarity not produced
by external causes is a characteristic of 'species'
and not of mere 'variety,' and thus, if the theory of the
'Vestiges' is accepted, the Negro, the Red Indian, and
the European are distinct species of the genus Homo.


"An animal which differs from another by some decided
and permanent character, however slight, which difference is
undiminished by propagation and unchanged by climate and
[pg 092]external circumstances, is universally held to be a distinct
species; while one which is not regularly transmitted so as
to form a distinct race, but is occasionally reproduced from
the parent stock (like albinoes), is generally, if the difference
is not very considerable, classed as a variety. But I
would class both these as distinct species, and I would only
consider those to be varieties whose differences are produced
by external causes, and which, therefore, are not propagated
as distinct races."


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


It is evident that in Bates Wallace found his first real
friend and companion in matters scientific; for in another
letter he says: "I quite envy you, who have friends near
you attracted to the same pursuits. I know not a single
person in this little town who studies any one branch of
natural history, so that I am quite alone in this respect."
In fact, except for a little friendly help now and then, as
in the case of Mr. Hayward lending him a copy of Loudon's
Encyclopedia of Plants, he had always pondered over
his nature studies without any assistance up to the time
of his meeting Bates at Leicester.
[pg 093]
From the date of the above letter (1847) on to the early
part of 1855—nearly eight years later—no reference is found
either in his Life or correspondence to the one absorbing
idea towards which all his reflective powers were being
directed. Then, during a quiet time at Sarawak, the
accumulation of thought and observation found expression
in an essay entitled "The Law which has regulated
the Introduction of Species," which appeared in the
Annals and Magazine of Natural History in the following
September (1855).


From November, 1854, the year of his arrival in the East,
until January or February, 1856, Sarawak was the centre
from which Wallace made his explorations inland, including
some adventurous excursions on the Sadong River.
During the wet season—or spring—of 1855, while living
in a small house at the foot of the Santubong Mountains
(with one Malay boy who acted as cook and general companion),
he tells us how he occupied his time in looking
over his books and pondering "over the problem which
was rarely absent from [his] thoughts." In addition to
the knowledge he had acquired from reading such books
as those by Swainson and Humboldt, also Lucien Bonaparte's
"Conspectus," and several catalogues of insects
and reptiles in the British Museum "giving a mass of
facts" as to the distribution of animals over the whole
world, and having by his own efforts accumulated a vast
store of information and facts direct from nature while in
South America and since coming out East, he arrived at
the conclusion that this "mass of facts" had never been
properly utilised as an indication of the way in which
species had come into existence. Having no fellow-traveller
to whom he could confide these conclusions, he was almost
driven to put his thoughts and ideas on paper—weighing
each argument with studious care and open-eyed consideration
[pg 094]as to its bearing on the whole theory. As the "result
seemed to be of some importance," it was sent, as already
mentioned, to the Annals and Magazine of Natural History
as one of the leading scientific journals in England.


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


As this earliest contribution by Wallace to the doctrine
of Evolution18 is of peculiar historical value, and has not
been so fully recognised as it undoubtedly deserves, and
is now almost inaccessible, it will be useful to indicate in
his own words the clear line of argument put forth by
him two years before his second essay with which many
readers are more familiar. He begins:




Every naturalist who has directed his attention to the
subject of the geographical distribution of animals and
plants must have been interested in the singular facts
which it presents. Many of these facts are quite different
from what would have been anticipated, and have hitherto
been considered as highly curious but quite inexplicable.
None of the explanations attempted from the time of Linnæus
are now considered at all satisfactory; none of them
have given a cause sufficient to account for the facts
known at the time, or comprehensive enough to include
all the new facts which have since been and are daily
being added. Of late years, however, a great light has
been thrown upon the subject by geological investigations,
which have shown that the present state of the earth, and
the organisms now inhabiting it, are but the last stage of
a long and uninterrupted series of changes which it has
undergone, and consequently, that to endeavour to explain
and account for its present condition without any reference
to those changes (as has frequently been done) must
[pg 095]lead to very imperfect and erroneous conclusions....
The following propositions in Organic Geography and
Geology give the main facts on which the hypothesis [see
p. 96] is founded.


GEOGRAPHY


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


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


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


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


GEOLOGY


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


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


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


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


(9) As generally in geography no species or genus occurs
in two very distant localities without being also found in
intermediate places, so in geology the life of a species or
genus has not been interrupted. In other words, no group
or species has come into existence twice.
[pg 096]
(10) The following law may be deduced from these facts:
Every species has come into existence coincident both in time
and space with a pre-existing closely allied species.


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


If [this] law be true, it follows that the natural series
of affinities will also represent the order in which the
several species came into existence, each one having had
for its immediate antetype a clearly allied species existing
at the time of its origin.... If two or more species
have been independently formed on the plan of a common
antetype, then the series of affinities will be compound,
and can only be represented by a forked or many-branched
line.... Sometimes the series of affinities can be well represented
for a space by a direct progression from species
to species or from group to group, but it is generally found
impossible so to continue. There constantly occur two or
more modifications of an organ or modifications of two
distinct organs, leading us on to two distinct series of
species, which at length differ so much from each other
as to form distinct genera or families. These are the
parallel series or representative groups of naturalists, and
they often occur in different countries, or are found fossil
in different formations.... We thus see how difficult it
is to determine in every case whether a given relation is
an analogy or an affinity, for it is evident that as we go
back along the parallel or divergent series, towards the
common antetype, the analogy which existed between the
two groups becomes an affinity.... Again, if we consider
that we have only the fragments of this vast system, the
stems and main branches being represented by extinct
species of which we have no knowledge, while a vast mass
[pg 097]of limbs and boughs and minute twigs and scattered leaves
is what we have to place in order, and determine the true
position each originally occupied with regard to the others,
the whole difficulty of the true Natural System of classification
becomes apparent to us.


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


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


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




He then proceeds at some length to explain how the
Galapagos must have been at first "peopled ... by the
action of winds and currents," and that the modified
prototypes remaining are the "new species" which have
been "created in each on the plan of the pre-existing
ones." This is followed by a graphic sketch of the general
[pg 098]effect of volcanic and other action as affecting the distribution
of species, and the exact form in which they are
found, even fishes giving "evidence of a similar kind: each
great river [having] its peculiar genera, and in more extensive
genera its groups of closely allied species."


After stating a number of practical examples he continues:




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




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




To discover how the extinct species have from time to
time been replaced by new ones down to the very latest
geological period, is the most difficult, and at the same
time the most interesting, problem in the natural history
of the earth. The present inquiry, which seeks to eliminate
from known facts a law which has determined, to a
certain degree, what species could and did appear at a
given epoch, may, it is hoped, be considered as one step
in the right direction towards a complete solution of it....
Admitted facts seem to show ... a general, but not
a detailed progression.... It is, however, by no means
[pg 099]difficult to show that a real progression in the scale of
organisation is perfectly consistent with all the appearances,
and even with apparent retrogression should such
occur.




Using once more the analogy of a branching tree to
illustrate the natural arrangement of species and their
successive creation, he clearly shows how "apparent retrogression
may be in reality a progress, though an interrupted
one"; as "when some monarch of the forest loses
a limb, it may be replaced by a feeble and sickly substitute."
As an instance he mentions the Mollusca, which
at an early period had reached a high state of development
of forms and species, while in each succeeding age
modified species and genera replaced the former ones
which had become extinct, and "as we approach the
present era but few and small representatives of the
group remain, while the Gasteropods and Bivalves have
acquired an immense preponderance." In the long series of
changes the earth had undergone, the process of peopling
it with organic beings had been continually going on,
and whenever any of the higher groups had become nearly
or quite extinct, the lower forms which better resisted the
modified physical conditions served as the antetype on which
to found new races. In this manner alone, it was believed,
could the representative groups of successive periods, and
the risings and fallings in the scale of organisations, be in
every case explained.


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




We have no reason for believing that the number of
species on the earth at any former period was much less
than at present; at all events the aquatic portion, with
[pg 100]which the geologists have most acquaintance, was probably
often as great or greater. Now we know that there have
been many complete changes of species, new sets of organisms
have many times been introduced in place of old ones
which have become extinct, so that the total amount which
have existed on the earth from the earliest geological period
must have borne about the same proportion to those now
living as the whole human race who have lived and died
upon the earth to the population at the present time....
Records of vast geological periods are entirely buried beneath
the ocean ... beyond our reach. Most of the gaps in the
geological series may thus be filled up, and vast numbers
of unknown and unimaginable animals which might help to
elucidate the affinities of the numerous isolated groups which
are a perpetual puzzle to the zoologist may be buried there,
till future revolutions may raise them in turn above the
water, to afford materials for the study of whatever race of
intelligent beings may then have succeeded us. These considerations
must lead us to the conclusion that our knowledge
of the whole series of the former inhabitants of the
earth is necessarily most imperfect and fragmentary—as
much as our knowledge of the present organic world would
be, were we forced to make our collections and observations
only in spots equally limited in area and in number with
those actually laid open for the collection of fossils....
The hypothesis of Prof. Forbes is essentially one that
assumes to a great extent the completeness of our knowledge
of the whole series of organic beings which have
existed on earth.... The hypothesis put forward in this
paper depends in no degree upon the completeness of our
knowledge of the former condition of the organic world,
but takes what facts we have as fragments of a vast
whole, and deduces from them something of the nature
and proportion of that whole which we can never know
in detail....


Another important series of facts, quite in accordance
with, and even necessary deductions from, the law now
developed, are those of rudimentary organs. That these
really do exist, and in most cases have no special function
[pg 101]in the animal economy, is admitted by the first authorities
in comparative anatomy. The minute limbs hidden beneath
the skin in many of the snake-like lizards, the anal hooks
of the boa constrictor, the complete series of jointed finger-bones
in the paddle of the manatee and the whale, are a few
of the most familiar instances. In botany a similar class
of facts has been long recognised. Abortive stamens, rudimentary
floral envelope and undeveloped carpels are of the
most frequent occurrence. To every thoughtful naturalist
the question must arise, What are these for? What have
they to do with the great laws of creation? Do they not
teach us something of the system of nature? If each
species has been created independently, and without any
necessary relation with pre-existing species, what do these
rudiments, these apparent imperfections, mean? There
must be a cause for them; they must be the necessary
result of some great natural law. Now, if ... the great
law which has regulated the peopling of the earth with
animal and vegetable life is, that every change shall be
gradual; that no new creature shall be formed widely
different from anything before existing; that in this, as
in everything else in nature, there shall be gradation and
harmony—then these rudimentary organs are necessary and
are an essential part of the system of nature. Ere the higher
vertebrates were formed, for instance, many steps were required,
and many organs had to undergo modifications from
the rudimental condition in which only they had as yet
existed.... Many more of these modifications should we
behold, and more complete series of them, had we a view
of all the forms which have ceased to live. The great gaps
that exist ... would be softened down by intermediate
groups, and the whole organic world would be seen to be
an unbroken and harmonious system.




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




It has now been shown, though most briefly and imperfectly,
how the law that "every species has come into
[pg 102]existence coincident both in time and space with a pre-existing
closely allied species," connects together and renders
intelligible a vast number of independent and hitherto
unexplained facts. The natural system of arrangement of
organic beings, their geographical distribution, their geological
sequence, the phenomena of representative and
substituted groups in all their modifications, and the most
singular peculiarities of anatomical structure, are all explained
and illustrated by it, in perfect accordance with
the vast mass of facts which the researches of modern
naturalists have brought together, and, it is believed, not
materially opposed to any of them. It also claims a
superiority over previous hypotheses, on the ground that it
not merely explains but necessitates what exists. Granted
the law, and many of the most important facts in nature
could not have been otherwise, but are almost as necessary
deductions from it as are the elliptic orbits of the planets
from the law of gravitation.




Some time after the appearance of this article, Wallace
was informed by his friend and agent, Mr. Stevens,
that several naturalists had expressed regret that he was
"theorising," when what "was wanted was to collect
more facts." Apart from this the only recognition which
reached him in his remote solitude was a remark in an
approving letter from Darwin (see p. 129).


As Wallace wrote nothing further of importance until
the second essay which more fully disclosed his view of
the origin of species, we will now briefly trace the growth
of the theory of Natural Selection up to 1858, as it came
to Darwin.


It is well known that during Darwin's voyage in the
Beagle he was deeply impressed by discovering extinct
armadillo-like fossil forms in South America, the home of
armadilloes, and by observing the relationship of the plants
and animals of each island in the Galapagos group to those
[pg 103]of the other islands and of South America, the nearest continent.
These facts suggested evolution, and without evolution
appeared to be meaningless.


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


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


Already, in addition to the mass of facts collected, Darwin
was busy with some of the experiments which he described in
a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker (in 1855) as affording the latter
a "good right to sneer, for they are so absurd, even in my
opinion, that I dare not tell you." While a sentence in
another letter (dated 1849) throws a sidelight on all this
preparatory work: "In your letter you wonder what
'ornamental poultry' has to do with barnacles; but do
[pg 104]not flatter yourself that I shall not yet live to finish the
barnacles, and then make a fool of myself on the subject
of species, under which head ornamental poultry are very
interesting."


Somewhere about this time (1842-44), Darwin, referring
to the idea of Natural Selection which arose in his mind after
reading Malthus on "Population" four years earlier, continues:
"But at that time I overlooked one problem of
great importance ... the tendency in organic beings descended
from the same stock to diverge in character as
they become modified ... and I can remember the very
spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy
the solution occurred to me.... The solution, as I believe,
is that the modified offspring of all dominant and increasing
forms tend to become adapted to many and highly
diversified places in the economy of nature."20


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


It was probably about two years later (1846) that he
first confided his completed work—up to that date—to
Sir Joseph Hooker, and later to Sir Charles Lyell; refraining,
however, except in general conversation with
other scientists, from informing anyone of the progress he
was making towards a positive solution of the problem.
His attitude of mind and manner at this period is happily
illustrated by Huxley, who, speaking of his early acquaintance
with Darwin, says: "I remember in the course of my
first interview with Darwin expressing my belief in the
sharpness of the line of demarcation between natural groups
and in the absence of transitional forms, with all the confidence
[pg 105]of youth and imperfect knowledge. I was not
aware, at that time, that he had then been many years
brooding over the Species question; and the humorous
smile which accompanied his gentle answer, that such was
not altogether his view, long haunted and puzzled me."


Little did Charles Darwin dream that, only three years
after this first MS. was written (in 1844), a youthful
naturalist—known only as a surveyor at Neath—was deliberately
pondering over the same issue, and writing to
his only scientific friend on the subject. As, however, the
different methods of thought by which they arrived at the
same conclusion is so aptly related by Wallace himself, we
will leave it for him to tell the story in its appointed place.21


In 1856, the year following the appearance of Wallace's
essay in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, both
Hooker and Lyell urged Darwin to publish the result of his
long and patient research. But he was still reluctant to
do so, not having as yet satisfied himself with regard to
certain conclusions which, he felt, must be stoutly maintained
in face of the enormous amount of criticism which
would arise immediately his theory was launched on the
scientific world. And thus the event was postponed until
the memorable year 1858.


Up to the year 1856 no correspondence had passed between
Wallace and Darwin, so far, at least, as the former could
remember, for he says, in a letter dated Frith Hill, Godalming,
December 3, 1887 (written to Mr. A. Newton): "I
had hardly heard of Darwin before going to the East,
except as connected with the voyage of the Beagle.... I
saw him once for a few minutes in the British Museum
before I sailed. Through Stevens, my agent, I heard that
he wanted curious varieties which he was studying. I
think I wrote about some varieties of ducks I had sent,
[pg 106]and he must have written once to me.... But at that
time I had not the remotest notion that he had already
arrived at a definite theory—still less that it was the
same as occurred to me, suddenly, in Ternate in 1858."
It is clear, therefore, that the essay written at Sarawak
formed the first real link with Darwin, although not fully
recognised at the time. In May, 1857, Darwin wrote to
Wallace: "I am much obliged for your letter ... and
even still more by your paper in the Annals, a year or
more ago. I can plainly see that we have thought much
alike and to a certain extent have come to similar conclusions....
I agree to almost every word of your paper;
and I dare say that you will agree with me that it is
very rare to find oneself agreeing pretty closely with
any theoretical paper." He concludes: "You have my
very sincere and cordial good wishes for success of all
kinds, and may all your theories succeed, except that on
Oceanic Islands, on which subject I will do battle to the
death."


The three years from 1855 to 1858 were for Wallace
crowded with hard work, and perilous voyages by sea
and hardships by land. January, 1858, found him at
Amboyna, where, in all probability, he found a pile of
long-delayed correspondence awaiting him, and among this
a letter from Bates referring to the article which had
appeared in print September, 1855. In reply he says:
"To persons who have not thought much on the subject
I fear my paper on the 'Succession of Species' will not
appear so clear as it does to you. That paper is, of course,
merely the announcement of the theory, not its development.
I have prepared the plan and written portions of a work
embracing the whole subject, and have endeavoured to prove
in detail what I have as yet only indicated.... I have been
much gratified by a letter from Darwin, in which he says
[pg 107]that he agrees with 'almost every word' of my paper. He
is now preparing his great work on 'Species and Varieties,'
for which he has been preparing materials for twenty years.
He may save me the trouble of writing more on my hypothesis,
by proving that there is no difference in nature
between the origin of species and of varieties; or he may
give me trouble by arriving at another conclusion; but,
at all events, his facts will be given for me to work upon.
Your collections and my own will furnish most valuable
material to illustrate and prove the universal application
of the hypothesis. The connection between the succession
of affinities and the geographical distribution of a group,
worked out species by species, has never yet been shown
as we shall be able to show it."


"This letter proves," writes Wallace,22 "that at this
time I had not the least idea of the nature of Darwin's
proposed work nor of the definite conclusions he had
arrived at, nor had I myself any expectations of a complete
solution of the great problem to which my paper was
merely the prelude. Yet less than two months later that
solution flashed upon me, and to a large extent marked out
a different line of work from that which I had up to this
time anticipated.... In other parts of this letter I refer
to the work I hoped to do myself in describing, cataloguing,
and working out the distribution of my insects. I
had in fact been bitten by the passion for species and their
description, and if neither Darwin nor myself had hit upon
'Natural Selection,' I might have spent the best years of
my life in this comparatively profitless work. But the
new ideas swept all this away."


This letter was finished after his arrival at Ternate,
and a few weeks later he was prostrated by a sharp attack
of intermittent fever which obliged him to take a prolonged
[pg 108]rest each day, owing to the exhausting hot and cold fits
which rapidly succeeded one another.


The little bungalow at Ternate had now come to be regarded
as "home" for it was here that he stored all his
treasured collections, besides making it the goal of all his
wanderings in the Archipelago. One can understand, therefore,
that, in spite of the fever, there was a sense of satisfaction
in the feeling that he was surrounded with the
trophies of his arduous labours as a naturalist, and this
passion for species and their descriptions being an ever-present
speculation in his mind, his very surroundings
would unconsciously conduce towards the line of thought
which brought to memory the argument of "positive
checks" set forth by Malthus in his "Principles of Population"
(read twelve years earlier) as applied to savage
and civilised races. "It then," he says, "occurred to me
that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting
in the case of animals also; and as animals usually
breed much more rapidly than does mankind, the destruction
every year from these causes must be enormous in
order to keep down the numbers of each species, since they
evidently do not increase regularly from year to year, as
otherwise the world would have been densely crowded with
those that breed most quickly.... Then it suddenly flashed
upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily improve
the race, because in every generation the inferior would
inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain—that
is, the fittest would survive. Then at once I seemed to see
the whole effect of this, that when changes of land and sea,
or of climate, or of food-supply, or of enemies occurred—and
we know that such changes have always been taking
place—and considering the amount of individual variation
that my experience as a collector had shown me to exist,
then it followed that all the changes necessary for the
[pg 109]adaptation of the species to the changing conditions would
be brought about; and as great changes in the environment
are always slow, there would be ample time for the change
to be effected by the survival of the best fitted in every
generation. In this way every part of an animal's organism
could be modified as required, and in the very process
of this modification the unmodified would die out, and
thus the definite characters and the clear isolation of each
new species would be explained. The more I thought over
it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem
of the origin of species. For the next hour I thought
over the deficiencies in the theories of Lamarck and of the
author of the 'Vestiges,' and I saw that my new theory
supplemented these views and obviated every important
difficulty. I waited anxiously for the termination of my
fit (of fever) so that I might at once make notes for a
paper on the subject. The same evening I did this pretty
fully, and on the two succeeding evenings wrote it out
carefully in order to send it to Darwin by the next post,
which would leave in a day or two."23


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


As, therefore, the correspondence (pp. 127-320) between
Wallace and Darwin during a long series of years conveys
many expressions of their mutual appreciation of each
other's work in connection with the origin of species, it
[pg 110]will avoid a possible repetition of these if we take a long
leap forward and give the notable speeches made by Wallace,
Sir Joseph Hooker, Sir E. Ray Lankester, and others at this
historical ceremony, which have not been published except in
the Proceedings of the Society, now out of print.


The gathering was held on July 1, 1908, at the Institute
of Civil Engineers, Great George Street, to celebrate
the fiftieth anniversary of the joint communication made
by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace to the
Linnean Society, "On the Tendency of Species to form
Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and
Species by Natural Means of Selection." The large
gathering included the President, Dr. Dukinfield H. Scott,
distinguished representatives of many scientific Societies
and Universities, the Danish and Swedish Ministers, and
a representative from the German Embassy. Most of
the members of Dr. Wallace's and Mr. Darwin's family
were also present.24 The President opened with some explanatory
observations, and then invited Wallace to come
forward in order to receive the first Darwin-Wallace Medal.
In presenting it he said:




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


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


To-day, in asking you to accept the first Darwin-Wallace
Medal, we are offering you of your own, for it is
[pg 111]you, equally with your great colleague, who created the
occasion we celebrate.


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


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


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


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


Finally, you must allow me to allude to the generous
interest you have always shown, and continue to show,
[pg 112]in the careers of younger men who are endeavouring to
follow in your steps.


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




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




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


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


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


But, what is often forgotten by the Press and the public
is, that the idea occurred to Darwin in 1838, nearly twenty
years earlier than to myself (in February, 1858); and that
during the whole of that twenty years he had been laboriously
collecting evidence from the vast mass of literature
of biology, of horticulture, and of agriculture; as well as
himself carrying out ingenious experiments and original
observations, the extent of which is indicated by the
range of subjects discussed in his "Origin of Species,"
and especially in that wonderful storehouse of knowledge,
his "Animals and Plants under Domestication," almost
[pg 113]the whole materials for which work had been collected,
and to a large extent systematised, during that twenty
years.


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


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


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


Such being the actual facts of the case, I should have had
no cause for complaint if the respective shares of Darwin and
myself in regard to the elucidation of Nature's method of
organic development had been henceforth estimated as being,
roughly, proportional to the time we had each bestowed upon
it when it was thus first given to the world—that is to say,
as twenty years is to one week. For, he had already made it
his own. If the persuasion of his friends had prevailed with
[pg 114]him, and he had published his theory after ten years'—fifteen
years'—or even eighteen years' elaboration of it—I should
have had no part in it whatever, and he would have been at
once recognised as the sole and undisputed discoverer and
patient investigator of this great law of "Natural Selection"
in all its far-reaching consequences.


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


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


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


First (and most important, as I believe), in early life
both Darwin and myself became ardent beetle-hunters.
Now there is certainly no group of organisms that so impresses
the collector by the almost infinite number of its
specific forms, the endless modifications of structure,
shape, colour, and surface-markings that distinguish them
from each other, and their innumerable adaptations to
[pg 115]diverse environments. These interesting features are exhibited
almost as strikingly in temperate as in tropical
regions, our own comparatively limited island-fauna possessing
more than 3,000 species of this one order of insects.


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


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


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


Then, a little later (and with both of us almost accidentally)
we became travellers, collectors, and observers,
in some of the richest and most interesting portions of the
earth; and we thus had forced upon our attention all the
strange phenomena of local and geographical distribution,
[pg 116]with the numerous problems to which they give rise.
Thenceforward our interest in the great mystery of how
species came into existence was intensified, and—again to
use Darwin's expression—"haunted" us.


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


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


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


Neither did the actual precursors of Darwin in the
statement of the principle—Wells, Matthews and Prichard—possess
any adequate knowledge of the class of facts
above referred to, or sufficient antecedent interest in the
[pg 117]problem itself, which were both needed in order to perceive
the application of the principle to the mode of
development of the varied forms of life.


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


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


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




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




No thesis or subject was vouchsafed to me by the
Council, but, having gratefully accepted the honour, I
was bound to find one for myself. It soon dawned upon
me that the object sought by my selection might have
been that, considering the intimate terms upon which
Mr. Darwin extended to me his friendship, I could from
[pg 118]my memory contribute to the knowledge of some important
events in his career. It having been intimated to
me that this was in a measure true, I have selected as such
an event one germane to this Celebration and also engraven
on my memory, namely, the considerations which determined
Mr. Darwin to assent to the course which Sir Charles Lyell
and myself had suggested to him, that of presenting to the
Society, in one communication, his own and Mr. Wallace's
theories on the effect of variation and the struggle for existence
on the evolution of species.


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


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


After writing to Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Darwin informed
me of Mr. Wallace's letter and its enclosure, in a similar
strain, only more explicitly announcing his resolve to
abandon all claim to priority for his own sketch. I could
not but protest against such a course, no doubt reminding
him that I had read it and that Sir Charles knew its contents
some years before the arrival of Mr. Wallace's letter;
and that our withholding our knowledge of its priority would
be unjustifiable. I further suggested the simultaneous publication
[pg 119]of the two, and offered—should he agree to such a
compromise—to write to Mr. Wallace fully informing him
of the motives of the course adopted.


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


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


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


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


The communications were read, as was the custom in
those days, by the Secretary to the Society. Mr. Darwin
himself, owing to his illness and distress, could not be
present. Sir Charles Lyell and myself said a few words
to emphasise the importance of the subject, but, as recorded
in the "Life and Letters" (Vol. II., p. 126),
[pg 120]although intense interest was excited, no discussion took
place: "the subject was too novel, too ominous, for the
old school to enter the lists before armouring." ...


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


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




Following Sir J. Hooker, the President, referring to Prof.
Haeckel, who was unable to be present, said that he was "the
great apostle of the Darwin-Wallace theory in Germany
... his enthusiastic and gallant advocacy [having] chiefly
contributed to its success in that country.... A man
of world-wide reputation, the leader on the Continent of
the 'Old Guard' of evolutionary biologists, Prof. Haeckel
was one whom the Linnean Society delighted to honour."
Two more German scientists were honoured with the Medal,
namely Prof. August Weismann (who was also absent), and
Prof. Eduard Strasburger, the latter paying a special tribute
to Wallace in saying: "When I was young the investigations
[pg 121]and the thought of Alfred Russel Wallace brought me
a great stimulus. Through his 'Malay Archipelago' a new
world of scientific knowledge was unfolded before me.
On this occasion I feel it my duty to proclaim it with
gratitude." The Medal was then presented to Sir Francis
Galton, who delivered a notable speech in responding.
The last on this occasion to receive the Medal was Sir
E. Ray Lankester, who, in replying to the President's
graceful speech, referred to the happy relationships which
had existed between the contemporary men of science of
his own time, but with special reference to Darwin and
Wallace he said:




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


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


In the special branch of study which Wallace himself
set going—the inquiry into the local variations, races, and
species of insects as evidence of descent with modification,
[pg 122]and of the mechanism by which that modification is brought
about—there is still great work in progress, still an abundant
field to be reaped.... Several able observers and experimenters
have set themselves the task of improving, if
possible, the theoretical structure raised by Darwin and
Wallace.... But I venture to express the opinion that
they have none of them resulted in any serious modification
of the great doctrine submitted to the Linnean Society
on July 1st, 1858, by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel
Wallace. Not only do the main lines of the theory of
Darwin and Wallace remain unchanged, but the more it
is challenged by new suggestions and new hypotheses the
more brilliantly do the novelty, the importance, and the
permanent value of the work by those great men, to-day
commemorated by us, shine forth as the one great epoch-making
effort of human thought on this subject.




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


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


While we owe to Darwin and Wallace a definite theory
of organic development, it must be remembered that Spencer
included this in the general scheme of Evolution which grew
as slowly but surely in his mind—and as independently as
did that of the origin of species in the minds of Darwin
and Wallace. Huxley recalls: "Within the ranks of
biologists, at that time, I met with nobody except Dr.
Grant, of University College, who had a word to say for
Evolution—and his advocacy was not calculated to advance
the cause. Outside these ranks, the only person known to
[pg 123]me whose knowledge and capacity compelled respect, and
who was, at the same time, a thorough-going evolutionist,
was Mr. Herbert Spencer.... Many and prolonged were
the battles we fought on this topic.... I took my stand
upon two grounds: first, that up to that time the evidence
in favour of transmutation was wholly insufficient; and,
secondly, that no suggestions respecting the causes of the
transmutations assumed ... were in any war adequate
to explain the phenomena. Looking back at the state of
knowledge at that time, I really do not see that any other
conclusion was justifiable."25


And Prof. Raphael Meldola, in a lecture on Evolution
wherein he compares the impression left by each of these
great founders of that school upon the current of modern
thought, says: "Through all ... his [Spencer's] writings
the underlying idea of development can be traced with increasing
depth and breadth, expanding in 1850 in his 'Social
Statics' to a foreshadowing of the general doctrine of Evolution.
In 1852 his views on organic evolution had become
so definite that he gave public expression to them in that well-known
and powerful essay on 'The Development Hypothesis.'
... In the 'Principles of Psychology,' the first
edition of which was published in 1855, the evolutionary
principle was dominant. By 1858—the year of the announcement
of Natural Selection by Darwin and Wallace—he
had conceived the great general scheme and had
sketched out the first draft of the prospectus of the Synthetic
Philosophy, the final and amended syllabus [being]
issued in 1860. The work of Darwin and Spencer from
that period, although moving along independent lines,
was directed towards the same end, notwithstanding the
diversity of materials which they made use of and the
differences in their methods of attack; that end was
[pg 124]the establishment of Evolution as a great natural principle
or law."26


In this connection it is especially interesting to note how
near Spencer had come to the conception of Natural Selection
without grasping its full significance. In an article
on a "Theory of Population" (published in the Westminster
Review for April, 1852) he wrote: "And here, indeed,
without further illustration, it will be seen that premature
death, under all its forms and from all its causes, cannot
fail to work in the same direction. For as those prematurely
carried off must, in the average of cases, be those in
whom the power of self-preservation is the least, it unavoidably
follows that those left behind to continue the
race must be those in whom the power of self-preservation
is the greatest—must be the select of their generation.
So that whether the dangers of existence be of the kind
produced by excess of fertility, or of any other kind, it is
clear that by the ceaseless exercise of the faculties needed
to contend with them, and by the death of all men who
fail to contend with them successfully, there is ensured a
constant progress towards a higher degree of skill, intelligence,
self-regulation—a better co-ordinance of actions—a
more complete life."


Up to the period of the publication of the "Origin of
Species" and the first conception of the scheme of the
Synthetic Philosophy there had been no communication
between Darwin and Spencer beyond the presentation by
Spencer of a copy of his Essays to Darwin in 1858, which
was duly acknowledged. But by the time the "Origin
of Species" had been before the public for eight years,
the Darwinian principle of selection had become an integral
part of the Spencerian mechanism of organic evolution.
[pg 125]Indeed the term "survival of the fittest," approved
by both Darwin and Wallace as an alternative for "natural
selection," was, as is well known, introduced by Spencer.


Wallace's relations with Spencer, though somewhat controversial
at times, were nevertheless cordial and sympathetic.
In "My Life" he tells of his first visit, and
the impression left upon his mind by their conversation.
It occurred somewhere about 1862-3, shortly after he and
Bates had read, and been greatly impressed by, Spencer's
"First Principles." "Our thoughts," he says, "were
full of the great unsolved problem of the origin of life—a
problem which Darwin's 'Origin of Species' left in as
much obscurity as ever—and we looked to Spencer as the
one man living who could give us some clue to it. His
wonderful exposition of the fundamental laws and conditions,
actions and interactions of the material universe
seemed to penetrate so deeply into that 'nature of things'
after which the early philosophers searched in vain ...
that we hoped he would throw some light on that great
problem of problems.... He was very pleasant, spoke
appreciatively of what we had both done for the practical
exposition of evolution, and hoped we would continue
to work at the subject. But when we touched upon the
great problem, and whether he had arrived at even one of
the first steps towards its solution, our hopes were dashed
at once. That, he said, was too fundamental a problem to
even think of solving at present. We did not yet know
enough of matter in its essential constitution nor of the
various forces of nature; and all he could say was that
everything pointed to its having been a development out of
matter—a phase of that continuous process of evolution by
which the whole universe had been brought to its present
condition. And so we had to wait and work contentedly
at minor problems. And now, after forty years, though
[pg 126]Spencer and Darwin and Weismann have thrown floods of
light on the phenomena of life, its essential nature and its
origin remain as great a mystery as ever. Whatever light
we do possess is from a source which Spencer and Darwin
neglected or ignored."27


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


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



[pg 127]




II.—The Complete Extant Correspondence
between Wallace and Darwin


[1857—81]




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


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


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




The first eight letters from Darwin to Wallace were
found amongst the latter's papers, carefully preserved
in an envelope on the outside of which he had written
the words reproduced on the next page. Neither Wallace's
part of this correspondence, nor the original MS. of his
essay "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely
from the Original Type," which he sent to Darwin from
Ternate, has been discovered. But these eight letters from
Darwin explain themselves and reveal the inner story of the
independent discovery of the theory of Natural Selection.


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


Some of these letters, in themselves, have little more than
ephemeral interest, and parts of other letters could have been
[pg 129]eliminated, from the point of view of lightening this volume
and of economising the reader's attention. But I decided,
with the fullest approval of the Wallace and Darwin families,
that the letters of these illustrious correspondents should be
here presented as a whole, without mutilation.



Fascimile


FACSIMILE OF INSCRIPTION BY WALLACE ON THE ENVELOPE
IN WHICH HE KEPT THE FIRST EIGHT LETTERS HE RECEIVED
FROM DARWIN.


Many of the notes of explanation to the Wallace letters
have been gathered from his own writings, and are mainly
in his own words, and in such cases the reader has the advantage
of perusing letters annotated by their author, while most
of the notes to the Darwin letters are by Sir F. Darwin.





LETTER I


C. DARWIN to A.R. WALLACE


Down, Bromley, Kent, May 1, 1857.


My dear Sir,—I am much obliged for your letter of
Oct. 10th from Celebes, received a few days ago: in a
laborious undertaking, sympathy is a valuable and real
encouragement. By your letter, and even still more by
your paper in the Annals,28 a year or more ago, I can
plainly see that we have thought much alike and to a
certain extent have come to similar conclusions. In regard
to the paper in the Annals, I agree to the truth of almost
every word of your paper; and I daresay that you will agree
with me that it is very rare to find oneself agreeing pretty
closely with any theoretical paper; for it is lamentable how
each man draws his own different conclusions from the very
same fact. This summer will make the twentieth year (!)
since I opened my first note-book on the question how
and in what way do species and varieties differ from each
other. I am now preparing my work for publication, but
I find the subject so very large, that though I have written
[pg 130]many chapters, I do not suppose I shall go to press for
two years.


