(Chapter II./1. Since the publication of the "Life and Letters," Mr.
Huxley"s obituary notice of Charles Darwin has appeared. (Chapter II./2.
"Proc. R. Soc." volume 44, 1888, and "Collected Essays (Darwiniana),"
page 253, 1899.) This masterly paper is, in our opinion, the finest of the great series of Darwinian essays which we owe to Mr. Huxley.
We would venture to recommend it to our readers as the best possible introduction to these pages. There is, however, one small point in which we differ from Mr. Huxley. In discussing the growth of Mr. Darwin"s evolutionary views, Mr. Huxley quotes from the autobiography (Chapter II./3. "Life and Letters," I., page 82. Some account of the origin of his evolutionary views is given in a letter to Jenyns (Blomefield), "Life and Letters," II. page 34.) a pa.s.sage in which the writer describes the deep impression made on his mind by certain groups of facts observed in South America. Mr. Huxley goes on: "The facts to which reference is here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical thinker; but, until the relations of the existing with the extinct species, and of the species of the different geographical areas with one another, were determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe foundation for speculation.
It was not possible that this determination should have been effected before the return of the "Beagle" to England; and thus the date (Chapter II./4. The date in question is July 1837, when he "opened first note-book on Trans.m.u.tation of Species.") which Darwin (writing in 1837) a.s.signs to the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind, becomes intelligible." This seems to us inconsistent with Darwin"s own statement that it was especially the character of the "species on Galapagos Archipelago" which had impressed him. (Chapter II./5. See "Life and Letters," I., page 276.) This must refer to the zoological specimens: no doubt he was thinking of the birds, but these he had himself collected in 1835 (Chapter II./6. He wrote in his "Journal,"
page 394, "My attention was first thoroughly aroused, by comparing together the numerous specimens shot by myself and several other parties on board," etc.), and no accurate determination of the forms was necessary to impress on him the remarkable characteristic species of the different islands. We agree with Mr. Huxley that 1837 is the date of the "new light which was rising in his mind." That the dawn did not come sooner seems to us to be accounted for by the need of time to produce so great a revolution in his conceptions. We do not see that Mr. Huxley"s supposition as to the effect of the determination of species, etc., has much weight. Mr. Huxley quotes a letter from Darwin to Zacharias, "But I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years [after 1837] had elapsed" (see Letter 278). This pa.s.sage, which it must be remembered was written in 1877, is all but irreconcilable with the direct evidence of the 1837 note-book. A series of pa.s.sages are quoted from it in the "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 5 et seq., and these it is impossible to read without feeling that he was convinced of immutability. He had not yet attained to a clear idea of Natural Selection, and therefore his views may not have had, even to himself, the irresistible convincing power they afterwards gained; but that he was, in the ordinary sense of the word, convinced of the truth of the doctrine of evolution we cannot doubt. He thought it "almost useless" to try to prove the truth of evolution until the cause of change was discovered. And it is natural that in later life he should have felt that conviction was wanting till that cause was made out.
(Chapter II./7. See "Charles Darwin, his Life told, etc." 1892, page 165.) For the purposes of the present chapter the point is not very material. We know that in 1842 he wrote the first sketch of his theory, and that it was greatly amplified in 1844. So that, at the date of the first letters of this chapter, we know that he had a working hypothesis of evolution which did not differ in essentials from that given in the "Origin of Species."
To realise the amount of work that was in progress during the period covered by Chapter II., it should be remembered that during part of the time--namely, from 1846 to 1854--he was largely occupied by his work on the Cirripedes. (Chapter II./8. "Life and Letters," I. page 346.) This research would have fully occupied a less methodical workman, and even to those who saw him at work it seemed his whole occupation. Thus (to quote a story of Lord Avebury"s) one of Mr. Darwin"s children is said to have asked, in regard to a neighbour, "Then where does he do his barnacles?" as though not merely his father, but all other men, must be occupied on that group.
Sir Joseph Hooker, to whom the first letter in this chapter is addressed, was good enough to supply a note on the origin of his intimacy with Mr. Darwin, and this is published in the "Life and Letters." (Chapter II./9. Ibid., II., page 19. See also "Nature," 1899, June 22nd, page 187, where some reminiscences are published, which formed part of Sir Joseph"s speech at the unveiling of Darwin"s statue in the Oxford Museum.) The close intercourse that sprang up between them was largely carried on by correspondence, and Mr. Darwin"s letters to Sir Joseph have supplied most valuable biographical material. But it should not be forgotten that, quite apart from this, science owes much to this memorable friendship, since without Hooker"s aid Darwin"s great work would hardly have been carried out on the botanical side. And Sir Joseph did far more than supply knowledge and guidance in technical matters: Darwin owed to him a sympathetic and inspiriting comradeship which cheered and refreshed him to the end of his life.
