From a letter to Dr. Dohrn, February 13, 1882:--
"I have got one very bad piece of news to tell you, that F. Balfour is very ill at Cambridge with typhoid fever... I hope that he is not in a very dangerous state; but the fever is severe. Good Heavens, what a loss he would be to Science, and to his many loving friends!"]
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 12, 1882.
My dear Huxley,
Very many thanks for "Science and Culture," and I am sure that I shall read most of the essays with much interest. With respect to Automatism ("On the hypothesis that animals are automata and its history," an Address given at the Belfast meeting of the British a.s.sociation, 1874, and published in the "Fortnightly Review," 1874, and in "Science and Culture."), I wish that you could review yourself in the old, and of course forgotten, trenchant style, and then you would here answer yourself with equal incisiveness; and thus, by Jove, you might go on ad infinitum, to the joy and instruction of the world.
Ever yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
[The following letter refers to Dr. Ogle"s translation of Aristotle, "On the Parts of Animals" (1882):]
CHARLES DARWIN TO W. OGLE. Down, February 22, 1882.
My dear Dr. Ogle,
You must let me thank you for the pleasure which the introduction to the Aristotle book has given me. I have rarely read anything which has interested me more, though I have not read as yet more than a quarter of the book proper.
From quotations which I had seen, I had a high notion of Aristotle"s merits, but I had not the most remote notion what a wonderful man he was. Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two G.o.ds, though in very different ways, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle. How very curious, also, his ignorance on some points, as on muscles as the means of movement. I am glad that you have explained in so probable a manner some of the grossest mistakes attributed to him. I never realized, before reading your book, to what an enormous summation of labour we owe even our common knowledge. I wish old Aristotle could know what a grand Defender of the Faith he had found in you. Believe me, my dear Dr. Ogle,
Yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN.
[In February, he received a letter and a specimen from a Mr. W.D. Crick, which ill.u.s.trated a curious mode of dispersal of bivalve sh.e.l.ls, namely, by closure of their valves so as to hold on to the leg of a water-beetle. This cla.s.s of fact had a special charm for him, and he wrote to "Nature," describing the case. ("Nature," April 6, 1882.)
In April he received a letter from Dr. W. Van Dyck, Lecturer in Zoology at the Protestant College of Beyrout. The letter showed that the street dogs of Beyrout had been rapidly mongrelised by introduced European dogs, and the facts have an interesting bearing on my father"s theory of s.e.xual Selection.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO W.T. VAN DYCK. Down, April 3, 1882.
Dear Sir,
After much deliberation, I have thought it best to send your very interesting paper to the Zoological Society, in hopes that it will be published in their Journal. This journal goes to every scientific inst.i.tution in the world, and the contents are abstracted in all year-books on Zoology. Therefore I have preferred it to "Nature," though the latter has a wider circulation, but is ephemeral.
I have prefaced your essay by a few general remarks, to which I hope that you will not object.
Of course I do not know that the Zoological Society, which is much addicted to mere systematic work, will publish your essay. If it does, I will send you copies of your essay, but these will not be ready for some months. If not published by the Zoological Society, I will endeavour to get "Nature" to publish it. I am very anxious that it should be published and preserved.
Dear Sir, Yours faithfully, CH. DARWIN.
[The paper was read at a meeting of the Zoological Society on April 18th--the day before my father"s death.
The preliminary remarks with which Dr. Van Dyck"s paper is prefaced are thus the latest of my father"s writings.]
We must now return to an early period of his life, and give a connected account of his botanical work, which has. .h.i.therto been omitted.
CHAPTER 2.X. -- FERTILISATION OF FLOWERS.
[In the letters already given we have had occasion to notice the general bearing of a number of botanical problems on the wider question of Evolution. The detailed work in botany which my father accomplished by the guidance of the light cast on the study of natural history by his own work on Evolution remains to be noticed. In a letter to Mr. Murray, September 24th, 1861, speaking of his book on the "Fertilisation of Orchids," he says: "It will perhaps serve to ill.u.s.trate how Natural History may be worked under the belief of the modification of species."
This remark gives a suggestion as to the value and interest of his botanical work, and it might be expressed in far more emphatic language without danger of exaggeration.