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


I have acted already in accordance with your advice of
keeping domestic varieties, and those appearing in a state
of nature, distinct; but I have sometimes doubted of the
wisdom of this, and therefore I am glad to be backed by
your opinion. I must confess, however, I rather doubt the
truth of the now very prevalent doctrine of all our domestic
animals having descended from several wild stocks; though
I do not doubt that it is so in some cases. I think there is
rather better evidence on the sterility of hybrid animals than
you seem to admit: and in regard to plants, the collection
of carefully recorded facts by Kölreuter and Gaertner (and
Herbert) is enormous. I most entirely agree with you on
the little effect of "climatic conditions" which one sees
referred to ad nauseam in all books: I suppose some very
little effect must be attributed to such influences, but I
fully believe that they are very slight. It is really impossible
to explain my views in the compass of a letter as
to causes and means of variation in a state of nature; but
I have slowly adopted a distinct and tangible idea—whether
true or false others must judge; for the firmest conviction
of the truth of a doctrine by its author seems, alas, not to
be the slightest guarantee of truth.


I have been rather disappointed at my results in the
poultry line; but if you should, after receiving this, stumble
on any curious domestic breed, I should be very glad to have
it; but I can plainly see that the result will not be at all
worth the trouble which I have taken. The case is different
with the domestic pigeons; from its study I have learned
[pg 131]much. The Rajah has sent me some of his pigeons and
fowls and cats' skins from the interior of Borneo and from
Singapore. Can you tell me positively that black jaguars
or leopards are believed generally or always to pair with
black? I do not think colour of offspring good evidence.
Is the case of parrots fed on fat of fish turning colour mentioned
in your Travels? I remember a case of parrots with
(I think) poison from some toad put into hollow whence
primaries had been removed.


One of the subjects on which I have been experimenting,
and which cost me much trouble, is the means of distribution
of all organic beings found on oceanic islands;
and any facts on this subject would be most gratefully
received.


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


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


CH. DARWIN.







LETTER II


C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE


Down, Bromley, Kent. December 22, 1867.


My dear Sir,—I thank you for your letter of Sept.
27th. I am extremely glad to hear that you are attending
to distribution in accordance with theoretical ideas. I am
a firm believer that without speculation there is no good
and original observation. Few travellers have attended to
such points as you are now at work on; and indeed the
whole subject of distribution of animals is dreadfully behind
that of plants. You say that you have been somewhat
[pg 132]surprised at no notice having been taken of your paper in the
Annals. I cannot say that I am; for so very few naturalists
care for anything beyond the mere description of species.
But you must not suppose that your paper has not been
attended to: two very good men, Sir C. Lyell, and Mr.
E. Blyth at Calcutta, specially called my attention to it.
Though agreeing with you on your conclusions in the
paper, I believe I go much further than you; but it is too
long a subject to enter on my speculative notions. I have
not yet seen your paper on distribution of animals in the
Aru Islands: I shall read it with the utmost interest; for
I think that the most interesting quarter of the whole globe
in respect to distribution; and I have long been very imperfectly
trying to collect data from the Malay Archipelago.
I shall be quite prepared to subscribe to your doctrine of
subsidence: indeed from the quite independent evidence of
the coral reefs I coloured my original map in my Coral
volumes colours [sic] of the Aru Islands as one of subsidence,
but got frightened and left it uncoloured. But I can see
that you are inclined to go much further than I am in
regard to the former connection of oceanic islands with
continents. Ever since poor E. Forbes propounded this
doctrine, it has been eagerly followed; and Hooker elaborately
discusses the former connection of all the Antarctic
islands and New Zealand and South America. About a
year ago I discussed the subject much with Lyell and
Hooker (for I shall have to treat of it) and wrote out my
arguments in opposition; but you will be glad to hear that
neither Lyell nor Hooker thought much of my arguments;
nevertheless, for once in my life I dare withstand the almost
preternatural sagacity of Lyell. You ask about land-shells
on islands far distant from continents: Madeira has a few
identical with those of Europe, and here the evidence is
really good, as some of them are sub-fossil. In the Pacific
[pg 133]islands there are cases of identity, which I cannot at
present persuade myself to account for by introduction
through man's agency; although Dr. Aug. Gould has conclusively
shown that many land-shells have thus been distributed
over the Pacific by man's agency. These cases of
introduction are most plaguing. Have you not found it so
in the Malay Archipelago? It has seemed to me, in the
lists of mammals of Timor and other islands, that several
in all probability have been naturalised.


Since writing before, I have experimented a little on
some land-molluscs, and have found sea-water not quite so
deadly as I anticipated. You ask whether I shall discuss
Man: I think I shall avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded
with prejudices, though I fully admit that it is
the highest and most interesting problem for the naturalist.
My work, on which I have now been at work more or less
for twenty years, will not fix or settle anything; but I hope
it will aid by giving a large collection of facts with one
definite end. I get on very slowly, partly from ill-health,
partly from being a very slow worker. I have got about
half written; but I do not suppose I shall publish under
a couple of years. I have now been three whole months on
one chapter on hybridism!


I am astonished to see that you expect to remain out
three or four years more: what a wonderful deal you will
have seen; and what an interesting area, the grand Malay
Archipelago and the richest parts of South America! I
infinitely admire and honour your zeal and courage in the
good cause of natural science; and you have my very sincere
and cordial good wishes for success of all kinds; and may all
your theories succeed, except that on oceanic islands, on
which subject I will do battle to the death.—Pray believe
me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely,


C. DARWIN.



[pg 134]




LETTER III


C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE


Down, Bromley, Kent. January 25, 1859.


My dear Sir,—I was extremely much pleased at receiving
three days ago your letter to me and that to Dr. Hooker.
Permit me to say how heartily I admire the spirit in which
they are written. Though I had absolutely nothing whatever
to do in leading Lyell and Hooker to what they thought
a fair course of action, yet I naturally could not but feel
anxious to hear what your impression would be. I owe
indirectly much to you and them; for I almost think that
Lyell would have proved right and I should never have
completed my larger work, for I have found my abstract29
hard enough with my poor health; but now, thank God, I
am in my last chapter but one. My abstract will make a
small volume of 400 or 500 pages. Whenever published, I
will of course send you a copy, and then you will see
what I mean about the part which I believe selection
has played with domestic productions. It is a very different
part, as you suppose, from that played by "natural
selection."


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


I am glad to hear that you have been attending to
birds' nests; I have done so, though almost exclusively
under one point of view, viz. to show that instincts
vary, so that selection could work on and improve them.
[pg 135]Few other instincts, so to speak, can be preserved in a
museum.


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


I am delighted to hear that you have collected bees'
combs; when next in London I will inquire of F. Smith
and Mr. Saunders. This is an especial hobby of mine, and
I think I can throw light on the subject. If you can collect
duplicates at no very great expense, I should be glad
of specimens for myself, with some bees of each kind.
Young growing and irregular combs, and those which
have not had pupæ, are most valuable for measurements
and examination; their edges should be well protected
against abrasion.


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


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


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


C. DARWIN.



[pg 136]




LETTER IV


C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE


Down, Bromley, Kent. April 6, 1859.


My dear Mr. Wallace,—I this morning received your
pleasant and friendly note of Nov. 30th. The first part of
my MS.30 is in Murray's hands, to see if he likes to publish
it. There is no Preface, but a short Introduction, which
must be read by everyone who reads my book. The second
paragraph in the Introduction31 I have had copied verbatim
from my foul copy, and you will, I hope, think that I have
fairly noticed your papers in the Linnean Transactions.32 You
must remember that I am now publishing only an Abstract,
and I give no references. I shall of course allude to your
paper on Distribution;33 and I have added that I know from
correspondence that your explanation of your law is the same
as that which I offer. You are right, that I came to the conclusion
that Selection was the principle of change from study
of domesticated productions; and then reading Malthus I
saw at once how to apply this principle. Geographical distribution
and geographical relations of extinct to recent
inhabitants of South America first led me to the subject.
Especially the case of the Galapagos Islands.


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


I forget whether I told you that Hooker, who is our
[pg 137]best British botanist, and perhaps the best in the world, is
a full convert, and is now going immediately to publish his
confession of faith; and I expect daily to see the proof-sheets.
Huxley is changed and believes in mutation of species:
whether a convert to us, I do not quite know. We shall
live to see all the younger men converts. My neighbour and
excellent naturalist, J. Lubbock, is an enthusiastic convert.
I see by Natural History notices that you are doing great
work in the Archipelago; and most heartily do I sympathise
with you. For God's sake take care of your health. There
have been few such noble labourers in the cause of natural
science as you are. Farewell, with every good wish.—Yours
sincerely,


C. DARWIN.


P.S.—You cannot tell how I admire your spirit, in the
manner in which you have taken all that was done about
publishing our papers. I had actually written a letter to
you, stating that I would not publish anything before you
had published. I had not sent that letter to the post when
I received one from Lyell and Hooker, urging me to send
some MS. to them, and allow them to act as they thought
fair and honourably to both of us. I did so.







LETTER V


C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE


Down, Bromley, Kent. August 9, 1859.


My dear Mr. Wallace,—I received your letter and memoir34
on the 7th, and will forward it to-morrow to the Linnean
Society. But you will be aware that there is no meeting
till beginning of November. Your paper seems to me admirable
in matter, style and reasoning; and I thank you for
[pg 138]allowing me to read it. Had I read it some months ago I
should have profited by it for my forthcoming volume. But
my two chapters on this subject are in type; and though not
yet corrected, I am so wearied out and weak in health that
I am fully resolved not to add one word, and merely improve
style. So you will see that my views are nearly the same with
yours, and you may rely on it that not one word shall be
altered owing to my having read your ideas. Are you aware
that Mr. W. Earl published several years ago the view of
distribution of animals in the Malay Archipelago in relation
to the depth of the sea between the islands? I was
much struck with this, and have been in habit of noting all
facts on distribution in the Archipelago and elsewhere in
this relation. I have been led to conclude that there has
been a good deal of naturalisation in the different Malay
islands, and which I have thought to certain extent would
account for anomalies. Timor has been my greatest puzzle.
What do you say to the peculiar Felis there? I wish that
you had visited Timor: it has been asserted that a fossil
mastodon or elephant's tooth (I forget which) had been
found there, which would be a grand fact. I was aware that
Celebes was very peculiar; but the relation to Africa is quite
new to me and marvellous, and almost passes belief. It is as
anomalous as the relation of plants in South-West Australia
to the Cape of Good Hope.


I differ wholly from you on colonisation of oceanic islands,
but you will have everyone else on your side. I quite agree
with respect to all islands not situated far in ocean. I quite
agree on little occasional internavigation between lands when
once pretty well stocked with inhabitants, but think this does
not apply to rising and ill-stocked islands.


Are you aware that annually birds are blown to Madeira,
to Azores (and to Bermuda from America). I wish I had
given fuller abstract of my reasons for not believing in
[pg 139]Forbes's great continental extensions; but it is too late, for
I will alter nothing. I am worn out, and must have rest.


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


Hooker is publishing a grand Introduction to the Flora
of Australia, and goes the whole length. I have seen proofs
of about half.—With every good wish, believe me yours very
sincerely,


C. DARWIN.


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







LETTER VI


C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE


Ilkley. November 13, 1859.


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


I have heard from Mr. Sclater that your paper on the
[pg 140]Malay Archipelago has been read at the Linnean Society,
and that he was extremely much interested by it.


I have not seen one naturalist for six or nine months
owing to the state of my health, and therefore I really have
no news to tell you. I am writing this at Ilkley Wells, where
I have been with my family for the last six weeks, and shall
stay for some few weeks longer. As yet I have profited very
little. God knows when I shall have strength for my bigger
book.


I sincerely hope that you keep your health: I suppose
that you will be thinking of returning soon with your magnificent
collection and still grander mental materials. You
will be puzzled how to publish. The Royal Society Fund will
be worth your consideration.—With every good wish, pray
believe me yours very sincerely,


CHARLES DARWIN.


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







LETTER VII


C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE


Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 7, 1860.


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


I fully admit the probability of "protective adaptation"
having come into play with female butterflies as
well as with female birds. I have a good many facts which
[pg 141]make me believe in sexual selection as applied to man, but
whether I shall convince anyone else is very doubtful.—Dear
Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







LETTER VIII


C. DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE


Down, Bromley, Kent. May 18, 1860.


My dear Mr. Wallace,—I received this morning your
letter from Amboyna dated Feb. 16th, containing some
remarks and your too high approbation of my book. Your
letter has pleased me very much, and I most completely
agree with you on the parts which are strongest and which
are weakest. The imperfection of the geological record is,
as you say, the weakest of all; but yet I am pleased to find
that there are almost more geological converts than of pursuers
of other branches of natural science. I may mention
Lyell, Ramsay, Jukes, Rogers, Keyerling, all good men and
true. Pictet of Geneva is not a convert, but is evidently
staggered (as I think is Bronn of Heidelberg), and he has
written a perfectly fair review in the Bib. Universelle of
Geneva. Old Bronn has translated my book, well done
also into German, and his well-known name will give it
circulation. I think geologists are more converted than
simple naturalists because more accustomed to reasoning.


Before telling you about the progress of opinion on the
subject, you must let me say how I admire the generous
manner in which you speak of my book: most persons
would in your position have felt bitter envy and jealousy.
How nobly free you seem to be of this common failing of
mankind. But you speak far too modestly of yourself; you
would, if you had had my leisure, have done the work just
as well, perhaps better, than I have done it. Talking of
envy, you never read anything more envious and spiteful
[pg 142](with numerous misrepresentations) than Owen is in the
Edinburgh Review. I must give one instance; he throws
doubts and sneers at my saying that the ovigerous frena of
cirripedes have been converted into branchiæ, because I have
not found them to be branchiæ; whereas he himself admits,
before I wrote on cirripedes, without the least hesitation,
that their organs are branchiæ. The attacks have been
heavy and incessant of late. Sedgwick and Prof. Clarke
attacked me savagely at the Cambridge Philosophical
Society, but Henslow defended me well, though not a convert.
Phillips has since attacked me in a lecture at Cambridge;
Sir W. Jardine in the Edinburgh New Philosophical
Journal, Wollaston in the Annals of Nat. History,
A. Murray before the Royal Soc. of Edinburgh, Haughton
at the Geological Society of Dublin, Dawson in the Canadian
Nat. Magazine, and many others. But I am getting case-hardened,
and all these attacks will make me only more
determinedly fight. Agassiz sends me personal civil messages,
but incessantly attacks me; but Asa Gray fights like
a hero in defence. Lyell keeps as firm as a tower, and this
autumn will publish on the Geological History of Man, and
will then declare his conversion, which now is universally
known. I hope that you have received Hooker's splendid
essay. So far is bigotry carried that I can name three
botanists who will not even read Hooker's essay!! Here
is a curious thing: a Mr. Pat. Matthews, a Scotchman,
published in 1830 a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture,
and in the appendix to this he gives most clearly
but very briefly in half-dozen paragraphs our view of
Natural Selection. It is a most complete case of anticipation.
He published extracts in the Gardeners' Chronicle.
I got the book, and have since published a letter acknowledging
that I am fairly forestalled. Yesterday I heard
from Lyell that a German, Dr. Schaffhausen, has sent him a
[pg 143]pamphlet published some years ago, in which the same view
is nearly anticipated, but I have not yet seen this pamphlet.
My brother, who is a very sagacious man, always said, "You
will find that someone will have been before you." I am
at work at my larger work, which I shall publish in separate
volumes. But for ill-health and swarms of letters I get on
very, very slowly. I hope that I shall not have wearied
you with these details.



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


With sincere thanks for your letter, and with most
deeply-felt wishes for your success in science and in every
way, believe me your sincere well-wisher,


C. DARWIN.






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


5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. April 7, 1862.


My dear Mr. Darwin,—I was much pleased to receive
your note this morning. I have not yet begun work, but
hope to be soon busy. As I am being doctored a little I
do not think I shall be able to accept your kind invitation
at present, but trust to be able to do so during the summer.


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


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


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. May 23, 1862.


My dear Mr. Darwin,—Many thanks for your most interesting
book on the Orchids. I have read it through most
[pg 144]attentively, and have really been quite as much staggered
by the wonderful adaptations you show to exist in them as
by the Eye in animals or any other complicated organs. I
long to get into the country and have a look at some orchids
guided by your new lights, but I have been now for ten days
confined to my room with what is disagreeable though far
from dangerous—boils.


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


I think you told me Owen wrote the article in the
Quarterly. This seems to me hardly credible, as he speaks
so much of Owen, quotes him as such a great authority,
and I believe even calls him a profound philosopher, etc.
etc. Would Owen thus speak of himself?


Trusting your health is good, I remain, my dear Mr.
Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. May 24, 1862.


My dear Mr. Wallace,—I write one line to thank you for
your note and to say that the Bishop of Oxford35 wrote the
Quarterly Review (paid £60), aided by Owen. In the Edinburgh
Owen no doubt praised himself. Mr. Maw's Review
in the Zoologist is one of the best, and staggered me in parts,
for I did not see the sophistry of parts. I could lend you
any which you might wish to see; but you would soon be
tired. Hopkins and Pictet in France are two of the best.


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


I am sorry to hear that you are suffering from boils; I
[pg 145]have often had fearful crops: I hope that the doctors are
right in saying that they are serviceable.


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


My health is, and always will be, very poor: I am
that miserable animal a regular valetudinarian.—Yours
very sincerely,


C. DARWIN.







5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. August 8, 1862.


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


I heard a remark the other day which may not perhaps be
new to you, but seemed to me a fact, if true, in your favour.
Mr. Ward (I think it was), a member of the Microscopical
Society, mentioned as a fact noticed by himself with much
surprise that "the muscular fibres of the whale were no
larger than those of the bee!"—an excellent indication of
community of origin.


While looking at the ostriches the other day at the
Gardens, it occurred to me that they were a case of special
difficulty, as, inhabiting an ancient continent, surrounded
by numerous enemies, how did their wings ever become
abortive, and if they did so before the birds had attained
their present gigantic size, strength and speed, how could
they in the transition have maintained their existence? I
see Westwood in the Annals brings forward the same case,
arguing that the ostriches should have acquired better wings
within the historic period; but as they are now the swiftest
of animals they evidently do not want their wings, which in
their present state may serve some other trifling purpose in
their economy such as fans, or balancers, which may have
prevented their being reduced to such rudiments as in the
[pg 146]cassowaries. The difficulty to me seems to be, how, if they
once had flight, could they have lost it, surrounded by swift
and powerful carnivora against whom it must have been the
only defence?


This probably is all clear to you, but I think it is a point
you might touch upon, as I think the objection will seem a
strong one to most people.


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


Present my compliments to Mrs. and Miss Darwin, and
believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







1 Carlton Terrace, Southampton. August 20, 1862.


My dear Mr. Wallace,—You will not be surprised that
I have been slow in answering when I tell you that my poor
boy36 became frightfully worse after you were at Down; and
that during our journey to Bournemouth he had a slight relapse
here and my wife took the scarlet fever rather severely.
She is over the crisis. I have had a horrid time of it, and God
only knows when we shall be all safe at home again—half my
family are at Bournemouth.


I have given a piece of the comb from Timor to a
Mr. Woodbury (who is working at the subject), and he is
extremely interested by it (I was sure the specimen would
be valuable) and has requested me to ascertain whether the
bee (A. testacea) is domesticated when it makes its combs.
Will you kindly inform me?


Your remarks on ostriches have interested me, and I have
alluded to the case in the Third Edition. The difficulty does
not seem to me so great as to you. Think of bustards, which
[pg 147]inhabit wide open plains, and which so seldom take flight:
a very little increase in size of body would make them incapable
of flight. The idea of ostriches acquiring flight is
worthy of Westwood; think of the food required in these
inhabitants of the desert to work the pectoral muscles! In
the rhea the wings seem of considerable service in the first
start and in turning.37 ...







5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. September 30, 1862.


My dear Mr. Darwin,—Many thanks for the third edition
of the "Origin," which I found here on my return from
Devonshire on Saturday. I have not had time yet to read
more than the Historical Sketch, which is very interesting,
and shows that the time had quite come for your book.


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


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


I remain, my dear Mr. Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







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


My dear Mr. Darwin,—I am very sorry indeed to hear
you are still in weak health. Have you ever tried mountain
air? A residence at 2,000 or 3,000 ft. elevation is very invigorating.


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


I am now in much better health, but find sudden changes
of weather affect me very much, bringing on ague and fever
fits. I am now working a little, but having fresh collections
[pg 148]still arriving from correspondents in the East, it is principally
the drudgery of cleaning, packing, and arrangement.


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


With best wishes for the speedy recovery of your health,
I remain, my dear Mr. Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 1, 1864.


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


Now though I cannot read at present, I much want to
know where this is published, that I may procure a copy.
Further on Asa Gray says (after speaking of Agassiz's
paper on Glaciers in the Atlantic Magazine and his recent
book entitled "Method of Study"): "Pray set Wallace
upon these articles." So Asa Gray seems to think much
of your powers of reviewing, and I mention this as it
assuredly is laudari a laudato.


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


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


Pray believe me yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. January 2, 1864.


My dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your kind letter. I
was afraid to write because I heard such sad accounts of
your health, but I am glad to find that you can write, and
[pg 149]I presume read, by deputy. My little article on Haughton's
paper was published in the Annals of Natural History about
August or September last, I think, but I have not a copy to
refer to. I am sure it does not deserve Asa Gray's praises,
for though the matter may be true enough, the manner I
know is very inferior. It was written hastily, and when I
read it in the Annals I was rather ashamed of it, as I knew
so many could have done it so much better.


I will try and see Agassiz's paper and book. What I have
hitherto seen of his on Glacial subjects seems very good, but
in all his Natural History theories, he seems so utterly wrong
and so totally blind to the plainest deduction from facts, and
at the same time so vague and obscure in his language, that
it would be a very long and wearisome task to answer him.


With regard to work, I am doing but little—I am
afraid I have no good habit of systematic work. I have
been gradually getting parts of my collections in order, but
the obscurities of synonymy and descriptions, the difficulty
of examining specimens, and my very limited library, make
it wearisome work.


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


I am at last making a beginning of a small book on my
Eastern journey, which, if I can persevere, I hope to have
ready by next Christmas. I am a very bad hand at writing
anything like narrative. I want something to argue on, and
then I find it much easier to go ahead. I rather despair,
therefore, of making so good a book as Bates's, though I
[pg 150]think my subject is better. Like every other traveller, I
suppose, I feel dreadfully the want of copious notes on common
everyday objects, sights and sounds and incidents, which
I imagined I could never forget but which I now find it impossible
to recall with any accuracy.


I have just had a long and most interesting letter from
my old companion Spruce. He says he has had a letter from
you about Melastoma, but has not, he says, for three years
seen a single melastomaceous plant! They are totally absent
from the Pacific plains of tropical America, though so abundant
on the Eastern plains. Poor fellow, he seems to be in
a worse state than you are. Life has been a burden to him
for three years owing to lung and heart disease, and rheumatism,
brought on by exposure in high, hot, and cold damp
valleys of the Andes. He went down to the dry climate of
the Pacific coast to die more at ease, but the change improved
him, and he thinks to come home, though he is sure he will
not survive the first winter in England. He had never been
able to get a copy of your book, though I am sure no one
would have enjoyed or appreciated it more.


If you are able to bear reading, will you allow me to
take the liberty of recommending you a book? The fact is I
have been so astonished and delighted with the perusal of
Spencer's works that I think it a duty to society to recommend
them to all my friends who I think can appreciate them.
The one I particularly refer to now is "Social Statics," a
book which is by no means hard to read; it is even amusing,
and owing to the wonderful clearness of its style may
be read and understood by anyone. I think, therefore, as
it is quite distinct from your special studies at present, you
might consider it as "light literature," and I am pretty
sure it would interest you more than a great deal of what
is now considered very good. I am utterly astonished that
so few people seem to read Spencer, and the utter ignorance
[pg 151]there seems to be among politicians and political economists
of the grand views and logical stability of his works. He
appears to me as far ahead of John Stuart Mill as J.S.M.
is of the rest of the world, and, I may add, as Darwin is
of Agassiz. The range of his knowledge is no less than its
accuracy. His nebular hypothesis in the last volume of his
essays is the most masterly astronomical paper I have ever
read, and in his forthcoming volume on Biology he is I
understand going to show that there is something else
besides Natural Selection at work in nature. So you must
look out for a "foeman worthy of your steel"! But perhaps
all this time you have read his books. If so, excuse
me, and pray give me your opinion of him, as I have
hitherto only met with one man (Huxley) who has read
and appreciated him.


Allow me to say in conclusion how much I regret that
unavoidable circumstances have caused me to see so little
of you since my return home, and how earnestly I pray for
the speedy restoration of your health.—Yours most sincerely,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Malvern Wells. Tuesday, March, 1864.


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


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


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


I was very glad to see in the Reader that you have been
[pg 152]giving a grand paper (as I infer from remarks in discussion)
on Geographical Distribution.


I am very weak, so will say no more.—Yours very sincerely,


C. DARWIN.






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


5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. May 10, 1864.


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


The Borneo Cave exploration is to go on at present without
a subscription. The new British consul who is going out
to Sarawak this month will undertake to explore some of the
caves nearest the town, and if anything of interest is obtained
a good large sum can no doubt be raised for a thorough exploration
of the whole country. Sir J. Brooke will give every
assistance, and will supply men for the preliminary work.


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


I was led to the subject by the necessity of explaining
the vast mental and cranial differences between man and
the apes combined with such small structural differences
in other parts of the body, and also by an endeavour to
account for the diversity of human races combined with
[pg 153]man's almost perfect stability of form during all historical
epochs.


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


The Anthropologicals did not seem to appreciate it much,
but we had a long discussion which appears almost verbatim
in the Anthropological Review.39


As the Linnean Transactions will not be out till the end
of the year I sent a pretty full abstract of the more interesting
parts of my Papilionidæ paper40 to the Reader, which, as
you say, is a splendid paper.


Trusting Mrs. Darwin and all your family are well, and
that you are improving, believe me yours most sincerely,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent. May 28, 1864.


Dear Wallace,—I am so much better that I have just
finished a paper for the Linnean Society; but as I am not
yet at all strong I felt much disinclination to write, and
therefore you must forgive me for not having sooner
thanked you for your paper on Man received on the 11th.
But first let me say that I have hardly ever in my life been
more struck by any paper than that on variation, etc.
etc., in the Reader. I feel sure that such papers will do
more for the spreading of our views on the modification of
species than any separate treatises on the single subject
itself. It is really admirable; but you ought not in the
Man paper to speak of the theory as mine; it is just as much
yours as mine. One correspondent has already noticed to
me your "high-minded" conduct on this head.
[pg 154]
But now for your Man paper, about which I should like
to write more than I can. The great leading idea is quite
new to me, viz. that during late ages the mind will have
been modified more than the body; yet I had got as far as
to see with you that the struggle between the races of man
depended entirely on intellectual and moral qualities. The
latter part of the paper I can designate only as grand and
most eloquently done. I have shown your paper to two or
three persons who have been here, and they have been equally
struck with it.


I am not sure that I go with you on all minor points.
When reading Sir G. Grey's account of the constant battles
of Australian savages, I remember thinking that Natural
Selection would come in, and likewise with the Esquimaux,
with whom the art of fishing and managing canoes is said
to be hereditary. I rather differ on the rank under the
classificatory point of view which you assign to Man: I
do not think any character simply in excess ought ever to
be used for the higher division. Ants would not be separated
from other hymenopterous insects, however high the
instinct of the one and however low the instincts of the
other.


With respect to the differences of race, a conjecture has
occurred to me that much may be due to the correlation
of complexion (and consequently hair) with constitution.
Assume that a dusky individual best escaped miasma and
you will readily see what I mean. I persuaded the Director-General
of the Medical Department of the Army to send
printed forms to the surgeons of all regiments in tropical
countries to ascertain this point, but I daresay I shall never
get any returns. Secondly, I suspect that a sort of sexual
selection has been the most powerful means of changing the
races of man. I can show that the different races have a
widely different standard of beauty. Among savages the
[pg 155]most powerful men will have the pick of the women, and
they will generally leave the most descendants.


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


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


There is much more that I should like to write but I
have not strength.—Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very
sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


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







5 Westbourne Grove Terrace, W. May 29 [1864].


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


My great fault is haste. An idea strikes me, I think over
it for a few days, and then write away with such illustrations
as occur to me while going on. I therefore look at the subject
almost solely from one point of view. Thus in my paper
on Man41 I aim solely at showing that brutes are modified in
a great variety of ways by Natural Selection, but that in
none of these particular ways can man be modified, because
of the superiority of his intellect. I therefore no doubt
[pg 156]overlook a few smaller points in which Natural Selection may
still act on men and brutes alike. Colour is one of them,
and I have alluded to this in correlation to constitution in
an abstract I have made at Sclater's request for the Natural
History Review.42 At the same time, there is so much evidence
of migrations and displacements of races of man, and
so many cases of peoples of distinct physical characters inhabiting
the same or similar regions, and also of races of
uniform physical characters inhabiting widely dissimilar
regions, that the external characteristics of the chief races
of man must I think be older than his present geographical
distribution, and the modifications produced by correlation
to favourable variations of constitution be only a secondary
cause of external modification.


I hope you may get the returns from the Army. They
would be very interesting, but I do not expect the results
would be favourable to your view.


With regard to the constant battles of savages leading
to selection of physical superiority, I think it would be
very imperfect, and subject to so many exceptions and
irregularities that it could produce no definite result.
For instance, the strongest and bravest men would lead,
and expose themselves most, and would therefore be most
subject to wounds and death. And the physical energy
which led to any one tribe delighting in war might lead to
its extermination by inducing quarrels with all surrounding
tribes and leading them to combine against it. Again,
superior cunning, stealth and swiftness of foot, or even
better weapons, would often lead to victory as well as mere
physical strength. Moreover this kind of more or less perpetual
war goes on among all savage peoples. It could
lead therefore to no differential characters, but merely to
the keeping up of a certain average standard of bodily and
[pg 157]mental health and vigour. So with selection of variations
adapted to special habits of life, as fishing, paddling,
riding, climbing, etc. etc., in different races: no doubt it
must act to some extent, but will it be ever so rigid as to
induce a definite physical modification, and can we imagine
it to have had any part in producing the distinct races that
now exist?


The sexual selection you allude to will also, I think, have
been equally uncertain in its results. In the very lowest
tribes there is rarely much polygamy, and women are more
or less a matter of purchase. There is also little difference
of social condition, and I think it rarely happens that any
healthy and undeformed man remains without wife and
children. I very much doubt the often-repeated assertion
that our aristocracy are more beautiful than the middle
classes. I allow that they present specimens of the highest
kind of beauty, but I doubt the average. I have noticed in
country places a greater average amount of good looks among
the middle classes, and besides, we unavoidably combine in
our idea of beauty, intellectual expression and refinement
of manner, which often make the less appear the more
beautiful. Mere physical beauty—that is, a healthy and
regular development of the body and features approaching
to the mean or type of European man—I believe is quite as
frequent in one class of society as the other, and much more
frequent in rural districts than in cities.


With regard to the rank of man in zoological classification,
I fear I have not made myself intelligible. I never
meant to adopt Owen's or any other such views, but only
to point out that from one point of view he was right. I
hold that a distinct family for man, as Huxley allows, is
all that can possibly be given him zoologically. But at
the same time, if my theory is true—that while the animals
which surrounded him have been undergoing modification
[pg 158]in all parts of their bodies to a generic or even family
degree of difference, he has been changing almost wholly
in the brain and head—then, in geological antiquity the
species of man may be as old as many mammalian
families, and the origin of the family man may date back
to a period when some of the orders first originated.


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


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


Sir C. Lyell, while agreeing with my main argument on
Man, thinks I am wrong in wanting to put him back into
Miocene times, and thinks I do not appreciate the immense
interval even to the later Pliocene. But I still maintain
my view, which in fact is a logical result of my theory, for
if man originated in later Pliocene times, when almost all
mammalia were of closely allied species to those now living,
and many even identical, then man has not been stationary
in bodily structure while animals have been varying, and
my theory will be proved to be all wrong.
[pg 159]
In Murchison's address to the Geographical Society just
delivered he points out Africa, as being the oldest existing
land. He says there is no evidence of its having been ever
submerged during the tertiary epoch. Here, then, is evidently
the place to find early man. I hope something
good may be found in Borneo, and that then means may
be found to explore the still more promising regions of
tropical Africa, for we can expect nothing of man very
early in Europe.


It has given me great pleasure to find that there are
symptoms of improvement in your health. I hope you will
not exert yourself too soon or write more than is quite
agreeable to you. I think I made out every word of your
letter though it was not always easy.—Believe me, my dear
Darwin, yours very sincerely,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. June 15, 1864.


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


My belief in it, however, is contingent on my general
beliefs in sexual selection. It is an awful stretcher to
believe that a peacock's tail was thus formed; but believing
it, I believe in the same principle somewhat modified
applied to man.


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


I am very glad to hear that you are on your Travels. I
believe you will find it a very convenient vehicle for miscellaneous
discussion. With your admirable powers of
[pg 160]writing, I cannot doubt that you will make an excellent
book.—Believe me, dear Wallace, yours sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


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







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 29, 1865.


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


That on parrots43 contained most new matter to me, and
interested me extremely; that in the Geographical Journal44
strikes me as an epitome of the whole theory of geographical
distribution: the comparison of Borneo and New Guinea,
the relation of the volcanic outbursts and the required subsidence,
and the comparison of the supposed conversion of
the Atlantic into a great archipelago, seemed to me the three
best hits. They are both indeed excellent papers.—Believe
me yours very sincerely,


CHARLES DARWIN.


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


P.S.—During one of the later French voyages, a wild pig
was killed and brought from the Aru Islands to Paris. Am
I not right in inferring that this must have been introduced
and run wild? If you have a clear opinion on this head, may
I quote you?

[pg 161]






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


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


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


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


I enclose my "carte." Have you a photograph of yourself
of any kind you can send me? When you come to town
next, may I beg the honour of a sitting for my brother-in-law,
Mr. Sims, 73 Westbourne Grove?—Yours very sincerely,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.—Your paper on Lythrum salicaria46 is most beautiful.
What a wonderful plant it is! I long to hear your
paper on Tendrils and hear what you have got out of them.
My old friend Spruce, a good botanist and close observer,
[pg 162]could probably supply you with some facts on that or other
botanical subjects if you would write to him. He is now
at Kew, but almost as ill as yourself.—A.R.W.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. February 1, 1865.


My dear Wallace,—I am much obliged for your photograph,
for I have lately set up a scientific album; and for
the papers, which I will read before long. I enclose my
own photo, taken by my son, and I have no other.


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


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


It is a perplexing case, for Nathusius says the skull of
the Aru resembles that of the Chinese breed, and he thinks
that Sus papuensis has been founded on a young skull;
D. Blainville stating that an old skull from New Guinea
resembles that of the wild pigs of Malabar, and these belong
to the S. scrofa type, which is different from the Chinese
domestic breed. The latter has not been found in a wild
condition.—Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







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


Dear Darwin,—I should have written before to thank
you for the copy of your paper on climbing plants, which I
read with great interest; I can imagine how much pleasure
the working out must have given you. I was afraid you were
too ill to make it advisable that you should be bothered with
letters.


I write now, in hopes you are better, to communicate a
curious case of variation becoming at once hereditary, which
was brought forward at the British Association. I send a
[pg 163]note of it on the other side, but if you would like more exact
particulars, with names and dates and a drawing of the bird,
I am sure Mr. O'Callaghan would send them to you.


I hope to hear that you are better, and that your new
book is really to come out next winter.—Believe me yours
very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


NOTE.—Last spring Mr. O'Callaghan was told by a
country boy that he had seen a blackbird with a topknot;
on which Mr. O'C. very judiciously told him to watch it
and communicate further with him. After a time the boy
told him he had found a blackbird's nest, and had seen this
crested bird near it and believed he belonged to it. He continued
watching the nest till the young were hatched. After
a time he told Mr. O'C. that two of the young birds seemed
as if they would have topknots. He was told to get one of
them as soon as it was fledged. However, he was too late,
and they left the nest, but luckily he found them near and
knocked one down with a stone, which Mr. O'C. had stuffed
and exhibited. It has a fine crest, something like that of a
Polish fowl, but larger in proportion to the bird, and very
regular and well formed. The male must have been almost
like the Umbrella bird in miniature, the crest is so large and
expanded.—A.R.W.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. September 22, 1865.


Dear Wallace,—I am much obliged for your extract; I
never heard of such a case, though such a variation is perhaps
the most likely of any to occur in a state of nature and
be inherited, inasmuch as all domesticated birds present
races with a tuft or with reversed feathers on their heads.
I have sometimes thought that the progenitor of the whole
class must have been a crested animal.


Do you make any progress with your Journal of travels?
I am the more anxious that you should do so as I have lately
read with much interest some papers by you on the ouran-outang,
[pg 164]etc., in the Annals, of which I have lately been reading
the latter volumes, I have always thought that Journals
of this nature do considerable good by advancing the taste
for natural history; I know in my own case that nothing ever
stimulated my zeal so much as reading Humboldt's Personal
Narrative. I have not yet received the last part of Linnean
Transactions, but your paper47 at present will be rather beyond
my strength, for though somewhat better I can as yet
do hardly anything but lie on the sofa and be read aloud to.
By the way, have you read Tylor and Lecky?48 Both these
books have interested me much. I suppose you have read
Lubbock?49 In the last chapter there is a note about you in
which I most cordially concur.50 I see you were at the
British Association, but I have heard nothing of it except
what I have picked up in the Reader. I have heard a rumour
that the Reader is sold to the Anthropological Society. If
you do not begrudge the trouble of another note (for my sole
channel of news through Hooker is closed by his illness), I
should much like to hear whether the Reader is thus sold.
I should be very sorry for it, as the paper would thus become
sectional in its tendency. If you write, tell me what you are
doing yourself.


The only news which I have about the "Origin" is that
Fritz Müller published a few months ago a remarkable book51
in its favour, and secondly that a second French edition is
just coming out.—Believe me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.



[pg 165]




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


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


The Reader has no doubt changed hands, and I am inclined
to think for the better. It is purchased, I believe, by
a gentleman who is a Fellow of the Anthropological Society,
but I see no signs of its being made a special organ of that
Society. The Editor (and, I believe, proprietor) is a Mr.
Bendyshe, the most talented man in the Society, and, judging
from his speaking, which I have often heard, I should
say the articles on "Simeon and Simony," "Metropolitan
Sewage," and "France and Mexico," are his, and these
are in my opinion superior to anything that has been in the
Reader for a long time; they have the point and brilliancy
which are wanted to make leading articles readable and
popular. The articles on Mill's Political Economy and on
Mazzini are also first-rate. He has introduced also the
plan of having two, and now three, important articles in
each number—one political or social, one literary, and one
scientific. Under the old regime they never had an editor
above mediocrity, except Masson (? Musson); there was a
want of unity among the proprietors as to the aims and
objects of the journal; and there was a want of capital to
secure the services of good writers. This seems to me to
be now all changed for the better, and I only hope the
rumour of that bête noire, the Anthropological Society,
having anything to do with it may not cause our best men
of science to withdraw their support and contributions.


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


Lecky I like much, though he is rather tedious and
[pg 166]obscure at times. Most of what he says has been said so
much more forcibly by Buckle, whose work I have read for
the second time with increased admiration, although with
a clear view of some of his errors. Nevertheless, his is I
think unapproachably the grandest work of the present
century, and the one most likely to liberalise opinion. Lubbock's
book is very good, but his concluding chapter very
weak. Why are men of science so dreadfully afraid to say
what they think and believe?


In reply to your kind inquiries about myself, I can only
say that I am ashamed of my laziness. I have done nothing
lately but write a paper on Pigeons for the Ibis, and am
drawing up a Catalogue of my Collection of Birds.


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


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


I am glad to hear you are a little better. My poor friend
Spruce is still worse than you are, and I fear now will not
recover. He wants to write a book if he gets well enough.—With
best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.






Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 22, 1866.


My dear Wallace,—I thank you for your paper on
Pigeons,52 which interested me, as everything that you
[pg 167]write does. Who would ever have dreamed that monkeys
influenced the distribution of pigeons and parrots! But
I have had a still higher satisfaction; for I finished yesterday
your paper in the Linnean Transactions.53 It is admirably
done. I cannot conceive that the most firm believer in
Species could read it without being staggered. Such papers
will make many more converts among naturalists than long-winded
books such as I shall write if I have strength.


I have been particularly struck with your remarks on
dimorphism; but I cannot quite understand one point (p.
22), and should be grateful for an explanation, for I want
fully to understand you.54 How can one female form be
selected and the intermediate forms die out, without also
the other extreme form also dying out from not having the
advantages of the first selected form? for, as I understand,
both female forms occur on the same island. I quite agree
with your distinction between dimorphic forms and varieties;
but I doubt whether your criterion of dimorphic forms not
[pg 168]producing intermediate offspring will suffice; for I know of
a good many varieties, which must be so called, that will
not blend or intermix, but produce offspring quite like either
parent.


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


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


My health is so far improved that I am able to work
one or two hours a day.—Believe me, dear Wallace, yours
very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







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


My dear Darwin,—I am very glad to hear you are a little
better, and hope we shall soon have the pleasure of seeing
your volume on "Variation under Domestication." I do
not see the difficulty you seem to feel about two or more
female forms of one species. The most common or typical
female form must have certain characters or qualities which
are sufficiently advantageous to it to enable it to maintain
its existence; in general, such as vary much from it die out.
But occasionally a variation may occur which has special
advantageous characters of its own (such as mimicking a
protected species), and then this variation will maintain
itself by selection. In no less than three of my polymorphic
species of Papilio, one of the female forms mimics the Polydorus
group, which, like the Æneas group in America, seems
to have some special protection. In two or three other cases
one of the female forms is confined to a restricted locality,
to the conditions of which it is probably specially adapted.
In other cases one of the female forms resembles the male,
[pg 169]and perhaps receives a protection from the abundance of the
males, in the crowd of which it is passed over. I think these
considerations render the production of two or three forms
of female very conceivable. The physiological difficulty is
to me greater, of how each of two forms of female produces
offspring like the other female as well as like itself, but no
intermediates?


If you "know varieties that will not blend or intermix,
but produce offspring quite like either parents," is not that
the very physiological test of a species which is wanting for
the complete proof of the origin of species?


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


I hope, if things go as I wish this summer, to begin work
at it next winter. But I feel myself incorrigibly lazy, and
have no such system of collecting and arranging facts or
of making the most of my materials as you and many of
our hard-working naturalists possess in perfection.—With
best wishes, believe me, dear Darwin, yours most sincerely,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, S.E. Tuesday, February, 1866.


My dear Wallace,—After I had dispatched my last note,
the simple explanation which you give had occurred to me,
and seems satisfactory. I do not think you understand what
I mean by the non-blending of certain varieties. It does not
refer to fertility. An instance will explain. I crossed the
Painted Lady and Purple sweet peas, which are very differently
coloured varieties, and got, even out of the same pod,
both varieties perfect, but none intermediate. Something
of this kind, I should think, must occur at first with your
butterflies and the three forms of Lythrum; though these
[pg 170]cases are in appearance so wonderful, I do not know that
they are really more so than every female in the world producing
distinct male and female offspring.


I am heartily glad that you mean to go on preparing your
Journal.—Believe me yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







Hurstpierpoint, Sussex. July 2, 1866.


My dear Darwin,—I have been so repeatedly struck by
the utter inability of numbers of intelligent persons to see
clearly, or at all, the self-acting and necessary effects of
Natural Selection, that I am led to conclude that the term
itself, and your mode of illustrating it, however clear and
beautiful to many of us, are yet not the best adapted to
impress it on the general naturalist public. The two last
cases of this misunderstanding are (1) the article on "Darwin
and his Teachings" in the last Quarterly Journal of
Science, which, though very well written and on the whole
appreciative, yet concludes with a charge of something like
blindness, in your not seeing that Natural Selection requires
the constant watching of an intelligent "chooser,"
like man's selection to which you so often compare it; and
(2) in Janet's recent work on the "Materialism of the
Present Day," reviewed in last Saturday's Reader, by an
extract from which I see that he considers your weak point
to be that you do not see that "thought and direction are
essential to the action of Natural Selection." The same
objection has been made a score of times by your chief
opponents, and I have heard it as often stated myself in
conversation. Now, I think this arises almost entirely
from your choice of the term Natural Selection, and so
constantly comparing it in its effects to man's selection,
and also to your so frequently personifying nature as
"selecting," as "preferring," as "seeking only the good
[pg 171]of the species," etc., etc. To the few this is as clear as
daylight, and beautifully suggestive, but to many it is evidently
a stumbling-block. I wish, therefore, to suggest to
you the possibility of entirely avoiding this source of misconception
in your great work (if not now too late), and
also in any future editions of the "Origin," and I think
it may be done without difficulty and very effectually
by adopting Spencer's term (which he generally uses in
preference to Natural Selection), viz. "Survival of the
Fittest." This term is the plain expression of the fact;
"Natural Selection" is a metaphorical expression of it,
and to a certain degree indirect and incorrect, since, even
personifying Nature, she does not so much select special
variations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones.


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


I find you use the term Natural Selection in two senses—(1)
for the simple preservation of favourable and rejection
[pg 172]of unfavourable variations, in which case it is equivalent
to "survival of the fittest"; (2) for the effect or
change produced by this preservation, as when you say,
"To sum up the circumstances favourable or unfavourable
to natural selection," and, again, "Isolation, also, is an
important element in the process of natural selection":
here it is not merely "survival of the fittest," but change
produced by survival of the fittest, that is meant. On looking
over your fourth chapter, I find that these alterations
of terms can be in most cases easily made, while in some
cases the addition of "or survival of the fittest" after
"natural selection" would be best; and in others, less
likely to be misunderstood, the original term might stand
alone.


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


There is another objection made by Janet which is also
a very common one. It is that the chances are almost infinite
against the particular kind of variation required
being coincident with each change of external conditions,
to enable an animal to become modified by Natural Selection
[pg 173]in harmony with such changed conditions; especially
when we consider that, to have produced the almost infinite
modifications of organic beings, this coincidence
must have taken place an almost infinite number of
times.


Now it seems to me that you have yourself led to this
objection being made by so often stating the case too
strongly against yourself. For example, at the commencement
of Chapter IV. you ask if it is "improbable that
useful variations should sometimes occur in the course of
thousands of generations"; and a little further on you
say, "unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection
can do nothing." Now, such expressions have given
your opponents the advantage of assuming that favourable
variations are rare accidents, or may even for long periods
never occur at all, and thus Janet's argument would appear
to many to have great force. I think it would be better to
do away with all such qualifying expressions, and constantly
maintain (what I certainly believe to be the fact)
that variations of every kind are always occurring in every
part of every species, and therefore that favourable variations
are always ready when wanted. You have, I am
sure, abundant materials to prove this, and it is, I believe,
the grand fact that renders modification and adaptation
to conditions almost always possible. I would put the
burthen of proof on my opponents to show that any one
organ, structure, or faculty does not vary, even during one
generation, among all the individuals of a species; and also
to show any mode or way in which any such organ, etc.,
does not vary. I would ask them to give any reason for
supposing that any organ, etc., is ever absolutely identical
at any one time in all the individuals of a species, and if
not, then it is always varying, and there are always materials
which, from the simple fact that the "fittest survive," will
[pg 174]tend to the modification of the race into harmony with
changed conditions.


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


I have not heard for some time how you are getting on.
I hope you are still improving in health, and that you will
be able now to get on with your great work, for which
so many thousands are looking with interest.—With best
wishes, believe me, my dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. July 5, [1866].


My dear Wallace,—I have been much interested by your
letter, which is as clear as daylight. I fully agree with
all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's excellent
expression of "the survival of the fittest." This,
however, had not occurred to me till reading your letter.
It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot
be used as a substantive governing a verb; and that
this is a real objection I infer from H. Spencer continually
using the words "Natural Selection."


I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated degree,
that it was a great advantage to bring into connection
natural and artificial selection; this indeed led me to
use a term in common, and I still think it some advantage.
I wish I had received your letter two months ago, for I
would have worked in "the survival," etc., often in the
new edition of the "Origin," which is now almost printed
off, and of which I will, of course, send you a copy. I will
use the term in my next book on Domestic Animals, etc.,
from which, by the way, I plainly see that you expect much
too much. The term Natural Selection has now been so
largely used abroad and at home that I doubt whether it
[pg 175]could be given up, and with all its faults I should be sorry
to see the attempt made. Whether it will be rejected must
now depend on the "survival of the fittest."


As in time the term must grow intelligible, the objections
to its use will grow weaker and weaker. I doubt
whether the use of any term would have made the subject
intelligible to some minds, clear as it is to others; for do
we not see, even to the present day, Malthus on Population
absurdly misunderstood? This reflection about Malthus
has often comforted me when I have been vexed at the
misstatement of my views.


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


I hope you are enjoying the country and are in good
health, and are working hard at your Malay Archipelago
book, for I will always put this wish in every note I write
to you, like some good people always put in a text. My
health keeps much the same, or rather improves, and I am
able to work some hours daily.—With many thanks for
your interesting letter, believe me, my dear Wallace, yours
sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


P.S.—I suppose you have read the last number of H.
Spencer; I have been struck with astonishment at the
[pg 176]prodigality of original thought in it. But how unfortunate
it is that it seems scarcely ever possible to discriminate
between the direct effect of external influences and the
"survival of the fittest."







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


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


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


I suppose you have read Agassiz's marvellous theory of
the Great Amazonian glacier, 2,000 miles long! I presume
that will be a little too much, even for you. I have been
writing a little popular paper on "Glacial Theories" for
the Quarterly Journal of Science of January next, in which
I stick up for glaciers in North America and icebergs in the
Amazon!


I was very glad to hear from Lubbock that your health
is permanently improved. I hope therefore you will be
[pg 177]able to give us a volume per annum of your magnum opus,
with all the facts as you now have them, leaving additions
to come in new editions.


I am working a little at another family of my butterflies,
and find the usual interesting and puzzling cases of
variation, but no such phenomena as in the Papilionidæ.—With
best wishes, believe me, my dear Darwin, yours very
faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







6 Queen Anne Street, W. Monday, January, 1867.


My dear Wallace,—I return by this post the Journal.56
Your résumé of glacier action seems to me very good, and
has interested my brother much, and as the subject is new
to him he is a better judge. That is quite a new and perplexing
point which you specify about the freshwater fishes
during the glacial period.


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


I forgot to say when with you—but I then indeed did
not know so much as I do now—that the sexual, i.e. ornamental,
differences in fishes, which differences are sometimes
very great, offer a difficulty in the wide extension of
the view that the female is not brightly coloured on account
of the danger which she would incur in the propagation of
the species.


I very much enjoyed my long conversation with you;
and to-day we return home, and I to my horrid dull work
of correcting proof-sheets.—Believe me, my dear Wallace,
yours very sincerely,


CHARLES DARWIN.


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

[pg 178]






Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. February 23, 1867.


Dear Wallace,—I much regretted that I was unable to
call on you, but after Monday I was unable even to leave
the house. On Monday evening I called on Bates and put
a difficulty before him, which he could not answer, and,
as on some former similar occasion, his first suggestion
was, "You had better ask Wallace." My difficulty is, why
are caterpillars sometimes so beautifully and artistically
coloured? Seeing that many are coloured to escape danger,
I can hardly attribute their bright colour in other cases to
mere physical conditions. Bates says the most gaudy caterpillar
he ever saw in Amazonia (of a Sphinx) was conspicuous
at the distance of yards from its black and red
colouring whilst feeding on large green leaves. If anyone
objected to male butterflies having been made beautiful by
sexual selection, and asked why should they not have been
made beautiful as well as their caterpillars, what would
you answer? I could not answer, but should maintain
my ground. Will you think over this, and some time,
either by letter or when we meet, tell me what you think?
Also, I want to know whether your female mimetic butterfly
is more beautiful and brighter than the male?


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


My health is a dreadful evil; I failed in half my engagements
during this last visit to London.—Believe me, yours
very sincerely,


C. DARWIN.






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




"On reading this letter I almost at once saw what
seemed to be a very easy and probable explanation of the
facts. I had then just been preparing for publication (in
the Westminster Review) my rather elaborate paper on
[pg 179]'Mimicry and Protective Colouring,' and the numerous
cases in which specially showy and slow-flying butterflies
were known to have a peculiar odour and taste which protected
them from the attacks of insect-eating birds and
other animals led me at once to suppose that the gaudily
coloured caterpillars must have a similar protection. I
had just ascertained from Mr. Jenner Weir that one of
our common white moths (Spilosoma menthastri) would
not be eaten by most of the small birds in his aviary, nor
by young turkeys. Now, as a white moth is as conspicuous
in the dusk as a coloured caterpillar in the daylight,
this case seemed to me so much on a par with the other
that I felt almost sure my explanation would turn out
correct. I at once wrote to Mr. Darwin to this effect."









Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. February 26, 1867.


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

[pg 180]

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


By the way, there is another subject which I shall introduce
in my essay, viz. expression of countenance. Now,
do you happen to know by any odd chance a very good-natured
and acute observer in the Malay Archipelago who,
you think, would make a few easy observations for me on
the expression of the Malays when excited by various
emotions. For in this case I would send to such person a
list of queries.—I thank you for your most interesting
letters, and remain yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







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


Dear Darwin,—I return your queries, but cannot answer
them with any certainty. For the Malays I should say Yes
to 1, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 17, and No to 12, 13 and 16; but I
cannot be certain in any one. But do you think these
things are of much importance? I am inclined to think
that if you could get good direct observations you would
find some of them often differ from tribe to tribe, from
island to island, and sometimes from village to village.
Some no doubt may be deep-seated, and would imply
organic differences; but can you tell beforehand which
these are? I presume the Frenchman shrugs his shoulders
whether he is of the Norman, Breton, or Gaulish stock.
Would it not be a good thing to send your List of Queries
to some of the Bombay and Calcutta papers? as there must
be numbers of Indian judges and other officers who would
be interested and would send you hosts of replies. The
[pg 181]Australian papers and New Zealand might also publish
them, and then you would have a fine basis to go on.


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


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


By the bye, what an interesting volume the whole of
your materials on that subject would, I am sure, make.—Yours
very sincerely,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March, 1867.


My dear Wallace,—I thank you much for your two
notes. The case of Julia Pastrana58 is a splendid addition
to my other cases of correlated teeth and hair, and I will
add it in correcting the proof of my present volume. Pray
let me hear in course of the summer if you get any evidence
about the gaudy caterpillars. I should much like to give
(or quote if published) this idea of yours, if in any way
supported, as suggested by you. It will, however, be a long
time hence, for I can see that sexual selection is growing
into quite a large subject, which I shall introduce into my
essay on Man, supposing that I ever publish it.


I had intended giving a chapter on Man, inasmuch as
many call him (not quite truly) an eminently domesticated
animal; but I found the subject too large for a chapter.
[pg 182]Nor shall I be capable of treating the subject well, and my
sole reason for taking it up is that I am pretty well convinced
that sexual selection has played an important part
in the formation of races, and sexual selection has always
been a subject which has interested me much.


I have been very glad to see your impression from
memory on the expressions of Malays. I fully agree with
you that the subject is in no way an important one: it is
simply a "hobby-horse" with me about twenty-seven years
old; and after thinking that I would write an essay on
Man, it flashed on me that I could work in some "supplemental
remarks on expression." After the horrid, tedious,
dull work of my present huge and, I fear, unreadable
book, I thought I would amuse myself with my hobby-horse.
The subject is, I think, more curious and more
amenable to scientific treatment than you seem willing to
allow. I want, anyhow, to upset Sir C. Bell's view, given
in his most interesting work, "The Anatomy of Expression,"
that certain muscles have been given to man solely
that he may reveal to other men his feelings. I want to
try and show how expressions have arisen.


That is a good suggestion about newspapers; but my
experience tells me that private applications are generally
most fruitful. I will, however, see if I can get the queries
inserted in some Indian paper. I do not know names or
addresses of any other papers.


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


My two female amanuenses are busy with friends, and
I fear this scrawl will give you much trouble to read.—With
many thanks, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.

[pg 183]






Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 29, 1867.


Dear Wallace,—I have been greatly interested by your
letter;59 but your view is not new to me. If you will look
at p. 240 of the fourth edition of the "Origin," you will
find it very briefly given with two extremes of the peacock
and black grouse. A more general statement is given at
p. 101, or at p. 89 of the first edition, for I have long
entertained this view, though I have never had space to
develop it. But I had not sufficient knowledge to generalise
as far as you do about colouring and nesting. In your
paper, perhaps you will just allude to my scanty remark
in the fourth edition, because in my essay upon Man I
intend to discuss the whole subject of sexual selection, explaining,
as I believe it does, much with respect to man.
I have collected all my old notes and partly written my
discussion, and it would be flat work for me to give the
leading idea as exclusively from you. But as I am sure
from your greater knowledge of ornithology and entomology
that you will write a much better discussion than I
could, your paper will be of great use to me. Nevertheless,
I must discuss the subject fully in my essay on Man.
When we met at the Zoological Society and I asked you
about the sexual differences in kingfishers, I had this subject
in view; as I had when I suggested to Bates the difficulty
about gaudy caterpillars which you have so admirably
(as I believe it will prove) explained. I have got one capital
case (genus forgotten) of an [Australian] bird in which the
female has long-tailed plumes and which consequently
builds a different nest from all her allies.60 With respect
[pg 184]to certain female birds being more brightly coloured than
the males, and the latter incubating, I have gone a little
into the subject and cannot say that I am fully satisfied.
I remember mentioning to you the case of Rhynchæa, but
its nesting seems unknown. In some other cases the
difference in brightness seemed to me hardly sufficiently
accounted for by the principle of protection. At the
Falkland Islands there is a carrion hawk in which the
female (as I ascertained by dissection) is the brightest
coloured, and I doubt whether protection will here apply;
but I wrote several months ago to the Falklands to make
inquiries. The conclusion to which I have been leaning is
that in some of these abnormal cases the colour happened
to vary in the female alone, and was transmitted to females
alone, and that her variations have been selected through the
admiration of the male.


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


With many thanks for your very interesting note, believe
me, dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


It is curious how we hit on the same ideas. I have
endeavoured to show in my MS. discussion that nearly the
same principles account for young birds not being gaily
coloured in many cases—but this is too complex a point for
a note.

[pg 185]






Postscript. Down. April 29.


My dear Wallace,—On reading over your letter again,
and on further reflection, I do not think (as far as I remember
my words) that I expressed myself nearly strongly
enough as to the value and beauty of your generalisation,
viz. that all birds in which the female is conspicuously or
brightly coloured build in holes or under domes. I thought
that this was the explanation in many, perhaps most cases,
but do not think I should ever have extended my view to
your generalisation. Forgive me troubling you with this
P.S.—Yours,


CH. DARWIN.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. May 5, 1867.


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


You seem already to have well investigated the subject.
I confess on receiving your note that I felt rather flat at
my recent work being almost thrown away, but I did not
intend to show this feeling. As a proof how little advance
I had made on the subject, I may mention that though I
had been collecting facts on the colouring and other sexual
differences in mammals, your explanation with respect to
the females had not occurred to me. I am surprised at my
own stupidity, but I have long recognised how much clearer
and deeper your insight into matters is than mine.


I do not know how far you have attended to the laws
of inheritance, so what follows may be obvious to you. I
have begun my discussion on sexual selection by showing
that new characters often appear in one sex and are
[pg 186]transmitted to that sex alone, and that from some unknown
cause such characters apparently appear oftener in
the male than in the female. Secondly, characters may be
developed and be confined to the male, and long afterwards
be transferred to the female. Thirdly, characters
may, again, arise in either sex and be transmitted to both
sexes, either in an equal or unequal degree. In this latter
case I have supposed that the survival of the fittest has
come into play with female birds and kept the female dull-coloured.
With respect to the absence of spurs in female
gallinaceous birds, I presume that they would be in the
way during incubation; at least, I have got the case of a
German breed of fowls in which the hens were spurred,
and were found to disturb and break their eggs much.


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


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


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


Some time or other I should like much to know where
your paper on the nests of birds has appeared, and I shall
be extremely anxious to read your paper in the Westminster
Review.


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


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


CH. DARWIN.

[pg 187]






Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. July 6, 1867.


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


I have been particularly glad to read about the birds'
nests, and I must procure the Intellectual Observer; but
the point which I think struck me most was about its
being of no use to the Heliconias to acquire in a slight
degree a disagreeable taste. What a curious case is that
about the coral snakes. The summary, and indeed the
whole, is excellent, and I have enjoyed it much.—With
many thanks, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







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


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


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


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


I am glad to find you continue in tolerable health.—Believe
me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


What do you think of the Duke of Argyll's criticisms,
[pg 188]and the more pretentious one in the last number of the
North British Review?


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







76-1/2 Westbourne Grove, Bayswater, W. October 1, 1867.


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


My article on "Creation by Law," in reply to the Duke
of Argyll and the North British reviewer, is in the present
month's number of the Quarterly Journal of Science. I
cannot send you a copy because they do not allow separate
copies to be printed.


There is a nice illustration of the predicted Madagascar
moth and Angræcum sesquipedale.


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


I hope you are getting on well with your great book.
I hear a rumour that we are to have one vol. of it about
Christmas.


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


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


ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 189]






Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. October 12 and 13, 1867.


My dear Wallace,—I ordered the journal a long time
ago, but by some oversight received it only yesterday and
read it. You will think my praise not worth having from
being so indiscriminate, but if I am to speak the truth, I
must say I admire every word.


You have just touched on the points which I particularly
wished to see noticed. I am glad you had the courage to
take up Angræcum62 after the Duke's attack; for I believe
the principle in this case may be widely applied. I like
the figure, but I wish the artist had drawn a better
sphinx.


With respect to beauty, your remarks on hideous objects
and on flowers not being made beautiful except when of
practical use to them strike me as very good.


On this one point of beauty, I can hardly think that the
Duke was quite candid. I have used in the concluding
paragraph of my present book precisely the same argument
as you have, even bringing in the bulldog,63 with respect
to variations not having been specially ordained. Your
[pg 190]metaphor of the river64 is new to me, and admirable; but your
other metaphor, in which you compare classification and
complex machines, does not seem to me quite appropriate,
though I cannot point out what seems deficient. The point
which seems to me strong is that all naturalists admit that
there is a natural classification, and it is this which descent
explains. I wish you had insisted a little more against the
North British65 reviewer assuming that each variation which
appears is a strongly marked one; though by implication
you have made this very, plain. Nothing in your whole
article has struck me more than your view with respect to
the limit of fleetness in the racehorse and other such cases;
I shall try and quote you on this head in the proof of my
concluding chapter. I quite missed this explanation, though
in the case of wheat I hit upon something analogous. I am
glad you praise the Duke's book, for I was much struck with
it. The part about flight seemed to me at first very good,
but as the wing is articulated by a ball-and-socket joint, I
suspect the Duke would find it very difficult to give any
reason against the belief that the wing strikes the air more
or less obliquely. I have been very glad to see your article
and the drawing of the butterfly in Science Gossip. By
the way, I cannot but think that you push protection too
[pg 191]far in some cases, as with the stripes on the tiger. I
have also this morning read an excellent abstract in the
Gardeners' Chronicle of your paper on nests;66 I was not
by any means fully converted by your letter, but I think
now I am so; and I hope it will be published somewhere
in extenso. It strikes me as a capital generalisation, and
appears to me even more original than it did at first.


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


I heartily congratulate you on the birth of "Herbert
Spencer," and may he deserve his name, but I hope he
will copy his father's style and not his namesake's. Pray
observe, though I fear I am a month too late, when tears
are first secreted enough to overflow; and write down
date.


I have finished Vol. I. of my book, and I hope the whole
will be out by the end of November; if you have the patience
to read it through, which is very doubtful, you will find, I
think, a large accumulation of facts which will be of service
to you in your future papers, and they could not be
put to better use, for you certainly are a master in the noble
art of reasoning.


Have you changed your house to Westbourne Grove?


Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


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


P.S.—Mr. Warington has lately read an excellent and
spirited abstract of the "Origin" before the Victoria Institute,
and as this is a most orthodox body he has gained
[pg 192]the name of the devil's advocate. The discussion which followed
during three consecutive meetings is very rich from
the nonsense talked. If you would care to see the number
I could lend it you.


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







Hurstpierpoint. October 22, 1867.


Dear Darwin,—I am very glad you approve of my article
on "Creation by Law" as a whole.


The "machine metaphor" is not mine, but the North
British reviewer's. I merely accept it and show that it is
on our side and not against us, but I do not think it at all
a good metaphor to be used as an argument either way. I
did not half develop the argument on the limits of variation,
being myself limited in space; but I feel satisfied that
it is the true answer to the very common and very strong
objection, that "variation has strict limits." The fallacy
is the requiring variation in domesticity to go beyond the
limits of the same variation under nature. It does do so
sometimes, however, because the conditions of existence are
so different. I do not think a case can be pointed out in
which the limits of variation under domestication are not
up to or beyond those already marked out in nature, only
we generally get in the species an amount of change which
in nature occurs only in the whole range of the genus or
family.


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


I may perhaps push "protection" too far sometimes, for
[pg 193]it is my hobby just now, but as the lion and the tiger are,
I think, the only two non-arboreal cats, I think the tiger
stripe agreeing so well with its usual habitat is at least a
probable case.


I am rewriting my article on Birds' Nests for the new
Natural History Review.


I cannot tell you about the first appearance of tears,
but it is very early—the first week or two, I think. I
can see the Victoria Institute Magazine at the London
Library.


I shall read your book, every word. I hear from Sir
C. Lyell that you come out with a grand new theory at
the end, which even the cautious (!) Huxley is afraid of!
Sir C. said he could think of nothing else since he read it.
I long to see it.


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


I suppose you will now be going on with your book on
Sexual Selection and Man, by way of relaxation! It is a
glorious subject, but will require delicate handling,—Yours
very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







10 Duchess Street, W. February 7, 1868.


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


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


You will perhaps be glad to hear that I have been for
some time hammering away at my Travels, but I fear I
shall make a mess of it. I shall leave most of the Natural
[pg 194]History generalisation, etc., for another work, as if I wait
to incorporate all, I may wait for years.—Hoping you are
quite well, believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







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


My dear Wallace,—I am hard at work on sexual selection
and am driven half mad by the number of collateral
points which require investigation, such as the relative
numbers of the two sexes, and especially on polygamy.
Can you aid me with respect to birds which have strongly
marked secondary sexual characters, such as birds of paradise,
humming-birds, the rupicola or rock-thrush, or any
other such cases? Many gallinaceous birds certainly are
polygamous. I suppose that birds may be known not to
be polygamous if they are seen during the whole breeding
season to associate in pairs, or if the male incubates, or
aids in feeding the young. Will you have the kindness to
turn this in your mind? but it is a shame to trouble you
now that, as I am heartily glad to hear, you are at work
on your Malayan Travels. I am fearfully puzzled how far
to extend your protective views with respect to the females
in various classes. The more I work, the more important
sexual selection apparently comes out.


Can butterflies be polygamous?—i.e. will one male impregnate
more than one female?


Forgive me troubling you, and I daresay I shall have
to ask your forgiveness again, and believe me, my dear
Wallace, yours most sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


P.S.—Baker has had the kindness to set the Entomological
Society discussing the relative numbers of the
sexes in insects, and has brought out some very curious
results.
[pg 195]
Is the orang polygamous? But I daresay I shall find
that in your papers in (I think) the Annals and Magazine
of Natural History.






The following group of letters deals with the causes of
the sterility of hybrids (see note in "More Letters," p.
287). Darwin's final view is given in the "Origin," 6th
edit., 1900, p. 384. He acknowledges that it would be
advantageous to two incipient species if, by physiological
isolation due to mutual sterility, they could be kept from
blending; but he continues: "After mature reflection, it
seems to me that this could not have been effected through
Natural Selection." And finally he concludes (p. 386):
"But it would be superfluous to discuss this question in
detail; for with plants we have conclusive evidence that
the sterility of crossed species must be due to some
principle quite independent of Natural Selection. Both
Gäartner and Kolreuter have proved that in genera including
numerous species a series can be formed from species
which, when crossed, yield fewer and fewer seeds, to
species which never produce a single seed, but yet are
affected by the pollen of certain other species, for the
germen swells. It is here manifestly impossible to select
the more sterile individuals, which have already ceased
to yield seeds; so that this acme of sterility, when the
germen alone is affected, cannot have been gained through
selection; and from the laws governing the various grades
of sterility being so uniform throughout the animal and
vegetable kingdoms, we may infer that the cause, whatever
it may be, is the same or nearly the same in all
cases."


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

[pg 196]





(Second and third sheets of a letter from Wallace, apparently of
February, 1868.)


I am in the second volume of your book, and I have
been astonished at the immense number of interesting facts
you have brought together. I read the chapter on Pangenesis
first, for I could not wait. I can hardly tell you
how much I admire it. It is a positive comfort to me to
have any feasible explanation of a difficulty that has always
been haunting me, and I shall never be able to give it up
till a better one supplies its place, and that I think hardly
possible. You have now fairly beaten Spencer on his own
ground, for he really offered no solution of the difficulties
of the problem. The incomprehensible minuteness and vast
numbers of the physiological germs or atoms (Which themselves
must be compounded of numbers of Spencer's physiological
units) is the only difficulty, but that is only on a
par with the difficulties in all conceptions of matter, space,
motion, force, etc. As I understood Spencer, his physiological
units were identical throughout each species, but
slightly different in each different species; but no attempt
was made to show how the identical form of the parent or
ancestors came to be built up of such units.