In the same letter to Mr. Murray, he says: "I think this little volume will do good to the "Origin," as it will show that I have worked hard at details." It is true that his botanical work added a ma.s.s of corroborative detail to the case for Evolution, but the chief support to his doctrines given by these researches was of another kind. They supplied an argument against those critics who have so freely dogmatised as to the uselessness of particular structures, and as to the consequent impossibility of their having been developed by means of natural selection. His observations on Orchids enabled him to say: "I can show the meaning of some of the apparently meaningless ridges, horns, who will now venture to say that this or that structure is useless?" A kindred point is expressed in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (May 14th, 1862:)--
"When many parts of structure, as in the woodp.e.c.k.e.r, show distinct adaptation to external bodies, it is preposterous to attribute them to the effects of climate, etc., but when a single point alone, as a hooked seed, it is conceivable it may thus have arisen. I have found the study of Orchids eminently useful in showing me how nearly all parts of the flower are co-adapted for fertilization by insects, and therefore the results of natural selection--even the most trifling details of structure."
One of the greatest services rendered by my father to the study of Natural History is the revival of Teleology. The evolutionist studies the purpose or meaning of organs with the zeal of the older Teleology, but with far wider and more coherent purpose. He has the invigorating knowledge that he is gaining not isolated conceptions of the economy of the present, but a coherent view of both past and present. And even where he fails to discover the use of any part, he may, by a knowledge of its structure, unravel the history of the past vicissitudes in the life of the species. In this way a vigour and unity is given to the study of the forms of organised beings, which before it lacked.
This point has already been discussed in Mr. Huxley"s chapter on the "Reception of the "Origin of Species"," and need not be here considered.
It does, however, concern us to recognize that this "great service to natural science," as Dr. Gray describes it, was effected almost as much by his special botanical work as by the "Origin of Species."
For a statement of the scope and influence of my father"s botanical work, I may refer to Mr. Thiselton Dyer"s article in "Charles Darwin,"
one of the "Nature Series". Mr. Dyer"s wide knowledge, his friendship with my father, and especially his power of sympathising with the work of others, combine to give this essay a permanent value. The following pa.s.sage (page 43) gives a true picture:--
"Notwithstanding the extent and variety of his botanical work, Mr.
Darwin always disclaimed any right to be regarded as a professed botanist. He turned his attention to plants, doubtless because they were convenient objects for studying organic phenomena in their least complicated forms; and this point of view, which, if one may use the expression without disrespect, had something of the amateur about it, was in itself of the greatest importance. For, from not being, till he took up any point, familiar with the literature bearing on it, his mind was absolutely free from any prepossession. He was never afraid of his facts, or of framing any hypothesis, however startling, which seemed to explain them... In any one else such an att.i.tude would have produced much work that was crude and rash. But Mr. Darwin--if one may venture on language which will strike no one who had conversed with him as over-strained--seemed by gentle persuasion to have penetrated that reserve of nature which baffles smaller men. In other words, his long experience had given him a kind of instinctive insight into the method of attack of any biological problem, however unfamiliar to him, while he rigidly controlled the fertility of his mind in hypothetical explanations by the no less fertility of ingeniously devised experiment."
To form any just idea of the greatness of the revolution worked by my father"s researches in the study of the fertilisation of flowers, it is necessary to know from what a condition this branch of knowledge has emerged. It should be remembered that it was only during the early years of the present century that the idea of s.e.x, as applied to plants, became at all firmly established. Sachs, in his "History of Botany"
(1875), has given some striking ill.u.s.trations of the remarkable slowness with which its acceptance gained ground. He remarks that when we consider the experimental proofs given by Camerarius (1694), and by Kolreuter (1761-66), it appears incredible that doubts should afterwards have been raised as to the s.e.xuality of plants. Yet he shows that such doubts did actually repeatedly crop up. These adverse criticisms rested for the most part on careless experiments, but in many cases on a priori arguments. Even as late as 1820, a book of this kind, which would now rank with circle squaring, or flat-earth philosophy, was seriously noticed in a botanical journal.
A distinct conception of s.e.x as applied to plants, had not long emerged from the mists of profitless discussion and feeble experiment, at the time when my father began botany by attending Henslow"s lectures at Cambridge.
When the belief in the s.e.xuality of plants had become established as an incontrovertible piece of knowledge, a weight of misconception remained, weighing down any rational view of the subject. Camerarius (Sachs, "Geschichte," page 419.) believed (naturally enough in his day) that hermaphrodite flowers are necessarily self-fertilised. He had the wit to be astonished at this, a degree of intelligence which, as Sachs points out, the majority of his successors did not attain to.
The following extracts from a note-book show that this point occurred to my father as early as 1837:--
"Do not plants which have male and female organs together [i.e. in the same flower] yet receive influence from other plants? Does not Lyell give some argument about varieties being difficult to keep [true] on account of pollen from other plants? Because this may be applied to show all plants do receive intermixture."