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


Also, I do not see your objection to sterility between
allied species having been aided by Natural Selection. It
appears to me that, given a differentiation of a species into
two forms, each of which was adapted to a special sphere
of existence, every slight degree of sterility would be a
positive advantage, not to the individuals who were sterile,
[pg 197]but to each form. If you work it out, and suppose the two
incipient species A, B to be divided into two groups, one
of which contains those which are fertile when the two are
crossed, the other being slightly sterile, you will find that
the latter will certainly supplant the former in the struggle
for existence, remembering that you have shown that in such
a cross the offspring would be more vigorous than the pure
breed, and would therefore certainly soon supplant them, and
as these would not be so well adapted to any special sphere
of existence as the pure species A and B, they would certainly
in their turn give way to A and B.


I am sure all naturalists will be disgusted at the malicious
and ignorant article in the Athenæum. It is a disgrace to
the paper, and I hope someone will publicly express the
general opinion of it. We can expect no good reviews of
your book till the quarterlies or best monthlies come out.... I
shall be anxious to see how Pangenesis is received.—Believe
me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. February 27, 1868.


My dear Wallace,—You cannot well imagine how much
I have been pleased by what you say about Pangenesis.
None of my friends will speak out, except, to a certain
extent, Sir H. Holland,67 who found it very tough reading,
but admits that some view "closely akin to it" will have
to be admitted. Hooker, as far as I understand him, which
I hardly do at present, seems to think that the hypothesis
is little more than saying that organisms have such and
such potentialities. What you say exactly and fully expresses
my feeling, viz. that it is a relief to have some
feasible explanation of the various facts, which can be
given up as soon as any better hypothesis is found. It has
[pg 198]certainly been an immense relief to my mind; for I have
been stumbling over the subject for years, dimly seeing that
some relation existed between the various classes of facts.
I now hear from H. Spencer that his views quoted in my
footnote refer to something quite distinct, as you seem to
have perceived.


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


Indeed, I feel sure that I am right about sterility and
Natural Selection. Two of my grown-up children who are
acute reasoners have two or three times at intervals tried
to prove me wrong, and when your letter came they had
another try, but ended by coming back to my side. I do
not quite understand your case, and we think that a word
or two is misplaced. I wish some time you would consider
the case under the following point of view. If
sterility is caused or accumulated through Natural Selection,
then, as every degree exists up to absolute barrenness,
Natural Selection must have the power of increasing
it. Now take two species, A and B, and assume that
they are (by any means) half-sterile, i.e. produce half the
full number of offspring. Now try and make (by Natural
Selection) A and B absolutely sterile when crossed, and
you will find how difficult it is. I grant, indeed it is certain,
that the degree of sterility of the individuals of A
and B will vary, but any such extra-sterile individuals of,
we will say, A, if they should hereafter breed with other
individuals of A, will bequeath no advantage to their
progeny, by which these families will tend to increase in
number over other families of A, which are not more sterile
when crossed with B. But I do not know that I have made
this any clearer than in the chapter in my book. It is a
most difficult bit of reasoning, which I have gone over and
over again on paper with diagrams.
[pg 199]I shall be intensely curious to see your article in the
Journal of Travel.


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


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


Hearty thanks for your letter—you have indeed pleased
me, for I had given up the great god Pan as a stillborn
deity. I wish you could be induced to make it clear with
your admirable powers of elucidation in one of the scientific
journals.


I think we almost entirely agree about sexual selection,
as I now follow you to large extent about protection to
females, having always believed that colour was often transmitted
to both sexes; but I do not go quite so far about
protection.—Always yours most sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







Hurstpierpoint. March 1, 1868.


My dear Darwin,—I beg to enclose what appears to me
a demonstration, on your own principles, that Natural Selection
could produce sterility of hybrids.


If it does not convince you I shall be glad if you will
point out where the fallacy lies. I have taken the two cases
of a slight sterility overcoming a perfect fertility, and of
a perfect sterility overcoming a partial fertility—the beginning
and end of the process. You admit that variations
[pg 200]in fertility and sterility occur, and I think you will also
admit that if I demonstrate that a considerable amount of
sterility would be advantageous to a variety, that is sufficient
proof that the slightest variation in that direction
would be useful also, and would go on accumulating.


Sir C. Lyell spoke to me as if he greatly admired pangenesis.
I am very glad H. Spencer at once acknowledges
that his view was something quite distinct from yours.
Although, as you know, I am a great admirer of his, I
feel how completely his view failed to go to the root of
the matter, as yours does. His explained nothing, though
he was evidently struggling hard to find an explanation.
Yours, as far as I can see, explains everything in growth
and reproduction, though of course the mystery of life and
consciousness remains as great as ever.


Parts of the chapter on Pangenesis I found hard reading,
and have not quite mastered yet, and there are also
throughout the discussions in Vol. II. many bits of hard
reading on minute points which we, who have not worked
experimentally at cultivation and crossing as you have done,
can hardly see the importance of, or their bearing on the
general question.


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


I suppose Mrs. Darwin thinks you must have a holiday,
after the enormous labour of bringing out such a book as
that. I am sorry I am not now staying in town. I shall,
however, be up for two days on Thursday, and shall hope
to see you at the Linnean, where Mr. Trimen has a paper
on some of his wonderful South African mimetic butterflies.


I hope this will reach you before you leave.—Believe
me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 201]






Hurstpierpoint. March 8, 1868.


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


Trimen's paper at the Linnean was a very good one,
but the only opponents were Andrew Murray and B.
Seeman. The former talked utter nonsense about the
"harmony of nature" produced by "polarisation," alike
in "rocks, plants and animals," etc. etc. etc. And Seeman
objected that there was mimicry among plants, and that our
theory would not explain it.


Lubbock answered them both in his best manner.


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


Would you like to see the specimens of pupæ of butterflies
whose colours have changed in accordance with the
colour of the surrounding objects? They are very curious,
and Mr. T.W. Wood, who bred them, would, I am sure,
be delighted to bring them to show you. His address is
89 Stanhope Street, Hampstead Road, N.W.—Believe me
yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


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







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


My dear Wallace,—Many thanks about Pieridæ. I have
no photographs up here, but will remember to send one
from Down. Should you care to have a large one, of treble
or quadruple common size, I will with pleasure send you
one under glass cover, to any address you like in London,
either now or hereafter. I grieve to say we shall not be
here on April 2nd, as we return home on the 31st. In
[pg 202]summer I hope that Mrs. Wallace and yourself will pay us a
visit at Down, soon after you return to London; for I am
sure you will allow me the freedom of an invalid.


My paper to-morrow at the Linnean Society is simply
to prove, alas! that primrose and cowslip are as good
species as any in the world, and that there is no trustworthy
evidence of one producing the other. The only
interesting point is the frequency of the production of
natural hybrids, i.e. oxlips, and the existence of one kind
of oxlip which constitutes a third good and distinct species.
I do not suppose that I shall be able to attend the Linnean
Society to-morrow.


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


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


I hope your book progresses.


I am intensely anxious to see your paper in Murray's
Journal.—My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.

[pg 203]






Hurstpierpoint. March 19, 1868.


Dear Darwin,—I should very much value a large photograph
of you, and also a carte for my album, though it is
too bad to ask you for both, as you must have so many
applicants.


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


I am sorry about the Primulas, but I feel sure some such
equally good case will some day be discovered, for it seems
impossible to understand how all natural species whatever
should have acquired sterility. Closely allied forms from
adjacent islands would, I should think, offer the best
chance of finding good species fertile inter se; since even
if Natural Selection induces sterility I do not see how it
could affect them, or why they should always be sterile,
and varieties never.


I am glad you have got good materials on sexual selection.
It is no doubt a difficult subject. One difficulty to
me is, that I do not see how the constant minute variations,
which are sufficient for Natural Selection to work
with, could be sexually selected. We seem to require a
series of bold and abrupt variations. How can we imagine
that an inch in the tail of a peacock, or a quarter of an
inch in that of the bird of paradise, would be noticed and
preferred by the female?


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


In case your son has turned his attention to mathematical
physics, will you ask him to look at the enclosed question,
[pg 204]which I have vainly attempted to get an answer to?—Believe
me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







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


My dear Wallace,—I have sent your query to Cambridge
to my son. He ought to answer it, for he got his place of
Second Wrangler chiefly by solving very difficult problems.
I enclose his remarks on two of your paragraphs: I should
like them returned some time, for I have not studied them,
and let me have your impression.


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


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


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


In regard to sexual selection. A girl sees a handsome
man, and without observing whether his nose or whiskers
are the tenth of an inch longer or shorter than in some
other man, admires his appearance and says she will marry
him. So, I suppose, with the pea-hen; and the tail has
been increased in length merely by, on the whole, presenting
a more gorgeous appearance. Jenner Weir, however,
[pg 205]has given me some facts showing that birds apparently
admire details of plumage.—Yours most sincerely,


C. DARWIN.







Hurstpierpoint. March 24, [1868?].


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for the photo, which I
shall get when I go to town.


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


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


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


2. A change of conditions occurs which threatens the
existence of the species, but the two varieties are adapted
to the changing conditions, and, if accumulated, will form
two new species adapted to the new conditions.


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


4. If sterility could be induced, then the pure races
would increase more rapidly and replace the old species.


5. It is admitted that partial sterility between varieties
does occasionally occur. It is admitted the degree of this
sterility varies. Is it not probable that Natural Selection
can accumulate these variations and thus save the species?


If Natural Selection can not do this, how do species
ever arise, except when a variety is isolated?


Closely allied species in distinct countries being sterile
is no difficulty, for either they diverged from a common
ancestor in contact, and Natural Selection increased the
sterility, or they were isolated, and have varied since, in
which case they have been for ages influenced by distinct
conditions which may well produce sterility.


If the difficulty of grafting was as great as the difficulty
[pg 206]of crossing, and as regular, I admit it would be a most
serious objection. But it is not. I believe many distinct
species can be grafted while others less distinct cannot.
The regularity with which natural species are sterile
together, even when very much alike, I think is an argument
in favour of the sterility having been generally produced
by Natural Selection for the good of the species.


The other difficulty, of unequal sterility of reciprocal
crosses, seems none to me; for it is a step to more complete
sterility, and as such would be useful and would be
increased by selection.


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


I am in hopes it will bring in a new set of converts to
Natural Selection, and will at all events lead to a fresh
ventilation of the subject.—Believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







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


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


I enclose my photograph, which I have received from
Down. I sent your answer to George on his objection to
your argument on sterility, but have not yet heard from
him. I dread beginning to think over this fearful problem,
[pg 207]which I believe beats the plate on the circular rim;
but I will sometime. I foresee, however, that there are so
many doubtful points that we shall never agree. As far
as a glance serves it seems to me, perhaps falsely, that
you sometimes argue that hybrids have an advantage from
greater vigour, and sometimes a disadvantage from not
being so well fitted to their conditions. Heaven protect
my stomach whenever I attempt following your argument!—Yours
most sincerely,


C. DARWIN.







Down, Bromley, Kent. April 6, 1868.


My dear Wallace,—I have been considering the terrible
problem. Let me first say that no man could have more
earnestly wished for the success of Natural Selection in
regard to sterility than I did, and when I considered a
general statement (as in your last note) I always felt sure
it could be worked out, but always failed in detail, the
cause being, as I believe, that Natural Selection cannot
effect what is not good for the individual, including in
this term a social community. It would take a volume to
discuss all the points; and nothing is so humiliating to
me as to agree with a man like you (or Hooker) on the
premises and disagree about the result.


I agree with my son's argument and not with rejoinder.
The cause of our difference, I think, is that I look at the
number of offspring as an important element (all circumstances
remaining the same) in keeping up the average
number of individuals within any area. I do not believe
that the amount of food by any means is the sole determining
cause of number. Lessened fertility is equivalent
to a new source of destruction. I believe if in one district
a species produce from any cause fewer young, the deficiency
would be supplied from surrounding districts. This
applies to your par. 5. If the species produced fewer young
[pg 208]from any cause in every district, it would become extinct
unless its fertility were augmented through Natural Selection
(see H. Spencer).


I demur to the probability and almost to the possibility of
par. 1, as you start with two forms, within the same area,
which are not mutually sterile, and which yet have supplanted
the parent-form (par. 6). I know of no ghost of
a fact supporting belief that disinclination to cross accompanies
sterility. It cannot hold with plants, or the lower
fixed aquatic animals. I saw clearly what an immense aid
this would be, but gave it up. Disinclination to cross seems
to have been independently acquired, probably by Natural
Selection; and I do not see why it would not have sufficed
to have prevented incipient species from blending to have
simply increased sexual disinclination to cross.


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


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


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


The difficulty of increasing the sterility, through Natural
[pg 209]Selection, of two already sterile species seems to me best
brought home by considering an actual case. The cowslip
and primrose are moderately sterile, yet occasionally
produce hybrids: now these hybrids, two or three or a
dozen in a whole parish, occupy ground which might have
been occupied by either pure species, and no doubt the
latter suffer to this small extent. But can you conceive
that any individual plants of the primrose and cowslip,
which happened to be mutually rather more sterile (i.e.
which when crossed yielded a few less seeds) than usual,
would profit to such a degree as to increase in number to
the ultimate exclusion of the present primrose and cowslip?
I cannot.


My son, I am sorry to say, cannot see the full force of
your rejoinder in regard to the second head of continually
augmented sterility. You speak in this rejoinder, and in
par. 5, of all the individuals becoming in some slight
degree sterile in certain districts; if you were to admit
that by continued exposure to these same conditions the
sterility would inevitably increase, there would be no need
of Natural Selection. But I suspect that the sterility is
not caused so much by any particular conditions, as by
long habituation to conditions of any kind. To speak
according to pangenesis, the gemmules of hybrids are not
injured, for hybrids propagate freely by buds; but their
reproductive organs are somehow affected, so that they
cannot accumulate the proper gemmules, in nearly the same
manner as the reproductive organs of a pure species
become affected when exposed to unnatural conditions.


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


CH. DARWIN.

[pg 210]






Hurstpierpoint. [?] April 8, 1868.


Dear Darwin,—I am sorry you should have given yourself
the trouble to answer my ideas on Sterility. If you
are not convinced, I have little doubt but that I am
wrong; and in fact I was only half convinced by my own
arguments, and I now think there is about an even chance
that Natural Selection may or not be able to accumulate
sterility. If my first proposition is modified to the existence
of a species and a variety in the same area, it will
do just as well for my argument. Such certainly do
exist. They are fertile together, and yet each maintains
itself tolerably distinct. How can this be, if there is no
disinclination to crossing? My belief certainly is that
number of offspring is not so important an element in
keeping up population of a species as supply of food and
other favourable conditions, because the numbers of a
species constantly vary greatly in different parts of its
area, whereas the average number of offspring is not a
very variable element.


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


While writing a few pages on the northern alpine
forms of plants on the Java mountains I wanted a few
cases to refer to like Teneriffe, where there are no northern
forms, and scarcely any alpine. I expected the volcanoes
of Hawaii would be a good case, and asked Dr. Seeman
about them. It seems a man has lately published a list of
Hawaiian plants, and the mountains swarm with European
alpine genera and some species!68 Is not this most extraordinary
and a puzzler? They are, I believe, truly oceanic
[pg 211]islands in the absence of mammals and the extreme poverty
of birds and insects, and they are within the tropics. Will
not that be a hard nut for you when you come to treat in
detail on geographical distribution?


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


Many thanks for your carte, which I think very good.
The large one had not arrived when I was in town last
week.


Sir C. Lyell's chapter on Oceanic Islands I think very
good.—Believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 9, 1868.


My dear Wallace,—You allude in your note to several
points which I should much enjoy discussing with you did
time and strength permit. I know Dr. Seeman is a good
botanist, but I most strongly advise you to show the list
to Hooker before you make use of the materials in print.
Hooker seems much overworked, and is now gone a tour,
but I suppose you will be in town before very long, and
could see him. The list is quite unintelligible to me; it
is not pretended that the same species exist in the Sandwich
Islands and Arctic regions; and as far as the genera
are concerned, I know that in almost every one of
them species inhabit such countries as Florida, North
Africa, New Holland, etc. Therefore these, genera seem
to me almost mundane, and their presence in the Sandwich
Islands will not, as I suspect in my ignorance,
show any relation to the Arctic regions. The Sandwich
Islands, though I have never considered them much, have
long been a sore perplexity to me: they are eminently
oceanic in position and productions; they have long been
separated from each other; and there are only slight signs
[pg 212]of subsidence in the islets to the westward. I remember,
however, speculating that there must have been some immigration
during the glacial period from North America
or Japan; but I cannot remember what my grounds were.
Some of the plants, I think, show an affinity with Australia.
I am very glad that you like Lyell's chapter on Oceanic
Islands, for I thought it one of the best in the part which
I have read. If you do not receive the big photo of me in
due time, let me hear.—Yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.






The following refers to Wallace's article, "A Theory of
Birds' Nests," in Andrew Murray's Journal of Travel,
i. 73. He here treats in fuller detail the view already published
in the Westminster Review for July, 1867, p. 38.
The rule which Wallace believes, with very few exceptions,
to hold good is, "that when both sexes are of strikingly
gay and conspicuous colours, the nest is ... such as to
conceal the sitting bird; while, whenever there is a striking
contrast of colours, the male being gay and conspicuous,
the female dull and obscure, the nest is open and the
sitting bird exposed to view." At this time Wallace allowed
considerably more influence to sexual selection (in combination
with the need of protection) than in his later writings.
See his letter to Darwin of July 23, 1877 (p. 298), which
fixes the period at which the change in his views occurred.
He finally rejected Darwin's theory that colours "have
been developed by the preference of the females, the more
ornamented males becoming the parents of each successive
generation." (See "Darwinism," 1889, p. 285.)


Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 15, 1868.


My dear Wallace,—I have been deeply interested by
your admirable article on Birds' Nests. I am delighted
to see that we really differ very little—not more than two
men almost always will. You do not lay much or any
stress on new characters spontaneously appearing in one
[pg 213]sex (generally the male) and being transmitted exclusively,
or more commonly only in excess, to that sex. I, on the
other hand, formerly paid far too little attention to protection.
I had only a glimpse of the truth. But even
now I do not go quite as far as you. I cannot avoid
thinking rather more than you do about the exceptions in
nesting to the rule, especially the partial exceptions, i.e.
when there is some little difference between the sexes in
species which build concealed nests. I am now quite satisfied
about the incubating males; there is so little difference
in conspicuousness between the sexes. I wish with
all my heart I could go the whole length with you. You
seem to think that such birds probably select the most
beautiful females: I must feel some doubt on this head,
for I can find no evidence of it. Though I am writing so
carping a note, I admire the article thoroughly.


And now I want to ask a question. When female
butterflies are more brilliant than their males, you believe
that they have in most cases, or in all cases, been rendered
brilliant so as to mimic some other species and thus escape
danger. But can you account for the males not having been
rendered equally brilliant and equally protected? Although
it may be most for the welfare of the species that the female
should be protected, yet it would be some advantage, certainly
no disadvantage, for the unfortunate male to enjoy
an equal immunity from danger. For my part, I should
say that the female alone had happened to vary in the right
manner, and that the beneficial variations had been transmitted
to the same sex alone. Believing in this, I can see
no improbability (but from analogy of domestic animals a
strong probability): the variations leading to beauty must
often have occurred in the males alone, and been transmitted
to that sex alone. Thus I should account in many
cases for the greater beauty of the male over the female,
[pg 214]without the need of the protective principle. I should be
grateful for an answer on this point.


I hope that your Eastern book progresses well.—My
dear Wallace, yours sincerely,


C. DARWIN.






Sir Clifford Allbutt's view, referred to in the following
letter, probably had reference to the fact that the sperm-cell
goes, or is carried, to the germ-cell, never vice versa.
In this letter Darwin gives the reason for the "law" referred
to. Wallace has been good enough to supply the
following note (May 27, 1902): "It was at this time
that my paper on 'Protective Resemblance' first appeared
in the Westminster Review, in which I adduced the greater,
or, rather, the more continuous, importance of the female
(in the lower animals) for the race, and my 'Theory of
Birds' Nests' (Journal of Travel and Natural History,
No. 2), in which I applied this to the usually dull colours
of female butterflies and birds. It is to these articles, as
well as to my letters, that Darwin chiefly refers."


Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 30, 1868.


My dear Wallace,—Your letter, like so many previous
ones, has interested me much. Dr. Allbutt's view occurred
to me some time ago, and I have written a short discussion
on it. It is, I think, a remarkable law, to which I have
found no exception. The foundation lies in the fact that
in many cases the eggs or seeds require nourishment
and protection by the mother-form for some time after
impregnation. Hence the spermatozoa and antherozoids
travel in the lower aquatic animals and plants to the
female, and pollen is borne to the female organ. As
organisms rise in the scale it seems natural that the
male should carry the spermatozoa to the females in his
own body. As the male is the searcher he has received
and gained more eager passions than the female; and,
very differently from you, I look at this as one great difficulty
[pg 215]in believing that the males select the more attractive
females; as far as I can discover they are always ready
to seize on any female, and sometimes on many females.
Nothing would please me more than to find evidence of
males selecting the more attractive females [? in pigeons69]:
I have for months been trying to persuade myself of this.
There is the case of man in favour of this belief, and I
know in hybrid [lizards'70] unions of males preferring particular
females, but alas! not guided by colour. Perhaps I
may get more evidence as I wade through my twenty years'
mass of notes.


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


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


That is an excellent remark of yours about no known
[pg 216]case of the male alone assuming protective colours; but
in the cases in which protection has been gained by dull
colours, I presume that sexual selection would interfere
with the male losing his beauty. If the male alone had
acquired beauty as a protection, it would be most readily
overlooked, as males are so often more beautiful than
their females. Moreover, I grant that the loss of the
male is somewhat less precious and thus there would be
less rigorous selection with the male, so he would be less
likely to be made beautiful through Natural Selection for
protection. (This does not apply to sexual selection, for
the greater the excess of males and the less precious their
lives, so much the better for sexual selection.) But it
seems to me a good argument, and very good if it could be
thoroughly established.—Yours most sincerely,


C. DARWIN.


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


P.S.—I heard yesterday that my photograph had been
sent to your London address—Westbourne Grove.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. May 5, 1868.


My dear Wallace,—I am afraid I have caused you a
great deal of trouble in writing to me at such length. I
am glad to say that I agree almost entirely with your summary,
except that I should put sexual selection as an equal
or perhaps as even a more important agent in giving colour
than natural selection for protection. As I get on in my
work I hope to get clearer and more decided ideas. Working
up from the bottom of the scale I have as yet only got
to fishes. What I rather object to in your articles is that
I do not think anyone would infer from them that you
place sexual selection even as high as No. 4 in your summary.
It was very natural that you should give only a
[pg 217]line to sexual selection in the summary to the Westminster
Review, but the result at first to my mind was that you
attributed hardly anything to its power. In your penultimate
note you say: "In the great mass of cases in which
there is great differentiation of colour between the sexes,
I believe it is due almost wholly to the need of protection
to the female." Now, looking to the whole animal kingdom
I can at present by no means admit this view; but
pray do not suppose that because I differ to a certain
extent, I do not thoroughly admire your several papers
and your admirable generalisation on birds' nests. With
respect to this latter point, however, although following
you, I suspect that I shall ultimately look at the whole
case from a rather different point of view.


You ask what I think about the gay-coloured females
of Pieris:71 I believe I quite follow you in believing that
the colours are wholly due to mimicry; and I further
believe that the male is not brilliant from not having received
through inheritance colour from the female, and
from not himself having varied; in short, that he has not
been influenced by Selection.


I can make no answer with respect to the elephants.
With respect to the female reindeer, I have hitherto looked
at the horns simply as the consequence of inheritance not
having been limited by sex.


Your idea about colour being concentrated in the smaller
males seems good, and I presume that you will not object
to my giving it as your suggestion.—Believe me, my dear
Wallace, with many thanks, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.






Wallace's more recent views on the question of Natural
Selection and Sterility may be found in a note written by
[pg 218]him in 1899: "When writing my 'Darwinism' and coming
again to the consideration of the problem of the effect of
Natural Selection in accumulating variations in the amount
of sterility between varieties or incipient species, twenty
years later, I became more convinced than I was when
discussing with Darwin, of the substantial accuracy of
my argument. Recently a correspondent who is both a
naturalist and a mathematician has pointed out to me a
slight error in my calculation at p, 183 (which does not,
however, materially affect the result) disproving the physiological
selection of the late Dr. Romanes, but he can
see no fallacy in my argument as to the power of Natural
Selection to increase sterility between incipient species,
nor, so far as I am aware, has anyone shown such fallacy
to exist.


"On the other points on which I differed from Mr.
Darwin in the foregoing discussion—the effect of high fertility
on population of a species, etc.—I still hold the
views I then expressed, but it would be out of place to
attempt to justify them here."—A.R.W.







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


Dear Darwin,—I ought to have written before to thank
you for the copies of your paper on "Primula" and on
"Cross Unions of Dimorphic Plants, etc." The latter is
particularly interesting, and the conclusion most important;
but I think it makes the difficulty of how these forms,
with their varying degrees of sterility, originated, greater
than ever. If Natural Selection could not accumulate
varying degrees of sterility for the plant's benefit, then
how did sterility ever come to be associated with one cross
of a trimorphic plant rather than another? The difficulty
seems to be increased by the consideration that the advantage
of a cross with a distinct individual is gained just
as well by illegitimate as by legitimate unions. By what
means, then, did illegitimate unions ever become sterile?
It would seem a far simpler way for each plant's pollen
[pg 219]to have acquired a prepotency on another individual's
stigma over that of the same individual, without the extraordinary
complication of three differences of structure
and eighteen different unions with varying degrees of
sterility!


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


I have been reading with great pleasure Mr. Bentham's
last admirable address,72 in which he so well replies to the
gross misstatements of the Athenæum; and also says a
word in favour of pangenesis. I think we may now congratulate
you on having made a valuable convert, whose
opinions on the subject, coming so late and being evidently
so well considered, will have much weight.


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


I am engaged in negotiations about my book.


Hoping you are well and getting on with your next
volumes, believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Freshwater, Isle of Wight. August 19, 1868.


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


We return to Down to-morrow.


Hooker has been here for two or three days, so that I
[pg 220]have had much talk about his Address. I am glad that
you will be there.


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


With respect to dimorphic plants: it is a great puzzle,
but I fancy I partially see my way—too long for a letter
and too speculative for publication. The groundwork of
the acquirement of such peculiar fertility (for what you
say about any other distinct individual being, as it would
appear, sufficient, is very true) rests on the stamens and
pistil having varied first in relative length, as actually
occurs irrespective of dimorphism, and the peculiar kind
of fertility characteristic of dimorphic and the trimorphic
plants having been secondarily acquired. Pangenesis makes
very few converts: G.H. Lewes is one.


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


In the course of September, if I can get at all stronger,
I hope to get Mr. J. Jenner Weir (who has been wonderfully
kind in giving me information) to pay me a visit,
and I will then write for the chance of your being able to
come and, I hope, bring with you Mrs. Wallace. If I
could get several of you together, it would be less dull for
you, for of late I have found it impossible to talk with any
human being for more than half an hour, except on extraordinarily
good days.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, ever
yours sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.

[pg 221]






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


Dear Darwin,—I was very sorry to hear you had been
so unwell again, and hope you will not exert yourself to
write me such long letters. Darwinianism was in the
ascendant at Norwich (I hope you do not dislike the word,
for we really must use it), and I think it rather disgusted
some of the parsons, joined with the amount of advice they
received from Hooker and Huxley. The worst of it is that
there are no opponents left who know anything of natural
history, so that there are none of the good discussions we
used to have. G.H. Lewes seems to me to be making a
great mistake in the Fortnightly, advocating many distinct
origins for different groups, and even, if I understand him,
distinct origins for some allied groups, just as the anthropologists
do who make the red man descend from the orang,
the black man from the chimpanzee—or rather the Malay
and orang one ancestor, the negro and chimpanzee another.
Vogt told me that the Germans are all becoming converted
by your last book.


I am certainly surprised that you should find so much
evidence against protection having checked the acquirement
of bright colour in females; but I console myself
by presumptuously hoping that I can explain your facts,
unless they are derived from the very groups on which I
chiefly rest—birds and insects. There is nothing necessarily
requiring protection in females; it is a matter of
habits. There are groups in which both sexes require protection
in an exactly equal degree, and others (I think) in
which the male requires most protection, and I feel the
greatest confidence that these will ultimately support my
view, although I do not yet know the facts they may afford.


Hoping you are in better health, believe me, dear
Darwin, yours faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 222]






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


Dear Darwin,—It will give me great pleasure to accept
your kind invitation for next Saturday and Sunday, and
my wife would very much like to come too, and will if
possible. Unfortunately, there is a new servant coming
that very day, and there is a baby at the mischievous age
of a year and a quarter to be left in somebody's care; but
I daresay it will be managed somehow.


I will drop a line on Friday to say if we are coming
the time you mention.—Believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Friday.


My dear Darwin,—My wife has arranged to accompany
me to-morrow, and we hope to be at Orpington Station at
5.44, as mentioned by you.—Very truly yours,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. September 16, 1868.


My dear Wallace,—The beetles have arrived, and cordial
thanks: I never saw such wonderful creatures in my life.
I was thinking of something quite different. I shall wait
till my son Frank returns, before soaking and examining
them. I long to steal the box, but return it by this post,
like a too honest man.


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


You will be pleased to hear that I am undergoing severe
distress about protection and sexual selection: this morning
I oscillated with joy towards you; this evening I have
[pg 223]swung back to the old position, out of which I fear I shall
never get.


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


CH. DARWIN.


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






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


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


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


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


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


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


3. Now, if the male and female were distinct species,
with different habits and organisations, you would, I
think, at once admit that a difference of colour serving to
make that one less conspicuous which evidently required
more protection than the other had been acquired by
Natural Selection.


4. But you admit that variations appearing in one sex
are transmitted (often) to that sex only: there is therefore
[pg 224]nothing to prevent Natural Selection acting on the two
sexes as if they were two species.


5. Your objection that the same protection would to a
certain extent be useful to the male, seems to me utterly
unsound, and directly opposed to your own doctrine so
convincingly urged in the "Origin," "that Natural Selection
never can improve an animal beyond its needs." So
that admitting abundant variation of colour in the male,
it is impossible that he can be brought by Natural Selection
to resemble the female (unless her variations are
always transmitted to him), because the difference of their
colours is to balance the difference in their organisations
and habits, and Natural Selection cannot give to the male
more than is needed to effect that balance.


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


Or perhaps the protection is acquired because this
tendency exists. I admit therefore in the case of concealed
nests they [habits] may have been acquired for
protection.


Now for the special case.


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


8. In the much more powerful Papilio, Pieris, and
Diadema it is generally the female only that mimics
Danaida.


9. In these cases the females often acquire more bright
and varied colours than the male. Sometimes, as in Pieris
pyrrha, conspicuously so.


10. No single case is known of a male Papilio, Pieris,
Diadema (or any other insect?) alone mimicking a Danais,
etc.
[pg 225]
11. But colour is more frequent in males, and variations
always seem ready for purposes of sexual or other
selection.


12. The fair inference seems to be that given in proposition
5 of the general argument, viz. that each species
and each sex can only be modified by selection just as far
as is absolutely necessary, not a step farther. A male,
being by structure and habits less exposed to danger and
less requiring protection than the female, cannot have
more protection given to it by Natural Selection, but a
female must have some extra protection to balance the
greater danger, and she rapidly acquires it in one way or
another.


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







Down, Bromley, Kent. September 23, 1868.


My dear Wallace,—I am very much obliged for all your
trouble in writing me your long letter, which I will keep
by me and ponder over. To answer it would require at
least 200 folio pages! If you could see how often I have
rewritten some pages, you would know how anxious I am
to arrive as near as I can to the truth. We differ, I think,
chiefly from fixing our minds perhaps too closely on different
points, on which we agree: I lay great stress on what
I know takes place under domestication: I think we start
with different fundamental notions on inheritance. I find
[pg 226]it most difficult, but not, I think, impossible, to see how, for
instance, a few red feathers appearing on the head of a male bird, and
which are at first transmitted to both sexes, could come to be
transmitted to males alone;73 but I have no difficulty in making the
whole head red if the few red feathers in the male from the first tended
to be sexually transmitted. I am quite willing to admit that the female
may have been modified, either at the same time or subsequently, for
protection, by the accumulation of variations limited in their
transmission to the female sex. I owe to your writings the consideration
of this latter point. But I cannot yet persuade myself that females
alone have often been modified for protection. Should you grudge the
trouble briefly to tell me whether you believe that the plainer head and
less bright colours of [female symbol]74 chaffinch, the less red on
the head and less clean colours of [female symbol] goldfinch, the much
less red on breast of [female symbol] bullfinch, the paler crest of
goldencrest wren, etc., have been acquired by them for protection? I
cannot think so; any more than I can that the considerable differences
between [female symbol] and [male symbol] house-sparrow, or much greater
brightness of [male symbol] Parus cæruleus (both of which build under
cover) than of [female symbol] Parus are related to protection. I even
misdoubt much whether the less blackness of blackbird is for protection.


Again, can you give me reason for believing that the
merest differences between female pheasants, the female
Gallus bankiva, the female of black grouse, the pea-hen,
female partridge, have all special reference to protection
[pg 227]under slightly different conditions? I of course admit that
they are all protected by dull colours, derived, as I think,
from some dull-ground progenitor; and I account partly
for their difference by partial transference of colour from
the male, and by other means too long to specify; but I
earnestly wish to see reason to believe that each is specially
adapted for concealment to its environment.


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. I
value the cases of bright-coloured, incubating male fishes—and
brilliant female butterflies, solely as showing that
one sex may be made brilliant without any necessary
transference of beauty to the other sex; for in these cases
I cannot suppose that beauty in the other sex was checked
by selection.


I fear this letter will trouble you to read it. A very
short answer about your belief in regard to the [female symbol] finches
and Gallinaceæ would suffice.—Believe me, my dear Wallace,
yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







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


Dear Darwin,—Your view seems to be that variations
occurring in one sex are transmitted either to that sex exclusively
or to both sexes equally, or more rarely partially
transferred. But we have every gradation of sexual colours
from total dissimilarity to perfect identity. If this is explained
solely by the laws of inheritance, then the colours
of one or other sex will be always (in relation to their
environment) a matter of chance. I cannot think this. I
think Selection more powerful than laws of inheritance,
of which it makes use, as shown by cases of two, three or
four forms of female butterflies, all of which have, I have
little doubt, been specialised for protection.
[pg 228]
To answer your first question is most difficult, if not
impossible, because we have no sufficient evidence in individual
cases of slight sexual difference, to determine
whether the male alone has acquired his superior brightness
by sexual selection, or the female been made duller
by need of protection, or whether the two causes have
acted. Many of the sexual differences of existing species
may be inherited differences from parent forms who existed
under different conditions and had greater or less need of
protection.


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


I think the case of [female symbol] Pieris pyrrha proves that females
alone can be greatly modified for protection.


To your second question I can reply more decidedly. I
do think the females of the Gallmaceæ you mention have
been modified or been prevented from acquiring the
brighter plumage of the male by need of protection. I
know that the Gallus bankiva frequents drier and more
open situations than the pea-hen of Java, which is found
among grassy and leafy vegetation corresponding with the
colours of the two. So the Argus pheasant, [male symbol] and [female
symbol], are,
I feel sure, protected by their tints corresponding to the
dead leaves of the lofty forest in which they dwell, and the
female of the gorgeous fire-back pheasant, Lophura viellottii,
is of a very similar rich brown colour. I do not, however,
at all think the question can be settled by individual cases,
but only by large masses of facts.


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


Now, supposing, on your view, that the colours of a
[pg 229]male bird become more and more brilliant by sexual selection,
and a good deal of that colour is transmitted to the
female till it becomes positively injurious to her during
incubation and the race is in danger of extinction, do you
not think that all the females who had acquired less of
the male's bright colours or who themselves varied in a
protective direction would be preserved, and that thus a
good protective colouring would be acquired? If you
admit that this could occur, and can show no good reason
why it should not often occur, then we no longer differ,
for this is the main point of my view.


Have you ever thought of the red wax-tips of the Bombycilla
beautifully imitating the red fructification of lichens
used in the nest, and therefore the females have it too? Yet
this is a very sexual-looking character.


We begin printing this week.—Yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.—Pray don't distress yourself on this subject. It
will all come right in the end, and after all it is only an
episode in your great work.—A.R.W.







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


Dear Darwin,—I should have answered your letter
before, but have been very busy reading over my MSS.
the last time before going to press, drawing maps,
etc. etc.


Your first question cannot be answered, because we have
not, in individual cases of slight sexual difference, sufficient
evidence to determine how much of that difference is due to
sexual selection acting on the male, how much to natural
selection (protective) acting on the female, or how much
of the difference may be due to inherited differences from
ancestors who lived under different conditions. On your
second question I can give an opinion. I do think the
[pg 230]females of the Gallinaceæ you mention have been either
modified; or prevented from acquiring much of the brighter
plumage of the males, by the need of protection. I know
that Gallus bankiva frequents drier and more open situations
than Pavo muticus, which in Java is found among
grassy and leafy vegetation corresponding with the colours
of the two females. So the Argus pheasants, male and
female, are, I feel sure, protected by their tints corresponding
to dead leaves of the dry lofty forests in which
they dwell; and the female of the gorgeous fire-back
pheasant, Lophura viellottii, is of a very similar rich
brown colour.


These and many other colours of female birds seem to
me exactly analogous to the colours of both sexes in such
groups as the snipes, woodcocks, plovers, ptarmigan, desert
birds, Arctic animals, greenbirds.




[The second page of this letter has been torn off. This
letter and that of September 27 appear both to answer the
same letter from Darwin. The last page of this or of
another letter was placed with it in the portfolio of
letters; it is now given.]




I am sorry to find that our difference of opinion on this
point is a source of anxiety to you.


Pray do not let it be so. The truth will come out at
last, and our difference may be the means of setting others
to work who may set us both right.


After all, this question is only an episode (though an important
one) in the great question of the origin of species,
and whether you or I are right will not at all affect the main
doctrine—that is one comfort.


I hope you will publish your treatise on Sexual Selection
as a separate book as soon as possible, and then
while you are going on with your other work, there will no
[pg 231]doubt be found someone to battle with me over your facts,
on this hard problem.


With best wishes and kind regards to Mrs. Darwin and
all your family, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. October 6, 1868.


My dear Wallace,—Your letter is very valuable to me,
and in every way very kind. I will not inflict a long
answer, but only answer your queries. There are breeds
(viz. Hamburgh) in which both sexes differ much from
each other and from both sexes of G. bankiva; and both
sexes are kept constant by selection.


The comb of Spanish [male symbol] has been ordered to be upright
and that of Spanish [female symbol] to lop over, and this has been
effected. There are sub-breeds of game fowl, with [female symbol]s
very distinct and [male symbol]s almost identical; but this apparently
is the result of spontaneous variation without special
selection.


I am very glad to hear of the case of [female symbol] birds of paradise.


I have never in the least doubted the possibility of modifying
female birds alone for protection; and I have long
believed it for butterflies: I have wanted only evidence for
the females alone of birds having had their colours modified
for protection. But then I believe that the variations
by which a female bird or butterfly could get or has got
protective colouring have probably from the first been
variations limited in their transmission to the female sex;
and so with the variations of the male, where the male is
more beautiful than the female, I believe the variations
were sexually limited in their transmission to the males.
I am delighted to hear that you have been hard at work
on your MS.—Yours most sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.

[pg 232]






9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 20, 1869.


Dear Darwin,—It will give me very great pleasure if
you will allow me to dedicate my little book of Malayan
Travels to you, although it will be far too small and unpretending
a work to be worthy of that honour. Still, I
have done what I can to make it a vehicle for communicating
a taste for the higher branches of Natural History,
and I know that you will judge it only too favourably.
We are in the middle of the second volume, and if the
printers will get on, shall be out next month.


Have you seen in the last number of the Quarterly
Journal of Science the excellent remarks on Fraser's
article on Natural Selection failing as to Man? In one
page it gets to the heart of the question, and I have
written to the editor to ask who the author is.


My friend Spruce's paper on Palms is to be read to-morrow
evening at the Linnean. He tells me it contains
a discovery which he calls "alteration of function." He
found a clump of Geonema all of which were females, and
the next year the same clump were all males! He has
found other facts analogous to this, and I have no doubt
the subject is one that will interest you.


Hoping you are pretty well and are getting on steadily
with your next volumes, and with kind regards to Mrs.
Darwin and all your circle, believe me, dear Darwin, yours
very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.—Have you seen the admirable article in the
Guardian (!) on Lyell's "Principles"? It is most excellent
and liberal. It is written by the Rev. Geo. Buckle, of
Tiverton Vicarage, Bath, whom I met at Norwich and
found a thoroughly scientific and liberal parson. Perhaps
you have heard that I have undertaken to write an
article for the Quarterly (!) on the same subject, to make
[pg 233]up for that on "Modern Geology" last year not mentioning
Sir C. Lyell.


Really, what with the Tories passing Radical Reform
Bills and the Church periodicals advocating Darwinianism,
the millennium must be at hand.—A.R.W.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 22, 1869.


My dear Wallace,—Your intended dedication pleases me
much and I look at it as a great honour, and this is
nothing more than the truth. I am glad to hear, for
Lyell's sake and on general grounds, that you are going
to write in the Quarterly. Some little time ago I was
actually wishing that you wrote in the Quarterly, as I
knew that you occasionally contributed to periodicals, and
I thought that your articles would thus be more widely
read.


Thank you for telling me about the Guardian,
which I will borrow from Lyell. I did note the article
in the Quarterly Journal of Science and put it aside
to read again with the articles in Fraser and the
Spectator.


I have been interrupted in my regular work in preparing
a new edition75 of the "Origin," which has cost me
much labour, and which I hope I have considerably improved
in two or three important points. I always thought
individual differences more important than single variations,
but now I have come to the conclusion that they
are of paramount importance, and in this I believe I
agree with you. Fleeming Jenkin's arguments have convinced
me.76


I heartily congratulate you on your new book being so
nearly finished.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very
sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.

[pg 234]






9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 30, 1869.


Dear Darwin,—Will you tell me where are Fleeming
Jenkin's arguments on the importance of single variation?
Because I at present hold most strongly the contrary
opinion, that it is the individual differences or
general variability of species that enables them to become
modified and adapted to new conditions.


Variations or "sports" may be important in modifying
an animal in one direction, as in colour for instance,
but how it can possibly work in changes requiring co-ordination
of many parts, as in Orchids for example, I
cannot conceive. And as all the more important structural
modifications of animals and plants imply much co-ordination,
it appears to me that the chances are millions
to one against individual variations ever coinciding so as
to render the required modification possible. However, let
me read first what has convinced you.


You may tell Mrs. Darwin that I have now a daughter.


Give my kind regards to her and all your family.—Very
truly yours,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. February 2, 1869.


My dear Wallace,—I must have expressed myself atrociously;
I meant to say exactly the reverse of what you have
understood. F. Jenkin argued in the North British Review77
against single variations ever being perpetuated, and has
convinced me, though not in quite so broad a manner as
here put. I always thought individual differences more
important, but I was blind and thought that single variations
might be preserved much oftener than I now see is
possible or probable. I mentioned this in my former note
merely because I believed that you had come to similar
[pg 235]conclusions, and I like much to be in accord with you. I
believe I was mainly deceived by single variations offering
such simple illustrations, as when man selects.


We heartily congratulate you on the birth of your little
daughter.—Yours very sincerely,


C. DARWIN.







Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 5, 1869.


My dear Wallace,—I was delighted at receiving your
book78 this morning. The whole appearance and the illustrations
with which it [is] so profusely ornamented are
quite beautiful. Blessings on you and your publisher for
having the pages cut and gilded.


As for the dedication, putting quite aside how far I
deserve what you say, it seems to me decidedly the best
expressed dedication which I have ever met.


The reading will probably last me a month, for I dare
not have it read aloud, as I know that it will set me
thinking.


I see that many points will interest me greatly. When
I have finished, if I have anything particular to say, I will
write again. Accept my cordial thanks. The dedication
is a thing for my children's children to be proud of.—Yours
most sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. March 10, 1869.


Dear Darwin,—Thanks for your kind note. I could not
persuade Mr. Macmillan to cut more than twenty-five copies
for my own friends, and he even seemed to think this a sign
of most strange and barbarous taste.


Mr. Weir's paper on the kinds of larvæ, etc., eaten or
rejected by insectivorous birds was read at the last meeting
of the Entomological Society and was most interesting
and satisfactory. His observations and experiments, so far
[pg 236]as they have yet gone, confirm in every instance my hypothetical
explanation of the colours of caterpillars. He finds
that all nocturnal-feeding obscure-coloured caterpillars, all
green and brown and mimicking caterpillars, are greedily
eaten by almost every insectivorous bird. On the other
hand, every gaily coloured, spotted or banded species,
which never conceal themselves, and all spiny and hairy
kinds, are invariably rejected, either without or after trial.
He has also come to the curious and rather unexpected
conclusion, that hairy and spiny caterpillars are not protected
by their hairs, but by their nauseous taste, the
hairs being merely an external mark of their uneatableness,
like the gay colours of others. He deduces this from
two kinds of facts: (1) that very young caterpillars before
the hairs are developed are equally rejected, and (2) that
in many cases the smooth pupæ and even the perfect insects
of the same species are equally rejected.


His facts, it is true, are at present not very numerous,
but they all point one way. They seem to me to lend an
immense support to my view of the great importance of
protection in determining colour, for it has not only prevented
the eatable species from ever acquiring bright
colours, spots, or markings injurious to them, but it has
also conferred on all the nauseous species distinguishing
marks to render their uneatableness more protective to
them than it would otherwise be. When you have read
my book I shall be glad of any hints for corrections if
it comes to another edition. I was horrified myself by
coming accidentally on several verbal inelegancies after
all my trouble in correcting, and I have no doubt there are
many more important errors.—Believe me, dear Darwin,
yours very truly,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 237]






Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 22, 1869.


My dear Wallace,—I have finished your book.79 It seems
to me excellent, and at the same time most pleasant to read.
That you ever returned alive is wonderful after all your risks
from illness and sea voyages, especially that most interesting
one to Waigiou and back. Of all the impressions which
I have received from your book, the strongest is that your
perseverance in the cause of science was heroic. Your descriptions
of catching the splendid butterflies have made me
quite envious, and at the same time have made me feel almost
young again, so vividly have they brought before my mind
old days when I collected, though I never made such captures
as yours. Certainly collecting is the best sport in the
world. I shall be astonished if your book has not a great
success; and your splendid generalisations on geographical
distribution, with which I am familiar from your papers,
will be new to most of your readers. I think I enjoyed
most the Timor case, as it is best demonstrated; but perhaps
Celebes is really the most valuable. I should prefer
looking at the whole Asiatic continent as having formerly
been more African in its fauna, than admitting the former
existence of a continent across the Indian Ocean. Decaisne's
paper on the flora of Timor, in which he points out its close
relation to that of the Mascarene Islands, supports your
view. On the other hand, I might advance the giraffes,
etc., in the Sewalik deposits. How I wish someone would
collect the plants of Banca! The puzzle of Java, Sumatra
and Borneo is like the three geese and foxes: I have a wish
to extend Malacca through Banca to part of Java and thus
make three parallel peninsulas, but I cannot get the geese
and foxes across the river.


Many parts of your book have interested me much: I
[pg 238]always wished to hear an independent judgment about the
Rajah Brooke, and now I have been delighted with your
splendid eulogium on him.


With respect to the fewness and inconspicuousness of
the flowers in the tropics, may it not be accounted for by
the hosts of insects, so that there is no need for the
flowers to be conspicuous? As, according to Humboldt,
fewer plants are social in the tropical than in the temperate
regions, the flowers in the former would not make
so great a show.


In your note you speak of observing some inelegancies
of style. I notice none. All is as clear as daylight. I
have detected two or three errata.


In Vol. I. you write londiacus: is this not an error?


Vol. II., p. 236: for western side of Aru read eastern.


Page 315: Do you not mean the horns of the moose?
For the elk has not palmated horns.


I have only one criticism of a general nature, and I am
not sure that other geologists would agree with me: you
repeatedly speak as if the pouring out of lava, etc., from
volcanoes actually caused the subsidence of an adjoining
area. I quite agree that areas undergoing opposite movements
are somehow connected; but volcanic outbursts must,
I think, be looked at as mere accidents in the swelling tip
of a great dome or surface of plutonic rocks; and there
seems no more reason to conclude that such swelling or
elevation in mass is the cause of the subsidence than that
the subsidence is the cause of the elevation; which latter
view is indeed held by some geologists, I have regretted
to find so little about the habits of the many animals
which you have seen.


In Vol. II., p. 399, I wish I could see the connection
between variations having been first or long ago selected,
and their appearance at an earlier age in birds of paradise
[pg 239]than the variations which have subsequently arisen and
been selected. In fact, I do not understand your explanation
of the curious order of development of the ornaments
of these birds.


Will you please to tell me whether you are sure that the
female Casuarius (Vol. II., p. 150) sits on her eggs as well
as the male?—for, if I am not mistaken, Bartlett told me
that the male alone, who is less brightly coloured about
the neck, sits on the eggs. In Vol. II., p. 255, you speak
of male savages ornamenting themselves more than the
women, of which I have heard before; now, have you any
notion whether they do this to please themselves, or to
excite the admiration of their fellow-men, or to please the
women, or, as is perhaps probable, from all three motives?


Finally, let me congratulate you heartily on having
written so excellent a book, full of thought on all sorts
of subjects. Once again, let me thank you for the very
great honour which you have done me by your dedication.—Believe
me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


Vol. II., p. 455: When in New Zealand I thought the
inhabitants a mixed race, with the type of Tahiti preponderating
over some darker race with more frizzled hair; and
now that the stone instruments [have] revealed the existence
of ancient inhabitants, is it not probable that these islands
were inhabited by true Papuans? Judging from descriptions
the pure Tahitans must differ much from your
Papuans.






The reference in the following letter is to Wallace's
review, in the April number of the Quarterly, of Lyell's
"Principles of Geology" (tenth edition), and of the sixth
edition of the "Elements of Geology." Wallace points
out that here for the first time Sir C. Lyell gave up his
opposition to Evolution; and this leads Wallace to give
[pg 240]a short account of the views set forth in the "Origin of
Species." In this article Wallace makes a definite statement
as to his views on the evolution of man, which were
opposed to those of Darwin. He upholds the view that
the brain of man, as well as the organs of speech, the
hand and the external form, could not have been evolved
by Natural Selection (the "child" he is supposed to
"murder "). At p. 391 he writes: "In the brain of the
lowest savages and, as far as we know, of the prehistoric
races, we have an organ ... little inferior in size and
complexity to that of the highest types.... But the
mental requirements of the lowest savages, such as the
Australians or the Andaman Islanders, are very little
above those of many animals.... How then was an
organ developed far beyond the needs of its possessor?
Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage
with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas
he actually possesses one but very little inferior to that
of the average members of our learned societies."


This passage is marked in Darwin's copy with a triply
underlined "No," and with a shower of notes of exclamation.
It was probably the first occasion on which he realised
the extent of this great and striking divergence in opinion
between himself and his colleague. He had, however, some
indication of it in Wallace's paper on Man in the Anthropological
Review, 1864, referred to in his letter to Wallace
of May 28, 1864, and again in that of April 14, 1869.


Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. March 27, 1869.


My dear Wallace,—I must send a line to thank you, but
this note will require no answer. This very morning after
writing I found that "elk" was used for "moose" in
Sweden, but I had been reading lately about elk and moose
in North America.


As you put the case in your letter, which I think differs
somewhat from your book, I am inclined to agree, and had
thought that a feather could hardly be increased in length
[pg 241]until it had first grown to full length, and therefore it would
be increased late in life and transmitted to a corresponding
age. But the Crossoptilon pheasant, and even the common
pheasant, show that the tail feathers can be developed very
early.


Thanks for other facts, which I will reflect on when I
go again over my MS.


I read all that you said about the Dutch Government
with much interest, but I do not feel I know enough to
form any opinion against yours.


I shall be intensely curious to read the Quarterly: I
hope you have not murdered too completely your own
and my child.


I have lately, i.e. in the new edition of the "Origin,"80
been moderating my zeal, and attributing much more to
mere useless variability. I did think I would send you
the sheet, but I daresay you would not care to see it, in
which I discuss Nägeli's essay on Natural Selection not
affecting characters of no functional importance, and
which yet are of high classificatory importance.


Hooker is pretty well satisfied with what I have said
on this head. It will be curious if we have hit on similar
conclusions. You are about the last man in England who
would deviate a hair's breadth from his conviction to please
any editor in the world.—Yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


P.S.—After all, I have thought of one question, but if
I receive no answer I shall understand that (as is probable)
you have nothing to say. I have seen it remarked that the
men and women of certain tribes differ a little in shade or
tint; but have you ever seen or heard of any difference in
tint between the two sexes which did not appear to follow
from a difference in habits of life?

[pg 242]






Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. April 14, 1869.


My dear Wallace,—I have been wonderfully interested
by your article,81 and I should think Lyell will be much
gratified by it. I declare if I had been editor and had the
power of directing you I should have selected for discussion
the very points which you have chosen. I have often said
to younger geologists (for I began in the year 1830) that they
did not know what a revolution Lyell had effected; nevertheless,
your extracts from Cuvier have quite astonished me.


Though not able really to judge, I am inclined to put
more confidence in Croll than you seem to do; but I have
been much struck by many of your remarks on degradation.


Thomson's views of the recent age of the world have been
for some time one of my sorest troubles, and so I have been
glad to read what you say. Your exposition of Natural
Selection seems to me inimitably good; there never lived a
better expounder than you.


I was also much pleased at your discussing the difference
between our views and Lamarck's. One sometimes sees the
odious expression, "Justice to myself compels me to say,
etc.," but you are the only man I ever heard of who persistently
does himself an injustice and never demands justice.
Indeed, you ought in the review to have alluded to your paper
in the Linnean Journal, and I feel sure all our friends will
agree in this, but you cannot "Burke" yourself, however
much you may try, as may be seen in half the articles which
appear.


I was asked but the other day by a German professor for
your paper, which I sent him. Altogether, I look at your
article as appearing in the Quarterly as an immense triumph
for our cause. I presume that your remarks on Man are
those to which you alluded in your note.
[pg 243]
If you had not told me I should have thought that they
had been added by someone else. As you expected, I differ
grievously from you, and I am very sorry for it.


I can see no necessity for calling in an additional and
proximate cause in regard to Man. But the subject is too
long for a letter.


I have been particularly glad to read your discussion,
because I am now writing and thinking much about Man.


I hope that your Malay book sells well. I was extremely
pleased with the article in the Q.J. of Science, inasmuch as
it is thoroughly appreciative of your work. Alas! you will
probably agree with what the writer says about the uses of
the bamboo.


I hear that there is also a good article in the Saturday
Review, but have heard nothing more about it.—Believe me,
my dear Wallace, yours ever sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


P.S.—I have had a baddish fall, my horse partly rolling
over me; but I am getting rapidly well.







9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. April 18, 1869.


Dear Darwin,—I am very glad you think I have done
justice to Lyell, and have also well "exposed" (as a Frenchman
would say) Natural Selection. There is nothing I like
better than writing a little account of it, and trying to make
it clear to the meanest capacity.


The "Croll" question is awfully difficult. I had gone
into it more fully, but the Editor made me cut out eight
pages.


I am very sorry indeed to hear of your accident, but
trust you will soon recover and that it will leave no
bad effects.


I can quite comprehend your feelings with regard to my
"unscientific" opinions as to Man, because a few years back
[pg 244]I should myself have looked at them as equally wild and
uncalled for. I shall look with extreme interest for what
you are writing on Man, and shall give full weight to any
explanations you can give of his probable origin. My
opinions on the subject have been modified solely by the
consideration of a series of remarkable phenomena, physical
and mental, which I have now had every opportunity of fully
testing, and which demonstrate the existence of forces and
influences not yet recognised by science. This will, I know,
seem to you like some mental hallucination, but as I can
assure you from personal communication with them, that
Robert Chambers, Dr. Norris of Birmingham, the well-known
physiologist, and C.F. Varley, the well-known electrician,
who have all investigated the subject for years, agree
with me both as to the facts and as to the main inferences to
be drawn from them, I am in hopes that you will suspend
your judgment for a time till we exhibit some corroborative
symptoms of insanity.


In the meantime I can console you by the assurance that
I don't agree with the Q.J. of Science about bamboo, and
that I see no cause to modify any of my opinions expressed
in my article on the "Reign of Law."—Believe me yours
very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. June 23, 1869.


Dear Darwin,—Thank you very much for the copy of
your fifth edition of the "Origin." I have not yet read
all the additions, but those I have looked at seem very interesting,
though somewhat brief, but I suppose you are
afraid of its great and rapid growth.


A difficult sexual character seems to me the plumules
or battledore scales on the wings of certain families and
genera of butterflies, almost invariably changing in form
with the species and genera in proportion to other changes,
[pg 245]and always constant in each species yet confined to the
males, and so small and mixed up with the other scales as
to produce no effect on the colour or marking of the wings.
How could sexual selection produce them?


Your correspondent Mr. Geach is now in England, and
if you would like to see him I am sure he would be glad to
meet you. He is staying with his brother (address Guildford),
but often comes to town.


Hoping that you have quite recovered from your accident
and that the great work is progressing, believe me,
dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.—You will perhaps be pleased to hear that German,
French, and Danish translations of my "Malay
Archipelago" are in progress.—A.R.W.







Caerleon, Barmouth, N. Wales. June 25, 1869.


My dear Wallace,—We have been here a fortnight, and
shall remain here till the beginning of August. I can say
nothing good about my health, and I am so weak that I
can hardly crawl half a mile from the house; but I hope
I may improve, and anyhow the magnificent view of Cader
is enjoyable.


I do not know that I have anything to ask Mr. Geach,
nor do I suppose I shall be in London till late in the
autumn, but I should be particularly obliged, if you have
any communication with Mr. Geach, if you would express
for me my sincere thanks for his kindness in sending me
the very valuable answers on Expression. I wrote some
months ago to him in answer to his last letter.


I would ask him to Down, but the fatigue to me of
receiving a stranger is something which to you would be
utterly unintelligible.


I think I have heard of the scales on butterflies; but
[pg 246]there are lots of sexual characters which quite baffle all
powers of even conjecture.


You are quite correct, that I felt forced to make all
additions to the "Origin" as short as possible.


I am indeed pleased to hear, and fully expected, that
your Malay work would be known throughout Europe.


Oh dear! what would I not give for a little more strength
to get on with my work.—Ever yours,


C. DARWIN.


I wish that you could have told me that your place in
the new Museum was all settled.







9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. October 20, 1869.


Dear Darwin,—I do not know your son's (Mr. George
Darwin's) address at Cambridge. Will you be so good
as to forward him the enclosed note begging for a little
information?


I was delighted to see the notice in the Academy that
you are really going to bring out your book on Man. I
anticipate for it an enormous sale, and shall read it with
intense interest, although I expect to find in it more to
differ from than in any of your other books. Some reasonable
and reasoning opponents are now taking the field. I
have been writing a little notice of Murphy's "Habit and
Intelligence," which, with much that is strange and unintelligible,
contains some very acute criticisms and the
statement of a few real difficulties. Another article just
sent me from the Month contains some good criticism.
How incipient organs can be useful is a real difficulty, so
is the independent origin of similar complex organs; but
most of his other points, though well put, are not very
formidable. I am trying to begin a little book on the Distribution
of Animals, but I fear I shall not make much of
it from my idleness in collecting facts.
[pg 247]
I shall make it a popular sketch first, and, if it succeeds,
gather materials for enlarging it at a future time. If any
suggestion occurs to you as to the kind of maps that would
be best, or on any other essential point, I should be glad
of a hint. I hope your residence in Wales did you good.
I had no idea you were so near Dolgelly till I met your
son there one evening when I was going to leave the next
morning. It is a glorious country, but the time I like is
May and June—the foliage is so glorious.


Sincerely hoping you are pretty well, and with kind
regards to Mrs. Darwin and the rest of your family,
believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. October 21, 1869.


My dear Wallace,—I forwarded your letter at once to
my son George, but I am nearly sure that he will not be
able to tell you anything; I wish he could for my own
sake; but I suspect there are few men in England who
could. Pray send me a copy or tell me where your article
on Murphy will be published. I have just received the
Month, but have only read half as yet. I wish I knew
who was the author; you ought to know, as he admires
you so much; he has a wonderful deal of knowledge, but
his difficulties have not troubled me much as yet, except
the case of the dipterous larva. My book will not be published
for a long time, but Murray wished to insert some
notice of it. Sexual selection has been a tremendous job.
Fate has ordained that almost every point on which we
differ should be crowded into this vol. Have you seen
the October number of the Revue des deux Mondes? It
has an article on you, but I have not yet read it; and
another article, not yet read, by a very good man on the
Transformist School.


I am very glad to hear that you are beginning a book,
[pg 248]but do not let it be "little," on Distribution, etc. I have
no hints to give about maps; the subject would require
long and anxious consideration. Before Forbes published
his essay on Distribution and the Glacial Period I wrote
out and had copied an essay on the same subject, which
Hooker read. If this MS. would be of any use to you, on
account of the references in it to papers, etc., I should be
very glad to lend it, to be used in any way; for I foresee that
my strength will never last out to come to this subject.


I have been pretty well since my return from Wales,
though at the time it did me no good.


We shall be in London next month, when I shall hope
to see you.—My dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. December 4, [1869].


Dear Darwin,—Dr. Adolf Bernhard Meyer, who translated
my book into German, has written to me for permission
to translate my original paper in the Linnean
Proceedings with yours, and wants to put my photograph
and yours in it. If you have given him permission to
translate the papers (which I suppose he can do without
permission if he pleases), I write to ask which of your
photographs you would wish to represent you in Germany—the
last, or the previous one by Ernest Edwards, which
I think much the best—as if you like I will undertake to
order them and save you any more trouble about it. It
is, of course, out of the question our meeting to be photographed
together, as Mr. Meyer coolly proposes.


Hoping you are well, believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.—I have written a paper on Geological Time, which
will appear in Nature, and I think I have hit upon a solution
of your greatest difficulties in that matter.—A.R.W.

[pg 249]






Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. December 5, 1869.


My dear Wallace,—I wrote to Dr. Meyer that the photographs
in England would cost much and that they did not
seem to me worth the cost to him, but that I of course had
no sort of objection. I should be greatly obliged if you
would kindly take the trouble to order any one which you
think best: possibly it would be best to wait, unless you
feel sure, till you hear again from Dr. M. I sent him a
copy of our joint paper. He has kindly sent me the translation
of your book, which is splendidly got up, and which
I thought I could not better use than by sending it to
Fritz Müller in Brazil, who will appreciate it.


I liked your reviews on Mr. Murphy very much; they
are capitally written, like everything which is turned out
of your workshop. I was specially glad about the eye.
If you agree with me, take some opportunity of bringing
forward the case of perfected greyhound or racehorse, in
proof of the possibility of the selection of many correlated
variations. I have remarks on this head in my last book.


If you throw light on the want of geological time, may
honour, eternal glory and blessings crowd thick on your
head.—Yours most sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


I forgot to say that I wrote to Dr. M. to say that I
should not soon be in London, and that, of all things in
the world, I hate most the bother of sitting for photographs,
so I declined with many apologies. I have recently
refused several applications.







9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 22, 1870.


Dear Darwin,—My paper on Geological Time having
been in type nearly two months, and not knowing when
it will appear, I have asked for a proof to send you, Huxley
and Lyell. The latter part only contains what I think
[pg 250]is new, and I shall be anxious to hear if it at all helps to
get over your difficulties.


I have been lately revising and adding to my various
papers bearing on the "Origin of Species," etc., and am
going to print them in a volume immediately, under the
title of "Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection:
A Series of Essays."


In the last, I put forth my heterodox opinions as to
Man, and even venture to attack the Huxleyan philosophy!


Hoping you are quite well and are getting on with your
Man book, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.—When you have read the proof and done with it,
may I beg you to return it to me?—A.R.W.







Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. January 26, [1870].


My dear Wallace,—I have been very much struck by
your whole article (returned by this post), especially as to
rate of denudation, for the still glaciated surfaces have of
late most perplexed me. Also especially on the lesser mutations
of climate during the last 60,000 years; for I quite
think with you no cause so powerful in inducing specific
changes, through the consequent migrations. Your argument
would be somewhat strengthened about organic
changes having been formerly more rapid, if Sir W.
Thomson is correct that physical changes were formerly
more violent and abrupt.


The whole subject is so new and vast that I suppose
you hardly expect anyone to be at once convinced, but
that he should keep your view before his mind and let it
ferment. This, I think, everyone will be forced to do. I
have not as yet been able to digest the fundamental notion
[pg 251]of the shortened age of the sun and earth. Your whole
paper seems to me admirably clear and well put. I may
remark that Rütimeyer has shown that several wild mammals
in Switzerland since the neolithic period have had
their dentition and, I think, general size slightly modified.
I cannot believe that the Isthmus of Panama has been open
since the commencement of the glacial period; for, notwithstanding
the fishes, so few shells, crustaceans, and, according
to Agassiz, not one echinoderm is common to the sides.
I am very glad you are going to publish all your papers
on Natural Selection: I am sure you are right, and that
they will do our cause much good.


But I groan over Man—you write like a metamorphosed
(in retrograde direction) naturalist, and you the author of
the best paper that ever appeared in the Anthropological
Review! Eheu! Eheu! Eheu!—Your miserable friend,


C. DARWIN.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. March 31, 1870.


My dear Wallace,—Many thanks for the woodcut, which,
judging from the rate at which I crawl on, will hardly be
wanted till this time next year. Whether I shall have it
reduced, or beg Mr. Macmillan for a stereotype, as you
said I might, I have not yet decided.


I heartily congratulate you on your removal being over,
and I much more heartily condole with myself at your having
left London, for I shall thus miss my talks with you which
I always greatly enjoy.


I was excessively pleased at your review of Galton, and
I agree to every word of it. I must add that I have just
re-read your article in the Anthropological Review, and I
defy you to upset your own doctrine.—Ever yours very
sincerely,


CH. DARWIN

[pg 252]






Down, Beckenham, Kent. April 20, [1870].


My dear Wallace,—I have just received your book
["Natural Selection"]82 and read the preface. There
never has been passed on me, or indeed on anyone, a
higher eulogium than yours. I wish that I fully deserved
it. Your modesty and candour are very far from new to
me. I hope it is a satisfaction to you to reflect—and very
few things in my life have been more satisfactory to me—that
we have never felt any jealousy towards each other,
though in one sense rivals. I believe that I can say this
of myself with truth, and I am absolutely sure that it is
true of you.


You have been a good Christian to give a list of your
additions, for I want much to read them, and I should
hardly have had time just at present to have gone through
all your articles.


Of course, I shall immediately read those that are new
or greatly altered, and I will endeavour to be as honest as
can reasonably be expected. Your book looks remarkably
well got up.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, to remain yours
very cordially,


CH. DARWIN







Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. June 5, 1870.


My dear Wallace,—As imitation and protection are your
subjects I have thought that you would like to possess the
enclosed curious drawing. The note tells all I know about
it.—Yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN


P.S.—I read not long ago a German article on the colours
of female birds, and that author leaned rather strongly to
your side about nidification. I forget who the author was,
but he seemed to know a good deal.—C.D.

[pg 253]






Holly House, Barking, E. July 6, 1870.


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for the drawing. I must
say, however, the resemblance to a snake is not very
striking, unless to a cobra not found in America. It is
also evident that it is not Mr. Bates's caterpillar, as that
threw the head backwards so as to show the feet above,
forming imitations of keeled scales.


Claparède has sent me his critique on my book. You
will probably have it too. His arguments in reply to my
heresy seem to me of the weakest. I hear you have gone
to press, and I look forward with fear and trembling to
being crushed under a mountain of facts!


I hear you were in town the other day. When you are
again, I should be glad to come at any convenient hour and
give you a call.


Hoping your health is improving, and with kind remembrances
to Mrs. Darwin and all your family, believe me
yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.






In "My Life" (Vol. II., p. 7) Wallace wrote: "In
the year 1870 Mr. A.W. Bennett read a paper before
Section D of the British Association at Liverpool entitled
'The Theory of Natural Selection from a Mathematical
Point of View,' and this paper was printed in full in
Nature of November 10, 1870. To this I replied on
November 17, and my reply so pleased Mr. Darwin that
he at once wrote to me as follows:"


Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. November 22, 1870.


My dear Wallace,—I must ease myself by writing a few
words to say how much I and all others in this house admire
your article in Nature. You are certainly an unparalleled
master in lucidly stating a case and in arguing. Nothing
ever was better done than your argument about the term
[pg 254]"origin of species," and the consequences about much
being gained, even if we know nothing about precise cause
of each variation. By chance I have given a few words in
my first volume, now some time printed off, about mimetic
butterflies, and have touched on two of your points, viz.
on species already widely dissimilar not being made to
resemble each other, and about the variations in Lepidoptera
being often well pronounced. How strange it is that
Mr. Bennett or anyone else should bring in the action of
the mind as a leading cause of variation, seeing the beautiful
and complex adaptations and modifications of structure
in plants, which I do not suppose they would say had minds.


I have finished the first volume, and am half-way through
the first proof of the second volume, of my confounded book,
which half kills me by fatigue, and which I much fear will
quite kill me in your good estimation.


If you have leisure I should much like a little news of
you and your doings and your family.—Ever yours very
sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







Holly House, Barking, E. November 24, 1870.


Dear Darwin,—Your letter gave me very great pleasure.
We still agree, I am sure, on nineteen points out of twenty,
and on the twentieth I am not inconvincible. But then I
must be convinced by facts and arguments, not by high-handed
ridicule such as Claparède's.


I hope you see the difference between such criticisms
as his, and that in the last number of the North American
Review, where my last chapter is really criticised, point by
point; and though I think some of it very weak, I admit
that some is very strong, and almost converts me from the
error of my ways.