Sprengel (Christian Conrad Sprengel, 1750-1816.), indeed, understood that the hermaphrodite structure of flowers by no means necessarily leads to self-fertilisation. But although he discovered that in many cases pollen is of necessity carried to the stigma of another FLOWER, he did not understand that in the advantage gained by the intercrossing of distinct PLANTS lies the key to the whole question. Hermann Muller has well remarked that this "omission was for several generations fatal to Sprengel"s work... For both at the time and subsequently, botanists felt above all the weakness of his theory, and they set aside, along with his defective ideas, his rich store of patient and acute observations and his comprehensive and accurate interpretations." It remained for my father to convince the world that the meaning hidden in the structure of flowers was to be found by seeking light in the same direction in which Sprengel, seventy years before, had laboured. Robert Brown was the connecting link between them, for it was at his recommendation that my father in 1841 read Sprengel"s now celebrated "Secret of Nature Displayed." ("Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur im Baue und in der Befruchtung der Blumen." Berlin, 1793.) The book impressed him as being "full of truth," although "with some little nonsense." It not only encouraged him in kindred speculation, but guided him in his work, for in 1844 he speaks of verifying Sprengel"s observations. It may be doubted whether Robert Brown ever planted a more beautiful seed than in putting such a book into such hands.
A pa.s.sage in the "Autobiography" (volume i.) shows how it was that my father was attracted to the subject of fertilisation: "During the summer of 1839, and I believe during the previous summer, I was led to attend to the cross-fertilisation of flowers by the aid of insects, from having come to the conclusion in my speculations on the origin of species, that crossing played an important part in keeping specific forms constant."
The original connection between the study of flowers and the problem of evolution is curious, and could hardly have been predicted. Moreover, it was not a permanent bond. As soon as the idea arose that the offspring of cross-fertilisation is, in the struggle for life, likely to conquer the seedlings of self-fertilised parentage, a far more vigorous belief in the potency of natural selection in moulding the structure of flowers is attained. A central idea is gained towards which experiment and observation may be directed.
Dr. Gray has well remarked with regard to this central idea ("Nature,"
June 4, 1874):--"The aphorism, "Nature abhors a vacuum," is a characteristic specimen of the science of the middle ages. The aphorism, Nature abhors close fertilisation," and the demonstration of the principle, belong to our age and to Mr. Darwin. To have originated this, and also the principle of Natural Selection... and to have applied these principles to the system of nature, in such a manner as to make, within a dozen years, a deeper impression upon natural history than has been made since Linnaeus, is ample t.i.tle for one man"s fame."
The flowers of the Papilionaceae attracted his attention early, and were the subject of his first paper on fertilisation. ("Gardeners"
Chronicle", 1857, page 725. It appears that this paper was a piece of "over-time" work. He wrote to a friend, "that confounded leguminous paper was done in the afternoon, and the consequence was I had to go to Moor Park for a week.") The following extract from an undated letter to Dr. Asa Gray seems to have been written before the publication of this paper, probably in 1856 or 1857:--
"... What you say on Papilionaceous flowers is very true; and I have no facts to show that varieties are crossed; but yet (and the same remark is applicable in a beautiful way to Fumaria and Dielytra, as I noticed many years ago), I must believe that the flowers are constructed partly in direct relation to the visits of insects; and how insects can avoid bringing pollen from other individuals I cannot understand. It is really pretty to watch the action of a Humble-bee on the scarlet kidney bean, and in this genus (and in Lathyrus grandiflorus) the honey is so placed that the bee invariably alights on that ONE side of the flower towards which the spiral pistil is protruded (bringing out with it pollen), and by the depression of the wing-petal is forced against the bee"s side all dusted with pollen. (If you will look at a bed of scarlet kidney beans you will find that the wing-petals on the LEFT side alone are all scratched by the tarsi of the bees. [Note in the original letter by C.
Darwin.]) In the broom the pistil is rubbed on the centre of the back of the bee. I suspect there is something to be made out about the Leguminosae, which will bring the case within OUR theory; though I have failed to do so. Our theory will explain why in the vegetable and animal kingdom the act of fertilisation even in hermaphrodites usually takes place sub-jove, though thus exposed to GREAT injury from damp and rain.
In animals which cannot be [fertilised] by insects or wind, there is NO CASE of LAND-animals being hermaphrodite without the concourse of two individuals."