As to your new book, I am sure it will not make me
think less highly of you than I do, unless you do, what
[pg 255]you have never done yet, ignore facts and arguments that
go against you.


I am doing nothing just now but writing articles and
putting down anti-Darwinians, being dreadfully ridden
upon by a horrid old-man-of-the-sea, who has agreed to
let me have the piece of land I have set my heart on,
and which I have been trying to get of him since last
February, but who will not answer letters, will not sign
an agreement, and keeps me week after week in anxiety,
though I have accepted his own terms unconditionally,
one of which is that I pay rent from last Michaelmas!
And now the finest weather for planting is going by. It
is a bit of a wilderness that can be made into a splendid
imitation of a Welsh valley in little, and will enable me
to gather round me all the beauties of the temperate flora
which I so much admire, or I would not put up with the
little fellow's ways. The fixing on a residence for the rest
of your life is an important event, and I am not likely to
be in a very settled frame of mind for some time.


I am answering A. Murray's Geographical Distribution
of Coleoptera for my Entomological Society Presidential
Address, and am printing a second edition of my "Essays,"
with a few notes and additions. Very glad to see (by your
writing yourself) that you are better, and with kind regards
to all your family, believe me, dear Darwin, yours very
faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Holly House, Barking, E. January 27, 1871.


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your first volume,83
which I have just finished reading through with the
greatest pleasure and interest, and I have also to thank
you for the great tenderness with which you have treated
me and my heresies.

[pg 256]

On the subject of sexual selection and protection you
do not yet convince me that I am wrong, but I expect
your heaviest artillery will be brought up in your second
volume, and I may have to capitulate. You seem, however,
to have somewhat misunderstood my exact meaning,
and I do not think the difference between us is quite so
great as you seem to think it. There are a number of
passages in which you argue against the view that the
female has, in any large number of cases, been "specially
modified" for protection, or that colour has generally been
obtained by either sex for purposes of protection.


But my view is, and I thought I had made it clear, that
the female has (in most cases) been simply prevented from
acquiring the gay tints of the male (even when there was
a tendency for her to inherit it) because it was hurtful;
and, that when protection is not needed, gay colours are
so generally acquired by both sexes as to show that inheritance
by both sexes of colour variations is the most
usual, when not prevented from acting by Natural Selection.


The colour itself may be acquired either by sexual
selection or by other unknown causes. There are, however,
difficulties in the very wide application you give to
sexual selection which at present stagger me, though no
one was or is more ready than myself to admit the perfect
truth of the principle or the immense importance and great
variety of its applications. Your chapters on Man are of
intense interest, but as touching my special heresy not as
yet altogether convincing, though of course I fully agree
with every word and every argument which goes to prove
the "evolution" or "development" of man out of a
lower form. My only difficulties are as to whether you
have accounted for every step of the development by ascertained
laws. Feeling sure that the book will keep up and
[pg 257]increase your high reputation and be immensely successful,
as it deserves to be, believe me, dear Darwin, yours
very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. January 30, 1871.


My dear Wallace,—Your note has given me very great
pleasure, chiefly because I was so anxious not to treat you
with the least disrespect, and it is so difficult to speak
fairly when differing from anyone. If I had offended you,
it would have grieved me more than you will readily
believe. Secondly, I am greatly pleased to hear that Vol.
I. interests you; I have got so sick of the whole subject
that I felt in utter doubt about the value of any part. I
intended when speaking of the female not having been
specially modified for protection to include the prevention
of characters acquired by the [male symbol] being transmitted to the
[female symbol]; but I now see it would have been better to have said
"specially acted on," or some such term. Possibly my
intention may be clearer in Vol. II. Let me say that my
conclusions are chiefly founded on a consideration of all
animals taken in a body, bearing in mind how common
the rules of sexual differences appear to be in all classes.
The first copy of the chapter on Lepidoptera agreed
pretty closely with you. I then worked on, came back
to Lepidoptera, and thought myself compelled to alter it,
finished sexual selection, and for the last time went over
Lepidoptera, and again I felt forced to alter it.


I hope to God there will be nothing disagreeable to you
in Vol. II., and that I have spoken fairly of your views. I
feel the more fearful on this head, because I have just read
(but not with sufficient care) Mivart's book,84 and I feel
absolutely certain that he meant to be fair (but he was
stimulated by theological fervour); yet I do not think he
[pg 258]has been quite fair: he gives in one place only half of one
of my sentences, ignores in many places all that I have
said on effects of use, speaks of my dogmatic assertion,
"of false belief," whereas the end of paragraph seems to
me to render the sentence by no means dogmatic or arrogant;
etc. etc. I have since its publication received some
quite charming letters from him.


What an ardent (and most justly) admirer he is of you.
His work, I do not doubt, will have a most potent influence
versus Natural Selection. The pendulum will now swing
against us. The part which, I think, will have most influence
is when he gives whole series of cases, like that of
whalebone, in which we cannot explain the gradational
steps; but such cases have no weight on my mind—if a
few fish were extinct, who on earth would have ventured
even to conjecture that lung had originated in swim-bladder?
In such a case as Thylacines, I think he was
bound to say that the resemblance of the jaw to that of
the dog is superficial; the number and correspondence
and development of teeth being widely different. I think,
again, when speaking of the necessity of altering a number
of characters together, he ought to have thought of man
having power by selection to modify simultaneously or
almost simultaneously many points, as in making a greyhound
or racehorse—as enlarged upon in my "Domestic
Animals."


Mivart is savage or contemptuous about my "moral
sense," and so probably will you be. I am extremely
pleased that he agrees with my position, as far as animal
nature is concerned, of man in the series; or, if anything,
thinks I have erred in making him too distinct.


Forgive me for scribbling at such length.


You have put me quite in good spirits, I did so dread
having been unintentionally unfair towards your views. I
[pg 259]hope earnestly the second volume will escape as well. I
care now very little what others say. As for our not quite
agreeing, really in such complex subjects it is almost impossible
for two men who arrive independently at their
conclusions to agree fully—it would be unnatural for them
to do so.—Yours ever very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







Holly House, Barking, E. March 11, 1871.


Dear Darwin,—I need not say that I read your second
volume with, if possible, a greater interest than the first,
as so many topics of special interest to me are treated of.
You will not be surprised to find that you have not convinced
me on the "female protection" question, but you
will be surprised to hear that I do not despair of convincing
you. I have been writing, as you are aware, a review
for the Academy, which I tried to refuse doing, but the
Editor used as an argument the statement that you wished
me to do so. It is not an easy job fairly to summarise such
a book, but I hope I have succeeded tolerably. When I got
to discussion, I felt more at home, but I most sincerely trust
that I may not have let pass any word that may seem to you
in the least too strong.


You have not written a word about me that I could wish
altered, but as I know you wish me to be candid with you,
I will mention that you have quoted one passage in a note
(p. 376, Vol. II.) which seems to me a caricature of anything
I have written.


Now let me ask you to rejoice with me, for I have got
my chalk pit, and am hard at work engineering a road up
its precipitous slopes. I hope you may be able to come and
see me there some day, as it is an easy ride from London,
and I shall be anxious to know if it is equal to the pit in
the wilds of Kent Mrs. Darwin mentioned when I lunched
with you. Should your gardener in the autumn have any
[pg 260]thinnings out of almost any kind of hardy plants they
would be welcome, as I have near four acres of ground in
which I want to substitute ornamental plants for weeds.


With best wishes, and hoping you may have health and
strength to go on with your great work, believe me, dear
Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


My review will appear next Wednesday.







Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. March 16, 1871.


My dear Wallace,—I have just read your grand review.85
It is in every way as kindly expressed towards myself as
it is excellent in matter. The Lyells have been here, and
Sir C. remarked that no one wrote such good scientific
reviews as you, and, as Miss Buckley added, you delight
in picking out all that is good, though very far from blind
to the bad. In all this I most entirely agree. I shall always
consider your review as a great honour, and however much
my book may hereafter be abused, as no doubt it will be, your
review will console me, notwithstanding that we differ so
greatly.


I will keep your objections to my views in my mind, but
I fear that the latter are almost stereotyped in my mind,
I thought for long weeks about the inheritance and selection
difficulty, and covered quires of paper with notes, in
trying to get out of it, but could not, though clearly seeing
that it would be a great relief if I could. I will confine
myself to two or three remarks. I have been much
impressed with what you urge against colour86 in the case
[pg 261]of insects having been acquired through sexual selection.
I always saw that the evidence was very weak; but I still
think, if it be admitted that the musical instruments of
insects have been gained through sexual selection, that
there is not the least improbability in colour having been
thus gained. Your argument with respect to the denudation
of mankind, and also to insects, that taste on the
part of one sex would have to remain nearly the same
during many generations, in order that sexual selection
should produce any effect, I agree to, and I think this
argument would be sound if used by one who denied that,
for instance, the plumes of birds of paradise had been so
gained.


I believe that you admit this, and if so I do not see
how your argument applies in other cases. I have recognised
for some short time that I have made a great omission
in not having discussed, as far as I could, the acquisition
of taste, its inherited nature, and its permanence within
pretty close limits for long periods.


One other point and I have done: I see by p. 179 of
your review that I must have expressed myself very badly
to have led you to think that I consider the prehensile
organs of males as affording evidence of the females exerting
a choice. I have never thought so, and if you chance
to remember the passage (but do not hunt for it), pray
point it out to me.


I am extremely sorry that I gave the note from Mr.
Stebbing; I thought myself bound to notice his suggestion
of beauty as a cause of denudation, and thus I was led on
to give his argument. I altered the final passage which
seemed to me offensive, and I had misgivings about the
first part.


I heartily wish I had yielded to these misgivings. I will
omit in any future edition the latter half of the note.
[pg 262]
I have heard from Miss Buckley that you have got possession
of your chalk pit, and I congratulate you on the
tedious delay being over. I fear all our bushes are so
large that there is nothing which we are at all likely to
grub up.


Years ago we threw away loads of things. I should
very much like to see your house and grounds; but
I fear the journey would be too long. Going even to
Kew knocks me up, and I have almost ceased trying to
do so.


Once again let me thank you warmly for your admirable
review.—My dear Wallace, yours ever very sincerely,


C. DARWIN.


What an excellent address you gave about Madeira,
but I wish you had alluded to Lyell's discussion on land
shells, etc.—not that he has said a word on the subject.
The whole address quite delighted me. I hear Mr. Crotch87
disputed some of your facts about the wingless insects, but
he is a crotchety man. As far as I remember, I did not
venture to ask Mr. Appleton to get you to review me, but
only said, in answer to an inquiry, that you would undoubtedly
be the best, or one of the very few men who could
do so effectively.







Down, Beckenham, Kent, S.E. March 24, 1871.


My dear Wallace,—Very many thanks for the new edition
of your Essays. Honour and glory to you for giving list of
additions. It is grand as showing that our subject flourishes,
your book coming to a new edition so soon. My book also
sells immensely; the edition will, I believe, be 6,500 copies.
I am tired with writing, for the load of letters which I
receive is enough to make a man cry, yet some few are curious
[pg 263]and valuable. I got one to-day from a doctor on the hair
on backs of young weakly children, which afterwards falls
off. Also on hairy idiots. But I am tired to death, so
farewell.


Thanks for your last letter.


There is a very striking second article on my book in the
Pall Mall. The articles in the Spectator88 have also interested
me much.—Again farewell.


C. DARWIN.







Holly House, Barking, E. May 14, 1871.


Dear Darwin,—Have you read that very remarkable book
"The Fuel of the Sun"? If not, get it. It solves the great
problem of the almost unlimited duration of the sun's heat
in what appears to me a most satisfactory manner. I recommended
it to Sir C. Lyell, and he tells me that Grove
spoke very highly of it to him. It has been somewhat
ignored by the critics because it is by a new man with a
perfectly original hypothesis, founded on a vast accumulation
of physical and chemical facts; but not being encumbered
with any mathematical shibboleths, they have
evidently been afraid that anything so intelligible could
not be sound. The manner in which everything in physical
astronomy is explained is almost as marvellous as the powers
of Natural Selection in the same way, and naturally excites
a suspicion that the respective authors are pushing their
theories "a little too far."


If you read it, get Proctor's book on the Sun at the
same time, and refer to his coloured plates of the protuberances,
corona, etc., which marvellously correspond
[pg 264]with what Matthieu Williams's theory requires. The
author is a practical chemist engaged in iron manufacture,
and it is from furnace chemistry that he has been
led to the subject. I think it the most original, most
thoughtful and most carefully-worked-out theory that has
appeared for a long time, and it does not say much for
the critics that, as far as I know, its great merits have not
been properly recognised.


I have been so fully occupied with road-making, well-digging,
garden- and house-planning, planting, etc., that I
have given up all other work.


Do you not admire our friend Miss Buckley's admirable
article in Macmillan? It seems to me the best and most
original that has been written on your book.


Hoping you are well, and are not working too hard, I
remain yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 9, 1871.


My dear Wallace,—I send by this post a review by
Chauncey Wright, as I much want your opinion of it, as
soon as you can send it. I consider you an incomparably
better critic than I am. The article, though not very clearly
written, and poor in parts for want of knowledge, seems to
me admirable.


Mivart's book is producing a great effect against Natural
Selection, and more especially against me. Therefore, if
you think the article even somewhat good, I will write and
get permission to publish it as a shilling pamphlet, together
with the MS. addition (enclosed), for which there was not
room at the end of the review. I do not suppose I should
lose more than £20 or £30.


I am now at work at a new and cheap edition of the
"Origin," and shall answer several points in Mivart's book
and introduce a new chapter for this purpose; but I treat
[pg 265]the subject so much more concretely, and I daresay less
philosophically, than Wright, that we shall not interfere
with each other. You will think me a bigot when I say, after
studying Mivart, I was never before in my life so convinced
of the general (i.e. not in detail) truth of the views in the
"Origin." I grieve to see the omission of the words by
Mivart, detected by Wright.89 I complained to M. that in
two cases he quotes only the commencement of sentences by
me and thus modifies my meaning; but I never supposed he
would have omitted words. There are other cases of what
I consider unfair treatment. I conclude with sorrow that
though he means to be honourable, he is so bigoted that he
cannot act fairly.


I was glad to see your letter in Nature, though I think
you were a little hard on the silly and presumptuous man.


I hope that your house and grounds are progressing well,
and that you are in all ways flourishing.


I have been rather seedy, but a few days in London did
me much good; and my dear good wife is going to take me
somewhere, nolens volens, at the end of this month.


C. DARWIN.







Holly Home, Barking, E. July 12, 1871.


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for giving me the opportunity
to read at my leisure the very talented article of Mr.
C. Wright. His criticism of Mivart, though very severe, is,
I think, in most cases sound; but I find the larger part of
the article so heavy and much of the language and argument
so very obscure, that I very much doubt the utility of printing
it separately. I do not think the readers of Mivart could
[pg 266]ever read it in that form, and I am sure your own answer
to Mivart's arguments will be so much more clear and to the
point, that the other will be unnecessary. You might extract
certain portions in your own chapter, such as the very ingenious
suggestion as to the possible origin of mammary
glands, as well as the possible use of the rattle of the rattlesnake,
etc.


I cannot see the force of Mivart's objection to the theory
of production of the long neck of the giraffe (suggested in my
first Essay), and which C. Wright seems to admit, while his
"watch-tower" theory seems to me more difficult and unlikely
as a means of origin. The argument, "Why haven't
other allied animals been modified in the same way?" seems
to me the weakest of the weak. I must say also I do not
see any great reason to complain of the "words" left out
by Mivart, as they do not seem to me materially to affect the
meaning. Your expression, "and tends to depart in a slight
degree," I think hardly grammatical; a tendency to depart
cannot very well be said to be in a slight degree; a departure
can, but a tendency must be either a slight tendency or a
strong tendency; the degree to which the departure may
reach must depend on favourable or unfavourable causes in
addition to the tendency itself. Mivart's words, "and
tending to depart from the parental type," seem to me
quite unobjectionable as a paraphrase of yours, because the
"tending" is kept in; and your own view undoubtedly is
that the tendency may lead to an ultimate departure to any
extent. Mivart's error is to suppose that your words favour
the view of sudden departures, and I do not see that the
expression he uses really favours his view a bit more than
if he had quoted your exact words. The expression of yours
he relies upon is evidently "the whole organism seeming
to have become plastic," and he argues, no doubt erroneously,
that having so become "plastic," any amount or
[pg 267]a larger amount of sudden variation in some direction is
likely.


Mivart's greatest error, the confounding "individual
variations" with "minute or imperceptible variations," is
well exposed by C. Wright, and that part I should like to
see reprinted; but I always thought you laid too much stress
on the slowness of the action of Natural Selection owing to
the smallness and rarity of favourable variations. In your
chapter on Natural Selection the expressions, "extremely
slight modifications," "every variation even the slightest,"
"every grade of constitutional difference," occur, and these
have led to errors such as Mivart's, I say all this because
I feel sure that Mivart would be the last to intentionally misrepresent
you, and he has told me that he was sorry the word
"infinitesimal," as applied to variations used by Natural
Selection, got into his book, and that he would alter it, as
no doubt he has done, in his second edition.


Some of Mivart's strongest points—the eye and ear, for
instance—are unnoticed in the review. You will, of course,
reply to these. His statement of the "missing link" argument
is also forcible, and has, I have no doubt, much weight
with the public. As to all his minor arguments, I feel with
you that they leave Natural Selection stronger than ever,
while the two or three main arguments do leave a lingering
doubt in my mind of some fundamental organic law of development
of which we have as yet no notion.


Pray do not attach any weight to my opinions as to the
review. It is very clever, but the writer seems a little like
those critics who know an author's or an artist's meaning
better than they do themselves.


My house is now in the hands of a contractor, but I am
wall-building, etc., and very busy.—With best wishes, believe
me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 268]






Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 12, 1871.


My dear Wallace,—Very many thanks. As soon as I
read your letter I determined, not to print the paper, notwithstanding
my eldest daughter, who is a very good critic,
thought it so interesting as to be worth reprinting. Then
my wife came in, and said, "I do not much care about
these things and shall therefore be a good judge whether
it is very dull." So I will leave my decision open for a
day or two. Your letter has been, and will be, of use to
me in other ways: thus I had quite forgotten that you had
taken up the case of the giraffe in your first memoir, and
I must look to this. I feel very doubtful how far I shall
succeed in answering Mivart; it is so difficult to answer
objections to doubtful points and make the discussion readable.
I shall make only a selection. The worst of it is
that I cannot possibly hunt through all my references for
isolated points; it would take me three weeks of intolerably
hard work. I wish I had your power of arguing
clearly. At present I feel sick of everything, and if I could
occupy my time and forget my daily discomforts or little
miseries, I would never publish another word. But I shall
cheer up, I daresay, soon, being only just got over a bad
attack. Farewell. God knows why I bother you about
myself.


I can say nothing more about missing links than what
I have said. I should rely much on pre-Silurian times;
but then comes Sir W. Thomson like an odious spectre.
Farewell.—Yours most sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


I was grieved to see in the Daily News that the
madman about the flat earth has been threatening
your life. What an odious trouble this must have been
to you.
[pg 269]
P.S.—There is a most cutting review of me in the
Quarterly:90 I have only read a few pages. The skill and
style make me think of Mivart. I shall soon be viewed as
the most despicable of men. This Quarterly review tempts
me to republish Ch. Wright, even if not read by anyone,
just to show that someone will say a word against Mivart,
and that his (i.e. Mivart's) remarks ought not to be swallowed
without some reflection.


I quite agree with what you say that Mivart fully
intends to be honourable; but he seems to me to have the
mind of a most able lawyer retained to plead against us,
and especially against me. God knows whether my
strength and spirit will last out to write a chapter versus
Mivart and others; I do so hate controversy, and feel I
should do it so badly.


P.S.—I have now finished the review: there can be no
doubt it is by Mivart, and wonderfully clever.







Holly House, Barking, E. July 16, 1871.


Dear Darwin,—I am very sorry you are so unwell, and
that you allow criticisms to worry you so. Remember the
noble army of converts you have made! and the host of
the most talented men living who support you wholly.
What do you think of putting C. Wright's article as an
appendix to the new edition of the "Origin"? That
would get it read, and obviate my chief objection, that the
people who read Mivart and the "Origin" will very few
of them buy a separate pamphlet to read. Pamphlets are
such nuisances. I don't think Mivart could have written
the Quarterly article, but I will look at it and shall, I
think, be able to tell. Pray keep your spirits up. I am
so distracted by building troubles that I can write nothing,
[pg 270]and I shall not, till I get settled in my new house, some
time next spring, I hope.—With best wishes, believe me
yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Haredene, Albury, Guildford. August 1, 1871.


My dear Wallace,—Your kind and sympathetic letter
pleased me greatly and did me good, but as you are so
busy I did not answer it. I write now because I have just
received a very remarkable letter from Fritz Müller (with
butterflies' wings gummed on paper as illustrations) on
mimicry, etc. I think it is well worth your reading, but
I will not send it, unless I receive a 1/2d. card to this
effect. He puts the difficulty of first start in imitation
excellently, and gives wonderful proof of closeness of the
imitation. He hints a curious addition to the theory
in relation to sexual selection, which you will think
madly hypothetical: it occurred to me in a very different
class of cases, but I was afraid to publish it. It
would aid the theory of imitative protection, when the
colours are bright. He seems much pleased with your
caterpillar theory. I wish the letter could be published,
but without coloured illustrations [it] would, I fear, be
unintelligible.


I have not yet made up my mind about Wright's
review; I shall stop till I hear from him. Your suggestion
would make the "Origin," already too large, still
more bulky.


By the way, did Mr. Youmans, of the United States,
apply to you to write a popular sketch of Natural Selection?
I told him you would do it immeasurably better
than anyone in the world. My head keeps very rocky and
wretched, but I am better,—Ever yours most truly,


C. DARWIN.

[pg 271]






Holly House, Barking, E. March 3, 1872.


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your new edition of
the "Origin," which I have been too busy to acknowledge
before. I think your answer to Mivart on the initial stages
of modification ample and complete, and the comparison of
whale and duck most beautiful. I always saw the fallacy
of these objections, of course. The eye and ear objection
you have not so satisfactorily answered, and to me the
difficulty exists of how three times over an organ of sight
was developed with the apparatus even approximately
identical. Why should not, in one case out of the three,
the heat rays or the chemical rays have been utilised for
the same purpose, in which case no translucent media
would have been required, and yet vision might have been
just as perfect? The fact that the eyes of insects and
molluscs are transparent to us shows that the very same
limited portion of the rays of the spectrum is utilised for
vision by them as by us.


The chances seem to me immense against that having
occurred through "fortuitous variation," as Mivart puts it.


I see still further difficulties on this point but cannot go
into them now. Many thanks for your kind invitation. I
will try and call some day, but I am now very busy trying
to make my house habitable by Lady Day, when I must be
in it.—Believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 27, 1872.


My dear Wallace,—I have just read with infinite satisfaction
your crushing article in Nature.91 I have been the
more glad to see it, as I have not seen the book itself: I
[pg 272]did not order it, as I felt sure from Dr. B.'s former book
that he could write nothing of value. But assuredly I did
not suppose that anyone would have written such a mass
of inaccuracies and rubbish. How rich is everything which
he says and quotes from Herbert Spencer!


By the way, I suppose that you read H. Spencer's answer
to Martineau: it struck me as quite wonderfully good, and
I felt even more strongly inclined than before to bow
in reverence before him. Nothing has amused me more
in your review than Dr. B.'s extraordinary presumption in
deciding that such men as Lyell, Owen, H. Spencer,
Mivart, Gaudry, etc. etc., are all wrong. I daresay it
would be very delightful to feel such overwhelming confidence
in oneself.


I have had a poor time of it of late, rarely having an
hour of comfort, except when asleep or immersed in work;
and then when that is over I feel dead with fatigue. I am
now correcting my little book on Expression; but it will
not be published till November, when of course a copy will
be sent to you. I shall now try whether I can occupy
myself without writing anything more on so difficult a
subject as Evolution.


I hope you are now comfortably settled in your new
house, and have more leisure than you have had for some
time. I have looked out in the papers for any notice about
the curatorship of the new Museum, but have seen nothing.
If anything is decided in your favour, I beg you to inform
me.—My dear Wallace, very truly yours,


C. DARWIN.


How grandly the public has taken up Hooker's case.






Down. August 3, [1872].


My dear Wallace,—I hate controversy, chiefly perhaps
because I do it badly; but as Dr. Bree accuses you of
"blundering," I have thought myself bound to send the
[pg 273]enclosed letter92 to Nature, that is, if you in the least desire
it. In this case please post it. If you do not at all wish
it, I should rather prefer not sending it, and in this case
please tear it up. And I beg you to do the same, if you
intend answering Dr. Bree yourself, as you will do it incomparably
better than I should. Also please tear it up
if you don't like the letter.—My dear Wallace, yours very
sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 4, 1872.


Dear Darwin,—I have sent your letter to Nature, as I
think it will settle that question far better than anything
I can say. Many thanks for it. I have not seen Dr. Bree's
letter yet, as I get Nature here very irregularly, but as I
was very careful to mention none but real errors in Dr.
Bree's book, I do not imagine there will be any necessity
for my taking any notice of it. It was really entertaining
to have such a book to review, the errors and misconceptions
were so inexplicable and the self-sufficiency of the
man so amazing. Yet there is some excellent writing in
the book, and to a half-informed person it has all the
appearance of being a most valuable and authoritative
work.


I am now reviewing a much more important book and
one that, if I mistake not, will really compel you sooner
or later to modify some of your views, though it will not
[pg 274]at all affect the main doctrine of Natural Selection as
applied to the higher animals. I allude, of course, to
Bastian's "Beginnings of Life," which you have no doubt
got. It is hard reading, but intensely interesting. I am
a thorough convert to his main results, and it seems to
me that nothing more important has appeared since your
"Origin." It is a pity he is so awfully voluminous and
discursive. When you have thoroughly digested it I shall
be glad to know what you are disposed to think. My first
notice of it will I think appear in Nature next week, but I
have been hurried for it, and it is not so well written an
article as I could wish.


I sincerely hope your health is improving.—Believe me
yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.—I fear Lubbock's motion is being pushed off to the
end of the Session, and Hooker's case will not be fairly considered.
I hope the matter will not be allowed to drop.—A.R.W.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. August 28, 1872.


My dear Wallace,—I have at last finished the gigantic
job of reading Dr. Bastian's book, and have been deeply
interested in it. You wished to hear my impression, but
it is not worth sending.


He seems to me an extremely able man, as indeed I
thought when I read his first essay. His general argument
in favour of archebiosis93 is wonderfully strong;
though I cannot think much of some few of his arguments.
The result is that I am bewildered and astonished
by his statements, but am not convinced; though on the
whole it seems to me probable that archebiosis is true. I
am not convinced partly I think owing to the deductive
[pg 275]cast of much of his reasoning; and I know not why, but
I never feel convinced by deduction, even in the case of
H. Spencer's writings. If Dr. B.'s book had been turned
upside down, and he had begun with the various cases of
heterogenesis, and then gone on to organic and afterwards
to saline solutions, and had then given his general arguments,
I should have been, I believe, much more influenced.
I suspect, however, that my chief difficulty is the effect of
old convictions being stereotyped on my brain. I must
have more evidence that germs or the minutest fragments
of the lowest forms are always killed by 212° of Fahr.
Perhaps the mere reiteration of the statements given by
Dr. B. by other men whose judgment I respect and who have
worked long on the lower organisms would suffice to convince
me. Here is a fine confession of intellectual weakness; but
what an inexplicable frame of mind is that of belief.


As for Rotifers and Tardigrades being spontaneously
generated, my mind can no more digest such statements,
whether true or false, than my stomach can digest a lump
of lead.


Dr. B. is always comparing archebiosis as well as
growth to crystallisation; but on this view a Rotifer or
Tardigrade is adapted to its humble conditions of life by
a happy accident; and this I cannot believe. That observations
of the above nature may easily be altogether
wrong is well shown by Dr. B. having declared to Huxley
that he had watched the entire development of a leaf
of Sphagnum. He must have worked with very impure
materials in some cases, as plenty of organisms appeared
in a saline solution not containing an atom of nitrogen.


I wholly disagree with Dr. B. about many points in his
latter chapters. Thus the frequency of generalised forms
in the older strata seems to me clearly to indicate the common
descent with divergence of more recent forms.
[pg 276]
Notwithstanding all his sneers, I do not strike my
colours as yet about pangenesis. I should like to live to
see archebiosis proved true, for it would be a discovery of
transcendent importance; or if false I should like to see
it disproved, and the facts otherwise explained; but I shall
not live to see all this. If ever proved, Dr. B. will have
taken a prominent part in the work. How grand is the
onward rush of science; it is enough to console us for
the many errors which we have committed and for our
efforts being overlaid and forgotten in the mass of new
facts and new views which are daily turning up.


This is all I have to say about Dr. B.'s book, and it
certainly has not been worth saying. Nevertheless, reward
me whenever you can by giving me any news about
your appointment to the Bethnal Green Museum.—My
dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 31, 1872.


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your long and interesting
letter about Bastian's book, though I almost regret that
my asking you for your opinion should have led you to give
yourself so much trouble. I quite understand your frame
of mind, and think it quite a natural and proper one. You
had hard work to hammer your views into people's heads
at first, and if Bastian's theory is true he will have still
harder work, because the facts he appeals to are themselves
so difficult to establish. Are not you mistaken about the
Sphagnum? As I remember it, Huxley detected a fragment
of Sphagnum leaf in the same solution in which a
fungoid growth had been developed. Bastian mistook the
Sphagnum also for a vegetable growth, and on account
of this ignorance of the character of Sphagnum, and its
presence in the solution, Huxley rejected somewhat contemptuously
(and I think very illogically) all Bastian's
[pg 277]observations. Again, as to the saline solution without
nitrogen, would not the air supply what was required?


I quite agree that the book would have gained force
by rearrangement in the way you suggest, but perhaps he
thought it necessary to begin with a general argument in
order to induce people to examine his new collection of
facts, I am impressed most by the agreement of so many
observers, some of whom struggle to explain away their
own facts. What a wonderfully ingenious and suggestive
paper that is by Galton on "Blood Relationship." It
helps to render intelligible many of the eccentricities of
heredity, atavism, etc.


Sir Charles Lyell was good enough to write to Lord
Ripon and Mr. Cole94 about me and the Bethnal Green
Museum, and the answer he got was that at present no
appointment of a director is contemplated. I suppose they
see no way of making it a Natural History Museum, and
it will have to be kept going by Loan Collections of miscellaneous
works of art, in which case, of course, the South
Kensington people will manage it. It is a considerable disappointment
to me, as I had almost calculated on getting
something there.


With best wishes for your good health and happiness,
believe me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.—I have just been reading Howorth's paper in the
Journal of the Anthropological Institute. How perverse it
is. He throughout confounds "fertility" with "increase
of population," which seems to me to be the main cause of
his errors. His elaborate accumulation of facts in other
papers in Nature, on "Subsidence and Elevation of Land,"
I believe to be equally full of error, and utterly untrustworthy
as a whole.—A.R.W.

[pg 278]






Down, Beckenham, Kent. September 2, 1872.


My dear Wallace,—I write a line to say that I understood—but
I may of course have been mistaken—from
Huxley that Bastian distinctly stated that he had watched
the development of the scale of Sphagnum: I was astonished,
as I knew the appearance of Sphagnum under a
high power, and asked a second time; but I repeat that
I may have been mistaken. Busk told me that Sharpey
had noticed the appearance of numerous Infusoria in one
of the solutions not containing any nitrogen; and I do not
suppose that any physiologist would admit the possibility
of Infusoria absorbing nitrogen gas. Possibly I ought not
to have mentioned statements made in private conversation,
so please do not repeat them.


I quite agree about the extreme importance of such men
as Cohn [illegible] and Carter having observed apparent
cases of heterogenesis. At present I should prefer any
mad hypothesis, such as that every disintegrated molecule
of the lowest forms can reproduce the parent-form, and
that the molecules are universally distributed, and that
they do not lose their vital power until heated to such
a temperature that they decompose like dead organic
particles.


I am extremely grieved to hear about the Museum: it
is a great misfortune.—Yours most sincerely,


C. DARWIN.


I have taken up old botanical work and have given up
all theories.


I quite agree about Howorth's paper: he wrote to me
and I told him that we differed so widely it was of no use
our discussing any point.


As for Galton's paper, I have never yet been able to
fully digest it: as far as I have, it has not cleared my
[pg 279]ideas, and has only aided in bringing more prominently
forward the large proportion of the latent characters.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. October 20, 1872.


My dear Wallace,—I have thought that you would perhaps
like to see enclosed specimen and extract from letter
(translated from the German by my son) from Dr. W.
Marshall, Zoological Assistant to Schlegel at Leyden.
Neither the specimen nor extract need be returned; and
you need not acknowledge the receipt. The resemblance
is not so close, now that the fragments are gummed on
card, as I at first thought. Your review of Houzeau was
very good: I skimmed through the whole gigantic book,
but you managed to pick out the plums much better than
I did for myself. You are a born critic. What an admirable
number that was of Nature.


I am writing this at Sevenoaks, where we have taken
a house for three weeks and have one more week to stay.
We came here that I may get a little rest, of which I stood
in much need.—Ever yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


With respect to what you say about certain instincts
of ants having been acquired by experience or sense, have
you kept in mind that the neuters have no progeny? I
wish I knew whether the fertile females, or queens, do the
same work (viz. placing the eggs in warm places, etc.) as
the neuters do afterwards; if so the case would be comparatively
simple; but I believe this is not the case, and
I am driven to selection of varying pre-existing instincts.







The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 15, 1872.


Dear Darwin,—I should have written earlier to thank
you for your book,95 but was hoping to be able to read more
[pg 280]of it before doing so. I have not, however, found time to
get beyond the first three chapters, but that is quite sufficient
to show me how exceedingly interesting you have made
the subject, and how completely and admirably you have
worked it out. I expect it will be one of the most popular
of your works. I have just been asked to write a review
of it for the Quarterly Journal of Science, for which purpose
I shall be in duty bound to seek out some deficiencies,
however minute, so as to give my notice some flavour of
criticism.


The cuts and photos are admirable, and my little boy
and girl seized it at once to look at the naughty babies.


With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.—I will take this opportunity of asking you if you
know of any book that will give me a complete catalogue
of vertebrate fossils with some indication of their affinities.—A.R.W.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 13, 1873.


My dear Wallace,—I have read your review with much
interest, and I thank you sincerely for the very kind spirit
in which it is written. I cannot say that I am convinced
by your criticisms.96 If you have ever actually observed a
kitten sucking and pounding with extended toes its mother,
and then seen the same kitten when a little older doing the
same thing on a soft shawl, and ultimately an old cat (as
I have seen), and do not admit that it is identically the same
action, I am astonished.

[pg 281]

With respect to the decapitated frog,97 I have always
heard of Pflüger as a most trustworthy observer. If,
indeed, anyone knows a frog's habits so well as to say
that it never rubs off a bit of leaf or other object, which
may stick to its thigh, in the same manner as it did the
acid, your objection would be valid. Some of Flourens'
experiments, in which he removed the cerebral hemisphere
from a pigeon, indicate that acts apparently performed
consciously can be done without consciousness—I presume
through the force of habit; in which case it would appear
that intellectual power is not brought into play. Several
persons have made such suggestions and objections as yours
about the hands being held up in astonishment:98 if there
was any straining of the muscles, as with protruded
arms under fright, I would agree: as it is I must keep
to my old opinion, and I daresay you will say that I am
an obstinate old blockhead.—My dear Wallace, yours very
sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


The book has sold wonderfully; 9,000 copies have now
been printed.







The Dell, Grays, Essex. Wednesday morning, [November, 1873].


Dear Darwin,—Yours just received. Pray act exactly
as if nothing had been said to me on the subject. I do
not particularly wish for the work,99 as, besides being as
[pg 282]you say, tedious work, it involves a considerable amount
of responsibility. Still, I am prepared to do any literary
work of the kind, as I told Bates some time ago, and that
is the reason he wrote to me about it. I certainly think,
however, that it would be in many ways more satisfactory
to you if your son did it, and I therefore hope he may
undertake it.


Should he, however, for any reasons, be unable, I am
at your service as a dernier ressort.


In case my meaning is not quite clear, I will not do it
unless your son has the offer and declines it.—Believe me,
dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 18, 1873.


Dear Darwin,—I quite understand what you require,
and would undertake to do it to the best of my ability.
Of course in such work I should not think of offering
criticisms of matter.


I do not think I could form any idea of how long it
would take by seeing the MSS., as it would all depend
upon the amount of revision and working-in required. I
have helped Sir C. Lyell with his last three or four
editions in a somewhat similar though different way, and
for him I have kept an account simply of the hours I was
employed in any way for him, and he paid me 5/- an hour;
but (of course this is confidential) I do not think this quite
enough for the class of work. I should propose for your
work 7/- an hour as a fair remuneration, and I would put
down each day the hours I worked at it.


No doubt you will get it done for very much less by
any literary man accustomed to regular literary work and
nothing else, and perhaps better done, so do not in the
least scruple in saying you decide on employing the gentleman
you had in view if you prefer it.
[pg 283]
If you send it to me could you let me have all your
MSS. copied out, as it adds considerably to the time required
if there is any difficulty in deciphering the writing,
which in yours (as you are no doubt aware) there often is.


My hasty note to Bates was not intended to be shown
you or anyone. I thought he had heard of it from Murray,
and that the arrangement was to be made by Murray.—Believe
me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


P.S.—I have been delighted with H. Spencer's "Study
of Sociology." Some of the passages in the latter part
are grand. You have perhaps seen that I am dipping into
politics myself occasionally.—A.R.W.







Down, Beckenkam, Kent. November 19, 1873.


Dear Wallace,—I thank you for your extremely kind
letter, and I am sorry that I troubled you with that of
yesterday. My wife thinks that my son George would be
so much pleased at undertaking the work for me, that I
will write to him, and so probably shall have no occasion
to trouble you. If on still further reflection, and after
looking over my notes, I think that my son could not do
the work, I will write again and gratefully accept your
proposal. But if you do not hear, you will understand
that I can manage the affair myself. I never in my lifetime
regretted an interruption so much as this new edition
of the "Descent." I am deeply immersed in some work
on physiological points with plants.


I fully agree with what you say about H. Spencer's
"Sociology"; I do not believe there is a man in Europe
at all his equal in talents. I did not know that you had
been writing on politics, except so far as your letter on
the coal question, which interested me much and struck
me as a capital letter.
[pg 284]
I must again thank you for your letter, and remain,
dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


I hope to Heaven that politics will not replace natural
science.


I know too well how atrociously bad my handwriting is.







The Dell, Grays, Essex. December 6, 1874.


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your kindness in sending
me a copy of your new edition of the "Descent." I
see you have made a whole host of additions and corrections
which I shall have great pleasure in reading over as
soon as I have got rid of my horrid book on Geographical
Distribution, which is almost driving me mad with the
amount of drudgery required and the often unsatisfactory
nature of the result. However, I must finish with it soon,
or all the part first done will have to be done over again,
every new book, either as a monograph, or a classification,
putting everything wrong (for me).


Hoping you are in good health and able to go on with
your favourite work, I remain yours very sincerely,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







The Dell, Grays, Essex. July 21, 1875.


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your kindness in sending
me a copy of your new book.100 Being very busy I have
only had time to dip into it yet. The account of Utricularia
is most marvellous, and quite new to me. I'm rather surprised
that you do not make any remarks on the origin
of these extraordinary contrivances for capturing insects.
Did you think they were too obvious? I daresay there is
no difficulty, but I feel sure they will be seized on as inexplicable
by Natural Selection, and your silence on the
[pg 285]point will be held to show that you consider them so!
The contrivance in Utricularia and Dionæa, and in fact
in Drosera too, seems fully as great and complex as
in Orchids, but there is not the same motive force. Fertilisation
and cross-fertilisation are important ends enough
to lead to any modification, but can we suppose mere
nourishment to be so important, seeing that it is so easily
and almost universally obtained by extrusion of roots and
leaves? Here are plants which lose their roots and leaves
to acquire the same results by infinitely complex modes!
What a wonderful and long-continued series of variations
must have led up to the perfect "trap" in Utricularia,
while at any stage of the process the same end might
have been gained by a little more development of roots
and leaves, as in 9,999 plants out of 10,000!


Is this an imaginary difficulty, or do you mean to deal
with it in future editions of the "Origin"?—Believe me
yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







The Dell, Grays, Essex. November 7, 1875.


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your beautiful little
volume on "Climbing Plants," which forms a most interesting
companion to your "Orchids" and "Insectivorous
Plants." I am sorry to see that you have not this time
given us the luxury of cut edges.


I am in the midst of printing and proof-sheets, which
are wearisome in the extreme from the mass of names and
statistics I have been obliged to introduce, and which will,
I fear, make my book insufferably dull to all but zoological
specialists.


My trust is in my pictures and maps to catch the public.


Hoping yourself and all your family are quite well,
believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 286]






Down, Beckenham, Kent. June 5, 1876.


My dear Wallace,—I must have the pleasure of expressing
to you my unbounded admiration of your book,101 though
I have read only to page 184—my object having been to do
as little as possible while resting. I feel sure that you
have laid a broad and safe foundation for all future work
on Distribution. How interesting it will be to see hereafter
plants treated in strict relation to your views; and
then all insects, pulmonate molluscs, and fresh-water fishes,
in greater detail than I suppose you have given to these
lower animals. The point which has interested me most,
but I do not say the most valuable point, is your protest
against sinking imaginary continents in a quite reckless
manner, as was started by Forbes, followed, alas, by
Hooker, and caricatured by Wollaston and Murray. By
the way, the main impression which the latter author has
left on my mind is his utter want of all scientific judgment.
I have lifted up my voice against the above view
with no avail, but I have no doubt that you will succeed,
owing to your new arguments and the coloured chart. Of
a special value, as it seems to me, is the conclusion that
we must determine the areas chiefly by the nature of the
mammals. When I worked many years ago on this subject,
I doubted much whether the now-called Palearctic
and Nearctic regions ought to be separated; and I determined
if I made another region that it should be Madagascar.
I have therefore been able to appreciate the value
of your evidence on these points. What progress Palæontology
has made during the last 20 years! But if it
advances at the same rate in the future, our views on the
migration and birthplace of the various groups will, I
fear, be greatly altered. I cannot feel quite easy about
[pg 287]the Glacial period and the extinction of large mammals,
but I much hope that you are right. I think you will have
to modify your belief about the difficulty of dispersal of
land molluscs; I was interrupted when beginning to experimentise
on the just-hatched young adhering to the feet
of ground-roosting birds. I differ on one other point, viz.
in the belief that there must have existed a Tertiary Antarctic
continent, from which various forms radiated to the
southern extremities of our present continents. But I
could go on scribbling for ever. You have written, as I
believe, a grand and memorable work, which will last
for years as the foundation for all future treatises on
Geographical Distribution,—My dear Wallace, yours very
sincerely,


CHARLES DARWIN.


P.S.—You have paid me the highest conceivable compliment
by what you say of your work in relation to my
chapters on Distribution in the "Origin," and I heartily
thank you for it.







The Dell, Grays, Essex. June 7, 1876.


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your very kind letter.
So few people will read my book at all regularly, that a
criticism from one who does so will be very welcome.


If, as I suppose, it is only to p. 184 of Vol. I. that
you have read, you cannot yet quite see my conclusions
on the points you refer to (land molluscs and Antarctic
continent). My own conclusions fluctuated during the
progress of the book, and I have, I know, occasionally
used expressions (the relics of earlier ideas) which are not
quite consistent with what I say further on. I am positively
against any Southern continent as uniting South
America with Australia or New Zealand, as you will see at
Vol. I., pp. 398-403 and 459-466. My general conclusions
[pg 288]as to Distribution of Land Mollusca102 are at Vol. II., pp.
522-529. When you have read these passages and looked at
the general facts which lead to them, I shall be glad to hear
if you still differ from me.


Though, of course, present results as to origin and
migrations of genera of mammals will have to be modified
owing to new discoveries, I cannot help thinking that
much will remain unaffected, because in all geographical
and geological discoveries the great outlines are soon
reached; the details alone remain to be modified. I also
think much of the geological evidence is now so accordant
with, and explanatory of, geographical distribution that it
is prima facie correct in outline. Nevertheless, such vast
masses of new facts will come out in the next few years
that I quite dread the labour of incorporating them in a
new edition.


Now for a little personal matter. For two years I
have made up my mind to leave this place—mainly for two
reasons: drought and wind prevent the satisfactory growth
of all delicate plants; and I cannot stand being unable to
attend evening meetings and being obliged to refuse every
invitation in London. But I was obliged to stay till I
had got it into decent order to attract a customer. At
last it is so, and I am offering it for sale, and as soon
as it is disposed of I intend to try the neighbourhood of
Dorking, whence there are late trains from Cannon Street
and Charing Cross.


I see your post-mark was Dorking, so I suppose you
have been staying there. Is it not a lovely country? I
hope your health is improved, and when, quite at your
[pg 289]leisure, you have waded through my book, I trust you
will again let me have a few lines of friendly criticism
and advice.—Yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham. June 17, 1876.


My dear Wallace,—I have now finished the whole of
Vol. I., with the same interest and admiration as before;
and I am convinced that my judgment was right and that
it is a memorable book, the basis of all future work on the
subject. I have nothing particular to say, but perhaps you
would like to hear my impressions on two or three points.
Nothing has struck me more than the admirable and convincing
manner in which you treat Java. To allude to a
very trifling point, it is capital about the unadorned head
of the Argus pheasant.103 How plain a thing is, when it is
once pointed out! What a wonderful case is that of Celebes!
I am glad that you have slightly modified your views with
respect to Africa,104 and this leads me to say that I cannot
swallow the so-called continent of Lemuria, i.e. the direct
connection of Africa and Ceylon!105 The facts do not seem
to me many and strong enough to justify so immense a
change of level. Moreover, Mauritius and the other islands
appear to me oceanic in character. But do not suppose
[pg 290]that I place my judgment on this subject on a level with
yours. A wonderfully good paper was published about a
year ago on India in the Geological Journal—I think by
Blandford.106 Ramsay agreed with me that it was one of
the best published for a long time. The author shows that
India has been a continent with enormous fresh-water lakes
from the Permian period to the present day. If I remember
right he believes in a former connection with South Africa.


I am sure that I read, some 20 to 30 years ago, in
a French journal, an account of teeth of mastodon found
in Timor; but the statement may have been an error.


With respect to what you say about the colonising of
New Zealand, I somewhere have an account of a frog
frozen in the ice of a Swiss glacier, and which revived
when thawed. I may add that there is an Indian toad
which can resist salt water and haunts the seaside.
Nothing ever astonished me more than the case of the
Galaxias; but it does not seem known whether it may not
be a migratory fish like the salmon. It seems to me that
you complicate rather too much the successive colonisations
with New Zealand. I should prefer believing that
the Galaxias was a species, like the Emys of the Sewalik
Hills, which has long retained the same form. Your remarks
on the insects and flowers of New Zealand have
greatly interested me; but aromatic leaves I have always
looked at as a protection against their being eaten by
insects or other animals; and as insects are there rare,
such protection would not be much needed. I have written
more than I intended, and I must again say how profoundly
your book has interested me.


Now let me turn to a very different subject. I have
[pg 291]only just heard of and procured your two articles in the
Academy. I thank you most cordially for your generous
defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the "Origin" I did
not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that I
might not be accused of concealing my opinion I went out
of my way and inserted a sentence which seemed to me
(and still so seems) to declare plainly my belief. This
was quoted in my "Descent of Man." Therefore it is
very unjust, not to say dishonest, of Mr. Mivart to accuse
me of base fraudulent concealment; I care little about
myself; but Mr. Mivart, in an article in the Quarterly
Review (which I know was written by him), accused my
son George of encouraging profligacy, and this without the
least foundation.107 I can assert this positively, as I laid
George's article and the Quarterly Review before Hooker,
Huxley and others, and all agreed that the accusation
[pg 292]was a deliberate falsification. Huxley wrote to him on
the subject and has almost or quite cut him in consequence;
and so would Hooker, but he was advised not to
do so as President of the Royal Society. Well, he has
gained his object in giving me pain, and, good God, to
think of the flattering, almost fawning speeches which he
has made to me! I wrote, of course, to him to say that I
would never speak to him again. I ought, however, to be
contented, as he is the one man who has ever, as far as I
know, treated me basely.


Forgive me for writing at such length, and believe me
yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


P.S.—I am very sorry that you have given up sexual
selection. I am not at all shaken, and stick to my colours
like a true Briton. When I think about the unadorned
head of the Argus pheasant, I might exclaim, Et tu,
Brute!







Down, Beckenham. June 25, 1876.


My dear Wallace,—I have been able to read rather more
quickly of late and have finished your book. I have not
much to say. Your careful account of the temperate parts
of South America interested me much, and all the more
from knowing something of the country. I like also much
the general remarks towards the end of the volume on the
land molluscs. Now for a few criticisms.


P. 122:108 I am surprised at your saying that "during
the whole Tertiary period North America was zoologically
far more strongly contrasted with South America than it
is now." But we know hardly anything of the latter
except during the Pliocene period, and then the mastodon,
horse, several great Dentata, etc. etc., were common to
the North and South. If you are right I erred greatly in
[pg 293]my Journal, where I insisted on the former close connection
between the two.


P. 252, and elsewhere: I agree thoroughly with the
general principle that a great area with many competing
forms is necessary for much and high development; but
do you not extend this principle too far—I should say
much too far, considering how often several species of the
same genus have been developed on very small islands?


P. 265: You say that the Sittidæ extend to Madagascar,
but there is no number in the tabular heading.109


P. 359: Rhinochetus is entered in the tabular heading
under No. 3 of the Neotropical sub-regions.110


Reviewers think it necessary to find some fault, and if
I were to review you, the sole point which I should blame
is your not giving very numerous references. These would
save whoever follows you great labour. Occasionally I
wished myself to know the authority for certain statements,
and whether you or somebody else had originated
certain subordinate views. Take the case of a man who
had collected largely on some island, for instance St.
Helena, and who wished to work out the geographical relations
of his collection; he would, I think, feel very blank
at not finding in your work precise references to all that
had been written on St. Helena. I hope you will not think
me a confoundedly disagreeable fellow.


I may mention a capital essay which I received a few
mouths ago from Axel Blytt111 on the distribution of the
plants of Scandinavia; showing the high probability of
there having been secular periods alternately wet and
dry; and of the important part which they have played in
distribution.

[pg 294]

I wrote to Forel, who is always at work on ants, and
told him of your views about the dispersal of the blind
Coleoptera, and asked him to observe.


I spoke to Hooker about your book, and feel sure that
he would like nothing better than to consider the distribution
of plants in relation to your views; but he seemed to
doubt whether he should ever have time.


And now I have done my jottings, and once again congratulate
you on having brought out so grand a work. I
have been a little disappointed at the review in Nature112—My
dear Wallace, yours sincerely,


CHARLES DARWIN.







Rose Hill, Dorking. July 23, 1876.


My dear Darwin,—I should have replied sooner to your
last kind and interesting letters, but they reached me in
the midst of my packing previous to removal here, and I
have only just now got my books and papers in a get-at-able
state.


And first, many thanks for your close observation in
detecting the two absurd mistakes in the tabular headings.


As to the former greater distinction of the North and
South American faunas, I think I am right. The Edentata,
being proved (as I hold) to have been mere temporary
migrants into North America in the post-Pliocene epoch,
form no part of its Tertiary fauna. Yet in South America
they were so enormously developed in the Pliocene epoch
that we know, if there is any such thing as Evolution, etc.,
that strange ancestral forms must have preceded them in
Miocene times.


Mastodon, on the other hand, represented by one or two
species only, appears to have been a late immigrant into
South America from the North.


The immense development of Ungulates (in varied
[pg 295]families, genera, and species) in North America during the
whole Tertiary epoch is, however, the great feature, which
assimilates it to Europe and contrasts it with South
America. True camels, hosts of hog-like animals, true
rhinoceroses, and hosts of ancestral horses, all bring
North America much nearer to the Old World than it is
now. Even the horse, represented in all South America
by Equus only, was probably a temporary immigrant from
the North.


As to extending too far the principle (yours) of the
necessity of comparatively large areas for the development
of varied faunas, I may have done so, but I think not.
There is, I think, every probability that most islands, etc.,
where a varied fauna now exists have been once more extensive,
e.g. New Zealand, Madagascar. Where there is no
such evidence (e.g. Galapagos), the fauna is very restricted.


Lastly as to want of references; I confess the justice of
your criticism. But I am dreadfully unsystematic. It is
my first large work involving much of the labour of others.
I began with the intention of writing a comparatively short
sketch, enlarged it, and added to it, bit by bit; remodelled
the tables, the headings, and almost everything else, more
than once, and got my materials into such confusion that
it is a wonder it has not turned out far more crooked and
confused than it is. I, no doubt, ought to have given references;
but in many cases I found the information so small
and scattered, and so much had to be combined and condensed
from conflicting authorities, that I hardly knew
how to refer to them or where to leave off. Had I referred
to all authors consulted for every fact, I should have greatly
increased the bulk of the book, while a large portion of the
references would be valueless in a few years owing to later
and better authorities. My experience of referring to references
has generally been most unsatisfactory. One finds,
[pg 296]nine times out of ten, the fact is stated, and nothing more;
or a reference to some third work not at hand!


I wish I could get into the habit of giving chapter and
verse for every fact and extract, but I am too lazy and
generally in a hurry, having to consult books against time
when in London for a day.


However, I will try and do something to mend this
matter should I have to prepare another edition.


I return you Forel's letter. It does not advance the
question much, neither do I think it likely that even the
complete observation he thinks necessary would be of much
use; because it may well be that the ova or larvæ or imagos
of the beetles are not carried systematically by the ants,
but only occasionally owing to some exceptional circumstances.
This might produce a great effect in distribution,
yet be so rare as never to come under observation.


Several of your remarks in previous letters I shall carefully
consider. I know that, compared with the extent of
the subject, my book is in many parts crude and ill-considered;
but I thought, and still think, it better to make
some generalisations wherever possible, as I am not at all
afraid of having to alter my views in many points of detail.
I was so overwhelmed with zoological details that I never
went through the Geological Society's Journal as I ought
to have done, and as I mean to do before writing more on
the subject.


With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Rose Hill, Dorking. December 13, 1876.


My dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your new book on
"Crossing Plants," which I have read with much interest.
I hardly expected, however, that there would have been
so many doubtful and exceptional cases. I fancy that the
[pg 297]results would have come out better had you always taken
weights instead of heights; and that would have obviated
the objection that will, I daresay, be made, that height
proves nothing, because a tall plant may be weaker, less
bulky and less vigorous than a shorter one. Of course no
one who knows you or who takes a general view of your
results will say this, but I daresay it will be said. I am
afraid this book will not do much or anything to get rid
of the one great objection, that the physiological characteristic
of species, the infertility of hybrids, has not yet been
produced. Have you ever tried experiments with plants
(if any can be found) which for several centuries have
been grown under very different conditions, as for instance
potatoes on the high Andes and in Ireland? If any approach
to sterility occurred in mongrels between these it would be
a grand step. The most curious point you have brought out
seems to me the slight superiority of self-fertilisation over
fertilisation with another flower of the same plant, and the
most important result, that difference of constitution is the
essence of the benefit of cross-fertilisation. All you now
want is to find the neutral point where the benefit is at its
maximum, any greater difference being prejudicial.


Hoping you may yet demonstrate this, believe me yours
very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Rose Hill, Dorking. January 17, 1877.


My dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your valuable new
edition of the "Orchids," which I see contains a great deal
of new matter of the greatest interest. I am amazed at your
continuous work, but I suppose, after all these years of it,
it is impossible for you to remain idle. I, on the contrary,
am very idle, and feel inclined to do nothing but stroll about
this beautiful country, and read all kinds of miscellaneous
literature.
[pg 298]
I have asked my friend Mr. Mott to send you the last
of his remarkable papers—on Haeckel. But the part I hope
you will read with as much interest as I have done is that
on the deposits of Carbon, and the part it has played and
must be playing in geological changes. He seems to have
got the idea from some German book, but it seems to me
very important, and I wonder it never occurred to Sir
Charges Lyell. If the calculations as to the quantity of
undecomposed carbon deposited are anything approaching
to correctness, the results must be important.


Hoping you are in pretty good health, believe me yours
very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Rose Hill, Dorking. July 23, 1877.


My dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your admirable
volume on "The Forms of Flowers." It would be impertinence
of me to say anything in praise of it, except
that I have read the chapters on "Illegitimate Offspring
of Heterostyled Plants" and on "Cleistogamic Flowers"
with great interest.


I am almost afraid to tell you that in going over the
subject of the Colours of Animals, etc., for a small volume
of essays, etc., I am preparing, I have come to conclusions
directly opposed to voluntary sexual selection, and believe
that I can explain (in a general way) all the phenomena of
sexual ornaments and colours by laws of development aided
by simple Natural Selection.


I hope you admire as I do Mr. Belt's remarkable series
of papers in support of his terrific "oceanic glacier river-damming"
hypothesis. In awful grandeur it beats everything
"glacial" yet out, and it certainly explains a wonderful
lot of hard facts. The last one, on the "Glacial
Period in the Southern Hemisphere," in the Quarterly
Journal of Science, is particularly fine, and I see he has
[pg 299]just read a paper at the Geological Society. It seems to
me supported by quite as much evidence as Ramsay's
"Lakes"; but Ramsay, I understand, will have none of it—as
yet.—Believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. August 31, 1877.


My dear Wallace,—I am very much obliged to you for
sending your article, which is very interesting and appears
to me as clearly written as it can be. You will not be surprised
that I differ altogether from you about sexual colours.
That the tail of the peacock and his elaborate display of it
should be due merely to the vigour, activity, and vitality
of the male is to me as utterly incredible as my views are
to you. Mantegazza published a few years ago in Italy a
somewhat similar view. I cannot help doubting about recognition
through colour; our horses, dogs, fowls, and
pigeons seem to know their own species, however differently
the individuals may be coloured. I wonder whether
you attribute the odoriferous and sound-producing organs,
when confined to the males, to their greater vigour, etc.? I
could say a good deal in opposition to you, but my arguments
would have no weight in your eyes, and I do not
intend to write for the public anything on this or any other
difficult subject. By the way, I doubt whether the term
voluntary in relation to sexual selection ought to be employed:
when a man is fascinated by a pretty girl it can
hardly be called voluntary, and I suppose that female
animals are charmed or excited in nearly the same manner
by the gaudy males.


Three essays have been published lately in Germany
which would interest you: one by Weismann, who shows
that the coloured stripes on the caterpillars of Sphinx
are beautifully protective: and birds were frightened away
[pg 300]from their feeding-place by a caterpillar with large eye-like
spots on the broad anterior segments of the body.
Fritz Müller has well discussed the first steps of mimicry
with butterflies, and comes to nearly or quite the same
conclusion as you, but supports it by additional arguments.


Fritz Müller also has lately shown that the males alone
of certain butterflies have odoriferous glands on their wings
(distinct from those which secrete matter disgusting to
birds), and where these glands are placed the scales assume
a different shape, making little tufts.


Farewell: I hope that you find Dorking a pleasant place?
I was staying lately at Abinger Hall, and wished to come
over to see you, but driving tires me so much that my
courage failed.—Yours very sincerely,


CHAS. DARWIN.






Madeira Villa, Madeira Road, Ventnor, Isle of Wight.
September 3, 1877.


My dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your letter. Of
course I did not expect my paper to have any effect on
your opinions. You have looked at all the facts so long
from your special point of view that it would require conclusive
arguments to influence you, and these, from the
complex nature of the question, are probably not to be
had. We must, I think, leave the case in the hands of
others, and I am in hopes that my paper may call sufficient
attention to the subject to induce some of the great
school of Darwinians to take the question up and work it
out thoroughly. You have brought such a mass of facts
to support your view, and have argued it so fully, that I
hardly think it necessary for you to do more. Truth will
prevail, as you as well as I wish it to do. I will only make
one or two remarks. The word "voluntary" was inserted
in my proofs only, in order to distinguish clearly between
[pg 301]the two radically distinct kinds of "sexual selection."
Perhaps "conscious" would be a better word, to which I
think you will not object, and I will alter it when I republish.
I lay no stress on the word "voluntary."


Sound- and scent-producing organs in males are surely
due to "natural" or "automatic" as opposed to "conscious"
selection. If there were gradations in the sounds
produced, from mere noises, up to elaborate music—the
case would be analogous to that of "colours" and "ornament."
Being, however, comparatively simple, Natural
Selection, owing to their use as a guide, seems sufficient.
The louder sound, heard at a greater distance, would
attract or be heard by more females, or it may attract
other males and lead to combats for the females, but this
would not imply choice in the sense of rejecting a male
whose stridulation was a trifle less loud than another's,
which is the essence of the theory as applied by you to
colour and ornament. But greater general vigour would
almost certainly lead to greater volume or persistence of
sound, and so the same view will apply to both cases on
my theory.


Thanks for the references you give me. My ignorance of
German prevents me supporting my views by the mass of
observations continually being made abroad, so I can only
advance my own ideas for what they are worth.


I like Dorking much, but can find no house to suit me,
so fear I shall have to move again.


With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. September 5, [1877].


My dear Wallace,—"Conscious" seems to me much
better than "voluntary." Conscious action, I presume,
comes into play when two males fight for a female; but I
[pg 302]do not know whether you admit that, for instance, the spur
of the cock is due to sexual selection.


I am quite willing to admit that the sounds and vocal
organs of some males are used only for challenging,
but I doubt whether this applies to the musical notes
of Hylobates or to the howling (I judge chiefly from
Rengger) of the American monkeys. No account that I
have seen of the stridulation of male insects shows that
it is a challenge. All those who have attended to birds
consider their song as a charm to the females and not as a
challenge. As the males in most cases search for the
females I do not see how their odoriferous organs will
aid them in finding the females. But it is foolish in me
to go on writing, for I believe I have said most of this in
my book: anyhow, I well remember thinking over it. The
"belling" of male stags, if I remember rightly, is a challenge,
and so I daresay is the roaring of the lion during the
breeding season.


I will just add in reference to your former letter that
I fully admit that with birds the fighting of the males
co-operates with their charms; and I remember quoting
Bartlett that gaudy colouring in the males is almost invariably
concomitant with pugnacity. But, thank Heaven, what
little more I can do in science will be confined to observation
on simple points. However much I may have blundered,
I have done my best, and that is my constant comfort.—Most truly yours,


C. DARWIN.







Waldron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. September 14, 1878.


Dear Darwin,—An appointment is soon to be made of
someone to have the superintendence of Epping Forest
under the new Act, and as it is a post which of all others
I should like I am trying very hard to get up interest
enough to secure it.
[pg 303]
One of the means is the enclosed memorial, which has
been already signed by Sir J. Hooker and Sir J. Lubbock,
and to which I feel sure you will add your name, which I
expect has weight "even in the City."


In want of anything better to do I have been grinding
away at a book on the Geography of Australia for Stanford
for the last six months.


Hoping you are in good health, and with my best compliments
to Mrs. Darwin and the rest of your family, believe
me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE







Down, Beckenham, Kent. September 16, 1878.


My dear Wallace,—I return the paper signed, and most
heartily wish that you may be successful, not only for
your own sake, but for that of Natural Science, as you
would then have more time for new researches.


I keep moderately well, but always feel half-dead, yet
manage to work away on vegetable physiology, as I think
that I should die outright if I had nothing to do.—Believe
me yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN







Walron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. September 23, 1878.


Dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your signature and good
wishes. I have some hopes of success, but am rather doubtful
of the Committee of the Corporation who will have the
management, for they have just decided after a great struggle
in the Court of Common Council that it is to be a rotatory
Committee, every member of the Council (of whom there are
200) coming on it in succession if they please. They evidently
look upon it as a Committee which will have great opportunities
of excursions, picnics, and dinners, at the expense of the
Corporation, while the improvement of the Forest will be
quite a secondary matter.
[pg 304]
I am very glad to hear you are tolerably well. It is all
I can say of myself.—Believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 5, 1880.


My dear Wallace,—As this note requires no sort of
answer, you must allow me to express my lively admiration
of your paper in the Nineteenth Century.113 You certainly
are a master in the difficult art of clear exposition.
It is impossible to urge too often that the selection from
a single varying individual or of a single varying organ
will not suffice. You have worked in capitally Allen's
admirable researches. As usual, you delight to honour
me more than I deserve. When I have written about the
extreme slowness of Natural Selection (in which I hope I
may be wrong), I have chiefly had in my mind the effects
of intercrossing. I subscribe to almost everything you say
excepting the last short sentence.


And now let me add how grieved I was to hear that the
City of London did not elect you for the Epping office, but
I suppose it was too much to hope that such a body of men
should make a good selection. I wish you could obtain some
quiet post and thus have leisure for moderate scientific work.
I have nothing to tell you about myself; I see few persons,
for conversation fatigues me much; but I daily do some work
in experiments on plants, and hope thus to continue to the
end of my days.


With all good wishes, believe me yours very sincerely,


CHARLES DARWIN.


P.S.—Have you seen Mr. Farrer's article in the last
Fortnightly? It reminded me of an article on bequests
by you some years ago which interested and almost converted
me.

[pg 305]






Waldron Edge, Duppas Hill, Croydon. January 9, 1880.


My dear Darwin,—It is a great pleasure to receive a
letter from you sometimes—especially when we do not
differ very much. I am, of course, much pleased and
gratified that you like my article. I wrote it chiefly because
I thought there was something a little fresh still to say on
the subject, and also because I wished to define precisely
my present position, which people continually misunderstand.
The main part of the article forms part of a chapter
of a book I have now almost finished on my favourite
subject of "Geographical Distribution." It will form a
sort of supplement to my former work, and will, I trust,
be more readable and popular. I go pretty fully into the
laws of variation and dispersal; the exact character of
specific and generic areas, and their causes; the growth,
dispersal and extinction of species and groups, illustrated
by maps, etc.; changes of geography and of climate as affecting
dispersal, with a full discussion of the Glacial theory,
adopting Croll's views (part of this has been published as
a separate article in the Quarterly Review of last July,
and has been highly approved by Croll and Geikie); a discussion
of the theory of permanent continents and oceans,
which I see you were the first to adopt, but which geologists,
I am sorry to say, quite ignore. All this is preliminary.
Then follows a series of chapters on the different kinds of
islands, continental and oceanic, with a pretty full discussion
of the characters, affinities, and origin of their fauna
and flora in typical cases. Among these I am myself quite
pleased with my chapters on New Zealand, as I believe I
have fully explained and accounted for all the main peculiarities
of the New Zealand and Australian floras. I call
the book "Island Life," etc. etc., and I think it will be
interesting.
[pg 306]
Thanks for your regrets and kind wishes anent Epping.
It was a disappointment, as I had good friends on the
Committee and therefore had too much hope. I may just
mention that I am thinking of making some application
through friends for some post in the new Josiah Mason
College of Science at Birmingham, as Registrar or Curator
and Librarian, etc. The Trustees have advertised for Professors
to begin next October. Should you happen to know
any of the Trustees, or have any influential friends in
Birmingham, perhaps you could help me.


I think this book will be my last, as I have pretty well
said all I have to say in it, and I have never taken to experiment
as you have. But I want some easy occupation
for my declining years, with not too much confinement or
desk-work, which I cannot stand. You see I had some
reason for writing to you; but do not you trouble to write
again unless you have something to communicate.


With best wishes, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.


I have not seen the Fortnightly yet, but will do so.







Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. October 11, 1880.


My dear Darwin,—I hope you will have received a copy
of my last book, "Island Life," as I shall be very glad of
your opinion on certain points in it. The first five chapters
you need not read, as they contain nothing fresh to
you, but are necessary to make the work complete in itself.
The next five chapters, however (VII. to X.), I think, will
interest you. As I think, in Chapters VIII. and IX. I have
found the true explanation of geological climates, and on
this I shall be very glad of your candid opinion, as it is
the very foundation-stone of the book. The rest will not
contain much that is fresh to you, except the three chapters
[pg 307]on New Zealand. Sir Joseph Hooker thinks my theory of
the Australian and New Zealand floras a decided advance
on anything that has been done before.


In connection with this, the chapter on the Azores should
be read.


Chap. XVI. on the British Fauna may also interest
you.


I mention these points merely that you may not trouble
yourself to read the whole book, unless you like.


Hoping that you are well, believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. November 3, 1880.


My dear Wallace,—I have now read your book,114 and it
has interested me deeply. It is quite excellent, and seems
to me the best book which you have ever published; but
this may be merely because I have read it last. As I went
on, I made a few notes,115 chiefly when I differed strongly
from you; but God knows whether they are worth your
reading. You will be disappointed with many of them;
[pg 308]but they will show that I had the will, though I did not
know the way, to do what you wanted.


I have said nothing on the infinitely many passages and
views which I admired and which were new to me. My
notes are badly expressed; but I thought that you would
excuse my taking any pains with my style. I wish that
my confounded handwriting was better.


I had a note the other day from Hooker, and I can see
that he is much pleased with the Dedication.


With all good wishes, believe me yours sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


In two or three weeks you will receive a book from me;
if you care to know what it is about, read the paragraph
in Introduction about new terms and then the last chapter,
and you will know whole contents of book.







Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. November 8, 1880.


My dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your kind remarks
and notes on my book. Several of the latter will be of use
to me if I have to prepare a second edition, which I am not
so sure of as you seem to be.


1. In your remark as to the doubtfulness of paucity of
fossils being due to coldness of water, I think you overlook
that I am speaking only of waters in the latitude of
the Alps, in Miocene and Eocene times, when icebergs
and glaciers temporarily descended into an otherwise warm
sea; my theory being that there was no glacial epoch at
that time, but merely a local and temporary descent of the
snow-line and glaciers owing to high excentricity and winter
in aphelion.


2. I cannot see the difficulty about the cessation of the
glacial period. Between the Miocene and the Pleistocene
periods geographical changes occurred which rendered a
[pg 309]true glacial period possible with high excentricity. When
the high excentricity passed away the glacial epoch also
passed away in the Temperate zone; but it persists in the
Arctic zone, where during the Miocene there were mild
climates, and this is due to the persistence of the changed
geographical conditions. The present Arctic climate is
itself a comparatively new and abnormal state of things
due to geographical modification. As to "epoch" and
"period," I use them as synonyms to avoid repeating the
same word.


3. Rate of deposit and geological time: there no doubt
I may have gone to an extreme, but my "twenty-eight million
years" may be anything under 100 millions, as I state.
There is an enormous difference between mean and maximum
denudation and deposition. In the case of the great faults
the upheaval along a given line would itself facilitate the
denudation (whether subaerial or marine) of the upheaved
portion at a rate perhaps a hundred times faster than plains
and plateaux. So, local subsidence might itself lead to very
rapid deposition. Suppose a portion of the Gulf of Mexico
near the mouth of the Mississippi were to subside for a few
thousand years, it might receive the greater part of the sediment
from the whole Mississippi valley, and thus form strata
at a very rapid rate.


4. You quote the Pampas thistles, etc., against my
statement of the importance of preoccupation. But I am
referring especially to St. Helena, and to plants naturally
introduced from the adjacent continents. Surely, if a certain
number of African plants reached the island and became
modified into a complete adaptation to its climatic conditions,
they would hardly be expelled by other African plants
arriving subsequently. They might be so conceivably, but
it does not seem probable. The cases of the Pampas,
New Zealand, Tahiti, etc., are very different, where highly
[pg 310]developed aggressive plants have been artificially introduced.
Under nature it is these very aggressive species that would
first reach any island in their vicinity, and, being adapted
to the island and colonising it thoroughly, would then hold
their own against other plants from the same country, mostly
less aggressive in character. I have not explained this so
fully as I should have done in the book. Your criticism is
therefore useful.


My Chap. XXIII. is no doubt very speculative, and I
cannot wonder at your hesitating at accepting my views.
To me, however, your theory of hosts of existing species
migrating over the tropical lowlands from the North Temperate
to the South Temperate zone appears more speculative
and more improbable. For, where could the rich
lowland equatorial flora have existed during a period of
general refrigeration sufficient for this? and what became
of the wonderfully rich Cape flora which, if the temperature
of Tropical Africa had been so recently lowered, would
certainly have spread northwards and on the return of the
heat could hardly have been driven back into the sharply
defined and very restricted area in which it now exists?


As to the migration of plants from mountain to mountain
not being so probable as to remote islands, I think
that is fully counterbalanced by two considerations:


(a) The area and abundance of the mountain stations
along such a range as the Andes are immensely greater
than those of the islands in the North Atlantic, for example.


(b) The temporary occupation of mountain stations by
migrating plants (which I think I have shown to be probable)
renders time a much more important element in increasing
the number and variety of the plants so dispersed
than in the case of islands, where the flora soon acquires
a fixed and endemic character, and where the number of
species is necessarily limited.

[pg 311]

No doubt, direct evidence of seeds being carried great
distances through the air is wanted, but, I am afraid, can
hardly be obtained. Yet I feel the greatest confidence that
they are so carried. Take for instance the two peculiar
orchids of the Azores (Habinaria species): what other mode
of transit is conceivable? The whole subject is one of great
difficulty, but I hope my chapter may call attention to a
hitherto neglected factor in the distribution of plants.


Your references to the Mauritius literature are very interesting,
and will be useful to me; and again thanking you
for your valuable remarks, believe me yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. November 21, 1880.


My dear Darwin,—Many thanks for your new book
containing your wonderful series of experiments and
observations on the movements of plants. I have read the
introduction and conclusion, which shows me the importance
of the research as indicating the common basis of
the infinitely varied habits and mode of growth of plants.
The whole subject becomes thus much simplified, though
the nature of the basic vitality which leads to such wonderful
results remains as mysterious as ever.—Yours very
faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. January 1, 1881.


My dear Darwin,—I have been intending to write to you
for some weeks to call your attention to what seems to me
a striking confirmation (or at all events a support) of my
views of the land migration of plants from mountain to
mountain. In Nature of Dec. 9th, p. 126, Mr. Baker, of
Kew, describes a number of the alpine plants of Madagascar
as being identical species with some found on the
mountains of Abyssinia, the Cameroons, and other African
[pg 312]mountains. Now, if there is one thing more clear than
another it is that Madagascar has been separated from
Africa since the Miocene (probably the early Miocene)
epoch. These plants must therefore have reached the
island either since then, in which case they certainly must
have passed through the air for long distances, or at the
time of the union. But the Miocene and Eocene periods
were certainly warm, and these alpine plants could hardly
have migrated over tropical forest lands, while it is very
improbable that if they had been isolated at so remote a
period, exposed to such distinct climatal and organic environments
as in Madagascar and Abyssinia, they would
have in both places retained their specific characters unchanged.
The presumption is, therefore, that they are
comparatively recent immigrants, and if so must have
passed across the sea from mountain to mountain, for the
richness and speciality of the Madagascar forest vegetation
render it certain that no recent glacial epoch has seriously
affected that island.


Hoping that you are in good health, and wishing you
the compliments of the season, I remain yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 2, 1881.


My dear Wallace,—The case which you give is a very
striking one, and I had overlooked it in Nature.116 But I
remain as great a heretic as ever. Any supposition seems
to me more probable than that the seeds of plants should
have been blown from the mountains of Abyssinia or other
central mountains of Africa to the mountains of Madagascar.
It seems to me almost infinitely more probable
[pg 313]that Madagascar extended far to the south during the
Glacial period, and that the southern hemisphere was,
according to Croll, then more temperate; and that the
whole of Africa was then peopled with some temperate
forms, which crossed chiefly by agency of birds and sea-currents;
and some few by the wind from the shores of
Africa to Madagascar, subsequently ascending to the
mountains.


How lamentable it is that two men should take such
widely different views, with the same facts before them;
but this seems to be almost regularly our case, and much
do I regret it.


I am fairly well, but always feel half dead with fatigue.
I heard but an indifferent account of your health some time
ago, but trust that you are now somewhat stronger.—Believe
me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 7, 1881.


My dear Wallace,—You know from Miss Buckley that,
with her assistance, I drew up a memorial to Mr. Gladstone
with respect to your services to science. The memorial
was corrected by Huxley, who has aided me in every possible
way. It was signed by twelve good men, and you would have
been gratified if you had seen how strongly they expressed
themselves on your claims.


The Duke of Argyll, to whom I sent the memorial, wrote
a private note to Mr. Gladstone. The memorial was sent
in only on January 5th, and I have just received a note in
Mr. Gladstone's own handwriting, in which he says: "I
lose no time in apprising you that although the Fund is
moderate and at present poor, I shall recommend Mr.
Wallace for a pension of £200 a year." I will keep this
note carefully, as, if the present Government were to go
[pg 314]out, I do not doubt that it would be binding on the next
Government.


I hope that it will give you some satisfaction to see that
not only every scientific man to whom I applied, but that
also our Government appreciated your lifelong scientific
labour.—Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.


I should expect that there will be some delay before you
receive an official announcement.







Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. January 8, 1881.


My dear Darwin,—I need not say how very grateful I
am to you for your constant kindness, and especially for
the trouble you have taken in recommending me to Mr.
Gladstone. It is also, of course, very gratifying to hear
that so many eminent men have so good an opinion of the
little scientific work I have done, for I myself feel it to
be very little in comparison with that of many others.


The amount you say Mr. Gladstone proposes to recommend
is considerably more than I expected would be given,
and it will relieve me from a great deal of the anxieties
under which I have laboured for several years. To-day is
my fifty-eighth birthday, and it is a happy omen that your
letter should have arrived this morning.


I presume after I receive the official communication will
be the proper time to thank the persons who have signed
the memorial in my favour. I do not know whether it is
the proper etiquette to write a private letter of thanks to
Mr. Gladstone, or only a general official one. Whenever
I hear anything from the Government I will let you
know.


Again thanking you for your kindness, believe me yours
very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.

[pg 315]






Down, Beckenham, Kent. January 10, 1881.


My dear Wallace,—I am heartily glad that you are
pleased about the memorial.


I do not feel that my opinion is worth much on the point
which you mention. A relation who is in a Government office
and whose judgment, I think, may be fully trusted, felt sure
that if you received an official announcement without any
private note, it ought to be answered officially, but if the
case were mine, I would express whatever I thought and
felt in an official document. His reason was that Gladstone
gives or recommends the pension on public grounds
alone.


If the case were mine I would not write to signers of
the memorial, because I believe that they acted like so many
jurymen in a claim against the Government. Nevertheless,
if I met any of them or was writing to them on any other
subject, I should take the opportunity of expressing my feelings.
I think you might with propriety write to Huxley, as
he entered so heartily into the scheme and aided in the most
important manner in many ways.


Sir J. Lubbock called here yesterday and Mr. F. Balfour
came here with one of my sons, and it would have pleased
you to see how unfeignedly delighted they were at my news
of the success of the memorial.


I wrote also to tell the Duke of Argyll of the success,
and he in answer expressed very sincere pleasure.—My dear
Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CH. DARWIN.







Pen-y-bryn, St. Peter's Road, Croydon. January 29, 1881.


My dear Darwin,—Yours just received was very welcome,
and the delay in its reaching me is of no importance
whatever, as, having seen the announcement of the Queen's
approval of the pension, of course I felt it was safe. The
[pg 316]antedating of the first payment is a very liberal and
thoughtful act; but I do not think it is any way exceptional
as regards myself. I am informed it is the custom
because, as no payment is made after the death of the
person, if the first payment were delayed the proposed
recipient might die before the half-year (or quarter-day)
and thus receive nothing at all.


I suppose you sent the right address to Mr. Seymour. I
have not yet heard from him, but I daresay I shall during
the next week.


As I am assured both by Miss Buckley and by Prof.
Huxley that it is to you that I owe in the first place this
great kindness, and that you have also taken an immense
amount of trouble to bring it to so successful issue, I must
again return you my best thanks, and assure you that there
is no one living to whose kindness in such a matter I could
feel myself indebted with so much pleasure and satisfaction.—Believe
me, dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.







Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 9.


My dear Wallace,—Dr. G. Krefft has sent me the enclosed
from Sydney. A nurseryman saw a caterpillar feeding on
a plant and covered the whole up, but, when he searched
for the cocoon [pupa], was long before he could find it, so
good was its imitation, in colour and form, of the leaf to
which it was attached.


I hope that the world goes well with you. Do not trouble
yourself by acknowledging this.—Ever yours,


CH. DARWIN.


Accompanying this letter, which has been published in
"Darwin and Modern Science" (1909), was a photograph
of the chrysalis (Papilio sarpedon choredon) attached to a
[pg 317]leaf of its food-plant. Many butterfly pupæ are known to
have the power of individual adjustment to the colours of
the particular food-plant or other normal environment; and
it is probable that the Australian Papilio referred to by
Darwin possesses this power.







Nutwood Cottage, Frith Hill, Godalming, July 9, 1881.


My dear Darwin,—I am just doing, what I have rarely
if ever done before—reading a book through a second time
immediately after the first perusal. I do not think I have
ever been so attracted by a book, with perhaps the exception
of your "Origin of Species" and Spencer's "First Principles"
and "Social Statics." I wish therefore to call
your attention to it, in case you care about books on social
and political subjects, but here there is also an elaborate
discussion of Malthus's "Principles of Population," to
which both you and I have acknowledged ourselves indebted.
The present writer, Mr. George, while admitting
the main principle as self-evident and as actually operating
in the case of animals and plants, denies that it ever
has operated or can operate in the case of man, still less
that it has any bearing whatever on the vast social and
political questions which have been supported by a reference
to it. He illustrates and supports his views with a
wealth of illustrative facts and a cogency of argument
which I have rarely seen equalled, while his style is equal
to that of Buckle, and thus his book is delightful reading.
The title of the book is "Progress and Poverty." It has
gone through six editions in America, and is now published
in England by Kegan Paul. It is devoted mainly to a
brilliant discussion and refutation of some of the most
widely accepted maxims of political economy, such as the
relation of wages and capital, the nature of rent and interest,
the laws of distribution, etc., but all treated as
[pg 318]parts of the main problem as stated in the title-page, "An
Enquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of
Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth." It is the
most startling novel and original book of the last twenty
years, and if I mistake not will in the future rank as
making an advance in political and social science equal to
that made by Adam Smith a century ago.


I am here settled in my little cottage engaged in the
occupation I most enjoy—making a garden, and admiring
the infinite variety and beauty of vegetable life. I am out
of doors all day and hardly read anything. As the long
evenings come on I shall get on with my book on the "Land
Question," in which I have found a powerful ally in Mr.
George.


Hoping you are well, believe me, yours most faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.






The following is the last letter Wallace received from
Darwin, who died on Wednesday, April 19, 1882, in the
seventy-fourth year of his age.


Down, Beckenham, Kent. July 12, 1881.


My dear Wallace,—I have been heartily glad to get your
note and hear some news of you. I will certainly order
"Progress and Poverty," for the subject is a most interesting
one. But I read many years ago some books on
political economy, and they produced a disastrous effect
on my mind, viz. utterly to distrust my own judgment on
the subject and to doubt much everyone else's judgment!
So I feel pretty sure that Mr. George's book will only make
my mind worse confounded than it is at present. I, also,
have just finished a book which has interested me greatly,
but whether it would interest anyone else I know not: it
is "The Creed of Science," by W. Graham, A.M. Who
[pg 319]and what he is I know not, but he discusses many great
subjects, such as the existence of God, immortality, the
moral sense, the progress of society, etc. I think some of
his propositions rest on very uncertain foundations, and
I could get no clear idea of his notions about God. Notwithstanding
this and other blemishes, the book has interested
me extremely. Perhaps I have been to some extent
deluded, as he manifestly ranks too high what I have done.


I am delighted to hear that you spend so much time
out of doors and in your garden; for with your wonderful
power of observation you will see much which no one
else has seen. From Newman's old book (I forget the
title) about the country near Godalming, it must be
charming.


We have just returned home after spending five weeks
on Ullswater: the scenery is quite charming; but I cannot
walk, and everything tires me, even seeing scenery, talking
with anyone or reading much. What I shall do with
my few remaining years of life I can hardly tell. I have
everything to make me happy and contented, but life has
become very wearisome to me. I heard lately from Miss
Buckley in relation to Lyell's Life, and she mentioned
that you were thinking of Switzerland, which I should
think and hope you will enjoy much.


I see that you are going to write on the most difficult
political question, the Land. Something ought to be done—but
what is to rule? I hope that you will [not] turn renegade
to natural history; but I suppose that politics are
very tempting.


With all good wishes for yourself and family, believe me,
my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,


CHARLES DARWIN.






Wallace's last letter to Darwin was written in October,
1881:
[pg 320]


Nutwood Cottage, Frith Hill, Godalming. October 18, 1881.


My dear Darwin,—I have delayed writing to thank you
for your book on Worms till I had been able to read it,
which I have now done with great pleasure and profit,
since it has cleared up many obscure points as to the
apparent sinking or burying of objects on the surface and
the universal covering up of old buildings. I have hitherto
looked upon them chiefly from the gardener's point of view—as
a nuisance, but I shall tolerate their presence in the
view of their utility and importance. A friend here to
whom I am going to lend your book tells me that an
agriculturist who had been in West Australia, near Swan
River, told him many years ago of the hopelessness of
farming there, illustrating the poverty and dryness of the
soil by saying, "There are no worms in the ground."


I do not see that you refer to the formation of leaf-mould
by the mere decay of leaves, etc. In favourable
places many inches or even feet of this is formed—I presume
without the agency of worms. If so, would it not
take part in the formation of all mould? and also the
decay of the roots of grasses and of all annual plants, or
do you suppose that all these are devoured by worms? In
reading the book I have not noticed a single erratum.


I enclose you a copy of two letters to the Mark Lane
Express, written at the request of the editor, and which
will show you the direction in which I am now working,
and in which I hope to do a little good.—Believe me yours
very faithfully,


ALFRED R. WALLACE.














Notes


1.
"While at Hertford I lived altogether in five different
houses, and in three of these the Silk family lived next door to us,
which involved not only each family having to move about the same time,
but also that two houses adjoining each other should have been vacant
together, and that they should have been of the size required by each,
which after the first was not the same, the Silk family being much the
larger."—"My Life," i. 32.
2.
"My Life," i. 191-2.
3.
"My Life," i. 108-111.
4.
Darwin makes a similar comment: "I was very successful in
collecting, and invented two new methods ... and thus I got some very
rare species. No poet ever felt more delighted at seeing his first poem
published than I did at seeing, in Stephens' 'Illustrations of British
Insects,' the magic words, 'captured by C. Darwin, Esq.'"—Darwin's
Autobiography, in the one-volume "Life," p. 20.
5.
"My Life," i. 194-5.
6.
There is no record in his autobiography as to the exact
date when he first became acquainted with Lyell's work, though several
times reference is made to it.
7.
"Travels on the Amazon," p. 277.
8.
"Voyage of the Beagle," pp. 11-12.
9.
"Voyage of the Beagle," p. 534.
10.
It is interesting to note that the careers of Sir Joseph
Hooker, Charles Darwin, H.W. Bates, Alfred Russel Wallace and T.H.
Huxley were all determined by voyages or journeys of exploration.
11.
"Life of Charles Darwin" (one-volume Edit.), p. 29.
12.
"Voyage of the Beagle," p. 535.
13.
This letter may have been written for publication.
14.
A reference to the loss of his earlier collection (p. 29).
15.
The original of this letter is in the possession of the
Trustees of the British Museum.
16.
For the other part of this letter see "My Life," i. 379.
17.
"My early letters to Bates suffice to show that the great
problem of the origin of species was already distinctly formulated in my
mind; that I was not satisfied with the more or less vague solutions at
that time offered; that I believed the conception of evolution through
natural law so clearly formulated in the 'Vestiges' to be, so far as it
went, a true one; and that I firmly believed that a full and careful
study of the facts of nature would ultimately lead to a solution of the
mystery."—"My Life," i. 254-7.
18.
"On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of
Species."—Ann. and Mag. of Natural History, 2nd Series, 1855, xvi.
184.
19.
"Life of Charles Darwin" (one-vol. Edit.), p. 171.
20.
"Life of Charles Darwin," (one-vol. Edit.), p. 40.
21.
See post, p. 112.
22.
"My Life," i. 359.
23.
"My Life," i. 361-3.
24.
It will be remembered, that Darwin died in April, 1882,
twenty-six years previously.
25.
"Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," ii. 188.
26.
"The Herbert Spencer Lecture," delivered at the Museum,
December 8, 1910. (Clarendon Press, Oxford.)
27.
"My Life," ii. 23-4.
28.
"On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New
Species."—Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist., 1855. The law is thus stated
by Wallace: "Every species has come into existence coincident both in
time and space with a pre-existing closely-allied species."
29.
"The Origin of Species."
30.
"The Origin of Species."
31.
First Edit., 1859, pp. 1, 2.
32.
"On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties and on the
Perpetuation
of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection." By C. Darwin and
A.R. Wallace. Communicated by Sir C. Lyell and J.D. Hooker. Journ.
Linn. Soc., 1859, iii. 45. Read July 1st, 1858.
33.
"On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New
Species." Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist., 1855, xvi. 184.
34.
This seems to refer to Wallace's paper on "The Zoological
Geography of the Malay Archipelago," Journ. Linn. Soc., 1860.
35.
Dr. Samuel Wilberforce.
36.
Now Major Leonard Darwin.
37.
The last sheet of the letter is missing.
38.
Wallace's paper was entitled "Remarks on the Rev. S.
Haughton's Paper on the Bee's Cells and on the Origin of Species." Prof.
Haughton's paper appeared in the Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist., 1863,
xi. 415. Wallace's was published in the same journal.
39.
For March, 1864.
40.
Reader, April 16, 1864. An abstract of Wallace's paper
"On the Phenomena of Variation and Geographical Distribution, as
illustrated by the Papilionidæ of the Malayan Region," Linn. Soc.
Trans., xxv.
41.
Anthropolog. Rev., 1864.
42.
Nat. Hist. Rev., 1864, p. 328.
43.
"Read June, 1864."—A.R.W.
44.
"June 8, 1864."—A.R.W.
45.
"Referring to my broken engagement."—A.R.W.
46.
Paper on the three forms of Lythrum.
47.
Probably the one on the Distribution of Malayan
Butterflies, Linn. Soc. Trans., xxv.
48.
E.B. Tylor's "Early History of Mankind," and Lecky's
"Rationalism."
49.
"Prehistoric Times."
50.
The note speaks of the "characteristic unselfishness" with
which Wallace ascribed the theory of Natural Selection to Darwin
51.
"Für Darwin."
52.
"On the Pigeons of the Malay Archipelago," Ibis, October,
1865. Wallace points out (p. 366) that "the most striking superabundance
of pigeons, as well as of parrots, is confined to the Australo-Malayan
sub-regions in which ... the forest-haunting and fruit-eating mammals,
such as monkeys and squirrels, are totally absent." He points out also
that monkeys are "exceedingly destructive to eggs and young
birds."—Note, "More Letters," i. 265.
53.
"The Geographical Distribution and Variability of the
Malayan Papilionidæ," Linn. Soc. Trans., xxv.
54.
The passage referred to in this letter as needing farther
explanation is the following: "The last six cases of mimicry are
especially instructive, because they seem to indicate one of the
processes by which dimorphic forms have been produced. When, as in these
cases, one sex differs much from the other, and varies greatly itself,
it may be that individual variations will occasionally occur, having a
distant resemblance to groups which are the objects of mimicry, and
which it is therefore advantageous to resemble. Such a variety will have
a better chance of preservation; the individuals possessing it will be
multiplied; and their accidental likeness to the favoured group will be
rendered permanent by hereditary transmission, and each successive
variation which increases the resemblance being preserved, and all
variation departing from the favoured type having less chance of
preservation, there will in time result those singular cases of two or
more isolated and fixed forms bound together by that intimate
relationship which constitutes them the sexes of a single species. The
reason why the females are more subject to this kind of modification
than the males is probably that their slower flight when laden with
eggs, and their exposure to attack while in the act of depositing their
eggs upon leaves, render it especially advantageous for them to have
additional protection. This they at once obtain by acquiring a
resemblance to other species which, from whatever cause, enjoy a
comparative immunity from persecution."
55.
This no doubt refers to Janet's "Matérialisme Contemporain."
56.
Quarterly Journal of Science, January 7, 1867. "Ice Marks
in North Wales," by A.R. Wallace.
57.
I.e., the suggestion that conspicuous caterpillars or
perfect insects (e.g. white butterflies) which are distasteful to birds
are protected by being easily recognised and avoided.
58.
A bearded woman having an irregular double set of teeth. See
"Animals
and Plants," ii. 328.
59.
The letter to which this is a reply is missing. It
evidently refers to Wallace's belief in the paramount importance of
protection in the evolution of colour. See also Darwin's letter of
February 26, 1867.
60.
Menura superba. See "The Descent of Man" (1901), p. 687.
Rhynchæa, mentioned on p. 184, is discussed in the "Descent," p. 727.
The female is more brightly coloured than the male and has a convoluted
trachea, elsewhere a masculine character. There seems some reason to
suppose that "the male undertakes the duty of incubation."
61.
Westminster Review, July, 1867.
62.
Angræcum sesquipedale, a Madagascar orchid, with a
whip-like nectary, 11 to 12 in. in length, which, according to Darwin
("Fertilisation of Orchids," 2nd Edit., p. 163), is adapted to the
visits of a moth with a proboscis of corresponding length. He points out
that there is no difficulty in believing in the existence of such a moth
as F. Müller had described (Nature, 1873, p. 223), a Brazilian
sphinx-moth with a trunk 10 to 11 in. in length. Moreover, Forbes had
given evidence to show that such an insect does exist in Madagascar
(Nature, 1873, p. 121). The case of Angræcum was put forward by the
Duke of Argyll as being necessarily due to the personal contrivance of
the Deity. Mr. Wallace shows (p. 476, Quarterly Journal of Science,
1867) that both proboscis and nectary might be increased in length by
means of Natural Selection. It may be added that Hermann Müller has
shown good grounds for believing that mutual specialisation of this kind
is beneficial both to insect and to plant.
63.
"Variation of Animals and Plants," 1st Edit., ii. 431. "Did
He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in order that
a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with jaws fitted to pin
down the bull for man's brutal sport?"
64.
See Wallace, Quarterly Journ. of Sci., 1867, pp. 477-8.
He imagined an observer examining a great river system, and finding
everywhere adaptations which reveal the design of the Creator. "He would
see special adaptations to the wants of man in the broad, quiet,
navigable rivers, through fertile alluvial plains, that would support a
large population, while the rocky streams and mountain torrents were
confined to those sterile regions suitable for a small population of
shepherds and herdsmen."
65.
At p. 485 Wallace deals with Fleeming Jenkin's review in
the North British Review, 1867. The review strives to show that there
are strict limitations to variation, since the most rigorous and
long-continued selection does not indefinitely increase such a quality
as the fleetness of a racehorse. On this Wallace remarks that the
argument "fails to meet the real question," which is not whether
indefinite change is possible, but "whether such differences as do occur
in nature could have been produced by the accumulation of variations by
selection."
66.
Abstract of a paper on "Birds' Nests and Plumage," read
before the British Association. See Gard. Chron., 1867, p. 1047.
67.
Sir Henry Holland, Bart., M.D., F.R.S., a writer on Mental
Physiology and other scientific subjects (b. 1788, d. 1873).
68.
"This turns out to be inaccurate, or greatly exaggerated.
There are no true alpines, and the European genera are comparatively
few. See my 'Island Life,' p. 323."—A.R.W.
69.
"In pigeons" and "lizards" inserted by A.R.W.
70.
"In pigeons" and "lizards" inserted by A.R.W.
71.
See Westminster Review, July, 1867, p. 37.
72.
Proc. Linn. Soc., 1867-8, p. 57.
73.
It is not enough that females should be produced from the
males with red feathers, which should be destitute of red feathers; but
these females must have a latent tendency to produce such feathers,
otherwise they would cause deterioration in the red head-feathers of
their male offspring. Such latent tendency would be shown by their
producing the red feathers when old or diseased in their ovaria.
74.
The symbols [male symbol], [female symbol] stand for male and
female respectively.
75.
The fifth.
76.
Explained in letter of February 2, 1869. See p. 234.
77.
June, 1867.
78.
"Malay Archipelago."
79.
"Malay Archipelago."
80.
The fifth edition, pp. 150-7.
81.
In the Quarterly Review, April, 1869.
82.
Inserted by A.R.W.
83.
"The Descent of Man."
84.
"The Genesis of Species," by St. G. Mivart. 1871.
85.
In the Academy, March 15, 1871.
86.
"Mr. Wallace says that the pairing of butterflies is
probably determined by the fact that one male is stronger-winged or more
pertinacious than the rest, rather than by the choice of the females. He
quotes the case of caterpillars which are brightly coloured and yet
sexless. Mr. Wallace also makes the good criticism that 'The Descent of
Man' consists of two books mixed together."—"Life and Letters of
Charles Darwin," iii. 137.
87.
G. Crotch was a well-known coleopterist and official in the
University Library at Cambridge.
88.
Spectator, March 11 and 18, 1871. "With regard to the
evolution of conscience the reviewer thinks that Mr. Darwin comes much
nearer to the 'kernel of the psychological problem' than many of his
predecessors. The second article contains a good discussion of the
bearing of the book on the question of design, and concludes by finding
in it a vindication of Theism more wonderful than that in Paley's
'Natural Theology.'"—"Life and Letters," iii. 138.
89.
North American Review, Vol. 113, pp. 83, 84. Chauncey
Wright points out that the words omitted are "essential to the point on
which he [Mr. Mivart] cites Mr. Darwin's authority." It should be
mentioned that the passage from which words are omitted is not given
within inverted commas by Mr. Mivart.—See "Life and Letters of
Charles Darwin," iii. 144.
90.
July, 1871.
91.
A review of Dr. Bree's book, "An Exposition of Fallacies in
the Hypotheses of Mr. Darwin."—Nature, July 25, 1872.
92.
"Bree on Darwinism," Nature, Aug. 8, 1872. The letter is
as follows: "Permit me to state—though the statement is almost
superfluous—that Mr. Wallace, in his review of Dr. Bree's work, gives
with perfect correctness what I intended to express, and what I believe
was expressed clearly, with respect to the probable position of man in
the early part of his pedigree. As I have not seen Dr. Bree's recent
work, and as his letter is unintelligible to me, I cannot even
conjecture how he has so completely mistaken my meaning; but, perhaps,
no one who has read Mr. Wallace's article, or who has read a work
formerly published by Dr. Bree on the same subject as his recent one,
will be surprised at any amount of misunderstanding on his
part.—CHARLES DARWIN, Aug. 3." See "Life and Letters of Charles
Darwin," iii. 167.
93.
That is to say, spontaneous generation. For the distinction
between archebiosis and heterogenesis, see Bastian, Chap. VI. See
also "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," iii. 168.
94.
Sir Henry Cole, K.C.B. (1808-80).
95.
"Expression of the Emotions."
96.
Quarterly Journal of Science, January, 1873, p. 116: "I
can hardly believe that when a cat, lying on a shawl or other soft
material, pats or pounds it with its feet, or sometimes sucks a piece of
it, it is the persistence of the habit of pressing the mammary glands
and sucking during kittenhood." Wallace goes on to say that infantine
habits are generally completely lost in adult life, and that it seems
unlikely that they should persist in a few isolated instances.
97.
Wallace speaks of "a readiness to accept the most
marvellous conclusions or interpretations of physiologists on what seem
very insufficient grounds," and he goes on to assert that the frog
experiment is either incorrectly recorded, or else that it "demonstrates
volition, and not reflex action."
98.
The raising of the hands in surprise is explained
("Expression of the Emotions," 1st Edit., p. 287) on the doctrine of
antithesis as being the opposite of listlessness. Mr. Wallace's view
(given in the second edition of "Expression of the Emotions," p. 300) is
that the gesture is appropriate to sudden defence or to the giving of
aid to another person.
99.
At this time Darwin, while very busy with other work, had to
prepare a
second edition of "The Descent of Man," and it is probable that he or the
publishers
suggested that Wallace should make the necessary corrections.—EDITOR.
100.
"Insectivorous Plants."
101.
"The Geographical Distribution of Animals." 1876.
102.
Wallace points out that "hardly a small island on the globe
but has some land shell peculiar to it," and he goes so far as to say
that probably air-breathing mollusca have been chiefly distributed by
air- or water-carriage, rather than by voluntary dispersal on the land.
See "More Letters," II. 14.
103.
"The Descent of Man," 1st Edit., pp. 90 and 143, for
drawings of the Argus pheasant and its markings. The ocelli on the wing
feathers were favourite objects of Darwin's, and sometimes formed the
subject of the little lectures which on rare occasions he would give to
a visitor interested in Natural History. In Wallace's book, the meaning
of the ocelli comes in by the way, in the explanation of Plate IX., "A
Malayan Forest with some of its Peculiar Birds." The case is a
"remarkable confirmation of Mr. Darwin's views, that gaily coloured
plumes are developed in the male bird for the purpose of attractive
display."
104.
"Geographical Distribution of Animals," i. 286-7.
105.
"Geographical Distribution," i. 76. The name Lemuria was
proposed by Mr. Sclater for an imaginary submerged continent extending
from Madagascar to Ceylon and Sumatra. Wallace points out that if we
confine ourselves to facts Lemuria is reduced to Madagascar, which he
makes a subdivision of the Ethiopian Region.
106.
H.F. Blandford, "On the Age and Correlations of the
Plant-bearing Series of India and the Former Existence of an
Indo-Oceanic Continent" (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1875, xxxi. 519).
107.
In the Contemporary Review for August, 1873, Mr. George
Darwin wrote an article "On Beneficial Restrictions to Liberty of
Marriage." In the July number of the Quarterly Review, 1874, p. 70, in
an article entitled "Primitive Man—Tylor and Lubbock," Mr. Mivart thus
referred to Mr. Darwin's article: "Elsewhere (pp. 424-5) Mr. George
Darwin speaks (1) in an approving strain of the most oppressive laws and
of the encouragement of vice to check population. (2) There is no sexual
criminality of Pagan days that might not be defended on the principles
advocated by the school to which this writer belongs." In the Quarterly
Review for October, 1874, p. 587, appeared a letter from Mr. George
Darwin "absolutely denying" charge No. 1, and with respect to charge No.
2 he wrote: "I deny that there is any thought or word in my essay which
could in any way lend itself to the support of the nameless crimes here
referred to." To the letter was appended a note from Mr. Mivart, in
which he said: "Nothing would have been further from our intention than
to tax Mr. Darwin personally (as he seems to have supposed) with the
advocacy of laws or acts which he saw to be oppressive or vicious. We,
therefore, most willingly accept his disclaimer, and are glad to find
that he does not, in fact, apprehend the full tendency of the doctrines
which he has helped to propagate. Nevertheless, we cannot allow that we
have enunciated a single proposition which is either 'false' or
'groundless.' ... But when a writer, according to his own confession,
comes before the public 'to attack the institution of marriage' ... he
must expect searching criticism; and, without implying that Mr. Darwin
has in 'thought' or 'word' approved of anything which he wishes to
disclaim, we must still maintain that the doctrines which he advocates
are most dangerous and pernicious."—EDITOR.
108.
The pages refer to Vol. II. of Wallace's "Geographical
Distribution."
109.
The number (4) was erroneously omitted.—A.R.W.
110.
An error: should have been the Australian.—A.R.W.
111.
Axel Blytt, "Essay on the Immigration of the Norwegian Flora."
Christiania, 1876.
112.
June 22, 1876, p. 165 et seq.
113.
"The Origin of Species and Genera."
114.
"Island Life."
115.
In "My Life" (ii. 12-13) Wallace writes; "With this came
seven foolscap pages of notes, many giving facts from his extensive
reading which I had not seen. There were also a good many doubts and
suggestions on the very difficult questions in the discussion of the
causes of the glacial epochs. Chapter XXIII., discussing the Arctic
element in South Temperate floras, was the part he most objected to,
saying, 'This is rather too speculative for my old noddle. I must think
that you overrate the importance of new surfaces on mountains and
dispersal from mountain to mountain. I still believe in alpine plants
having lived on the lowlands and in the southern tropical regions having
been cooled during glacial periods, and thus only can I understand
character of floras on the isolated African mountains. It appears to me
that you are not justified in arguing from dispersal to oceanic islands
to mountains. Not only in latter cases currents of sea are absent, but
what is there to make birds fly direct from one alpine summit to
another? There is left only storms of wind, and if it is probable or
possible that seeds may thus be carried for great distances, I do not
believe that there is at present any evidence of their being thus
carried more than a few miles.' This is the most connected piece of
criticism in the notes, and I therefore give it verbatim."
116.
"Nature, December 9, 1880. The substance of this article
by Mr. Baker, of Kew, is given in 'More Letters,' vol. iii. 25, in a
footnote."—"My Life," ii. 13.