A sentence from a letter to Hooker written in 1845 shows, quite as well as more serious utterances, how quickly the acquaintance grew into friendship.
"Farewell! What a good thing is community of tastes! I feel as if I had known you for fifty years. Adios." And in ill.u.s.tration of the permanence of the sympathetic bond between them, we quote a letter of 1881 written forty-two years after the first meeting with Sir Joseph in Trafalgar Square (see "Life and Letters," II., page 19). Mr. Darwin wrote: "Your letter has cheered me, and the world does not look a quarter so black this morning as it did when I wrote before. Your friendly words are worth their weight in gold.")
LETTER 13. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday [January 11th, 1844].
My dear Sir
I must write to thank you for your last letter, and to tell you how much all your views and facts interest me. I must be allowed to put my own interpretation on what you say of "not being a good arranger of extended views"--which is, that you do not indulge in the loose speculations so easily started by every smatterer and wandering collector. I look at a strong tendency to generalise as an entire evil.
What you say of Mr. Brown is humiliating; I had suspected it, but would not allow myself to believe in such heresy. Fitz-Roy gave him a rap in his preface (13/1. In the preface to the "Surveying Voyages of the "Adventure" and the "Beagle," 1826-30, forming Volume I of the work, which includes the later voyage of the "Beagle," Captain Fitz-Roy wrote (March, 1839): "Captain King took great pains in forming and preserving a botanical collection, aided by a person embarked solely for that purpose. He placed this collection in the British Museum, and was led to expect that a first-rate botanist would have examined and described it; but he has been disappointed." A reference to Robert Brown"s dilatoriness over King"s collection occurs in the "Life and Letters,"
I., page 274, note.), and made him very indignant, but it seems a much harder one would not have been wasted. My cryptogamic collection was sent to Berkeley; it was not large. I do not believe he has yet published an account, but he wrote to me some year ago that he had described [the specimens] and mislaid all his descriptions. Would it not be well for you to put yourself in communication with him, as otherwise something will perhaps be twice laboured over? My best (though poor) collection of the cryptogams was from the Chonos Islands.
Would you kindly observe one little fact for me, whether any species of plant, peculiar to any island, as Galapagos, St. Helena, or New Zealand, where there are no large quadrupeds, have hooked seeds--such hooks as, if observed here, would be thought with justness to be adapted to catch into wool of animals.
Would you further oblige me some time by informing me (though I forget this will certainly appear in your "Antarctic Flora") whether in islands like St. Helena, Galapagos, and New Zealand, the number of families and genera are large compared with the number of species, as happens in coral islands, and as, I believe, in the extreme Arctic land. Certainly this is the case with marine sh.e.l.ls in extreme Arctic seas. Do you suppose the fewness of species in proportion to number of large groups in coral islets is owing to the chance of seeds from all orders getting drifted to such new spots, as I have supposed. Did you collect sea-sh.e.l.ls in Kerguelen-land? I should like to know their character.
Your interesting letters tempt me to be very unreasonable in asking you questions; but you must not give yourself any trouble about them, for I know how fully and worthily you are employed. (13/2. The rest of the letter has been previously published in "Life and Letters," II., page 23.)
Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I have been now ever since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know no one individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with the distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc., and with the character of the American fossil mammifers, etc., that I determined to collect blindly every sort of fact which could bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.
Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a "tendency to progression,"
"adaptations from the slow willing of animals," etc.! But the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I think I have found out (here"s presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and think to yourself, "on what a man have I been wasting my time and writing to." I should, five years ago, have thought so...(13/3. On the questions here dealt with see the interesting letter to Jenyns in the "Life and Letters," II., page 34.)
LETTER 14. TO J.D. HOOKER. [November] 1844.
...What a curious, wonderful case is that of the Lycopodium! (14/1. Sir J.D. Hooker wrote, November 8, 1844: "I am firmly convinced (but not enough to print it) that L. Selago varies in Van Diemen"s Land into L.
varium. Two more different SPECIES (as they have hitherto been thought), per se cannot be conceived, but nowhere else do they vary into one another, nor does Selago vary at all in England.")...I suppose you would hardly have expected them to be more varying than a phanerogamic plant.
I trust you will work the case out, and, even if unsupported, publish it, for you can surely do this with due caution. I have heard of some a.n.a.logous facts, though on the smallest scale, in certain insects being more variable in one district than in another, and I think the same holds with some land-sh.e.l.ls. By a strange chance I had noted to ask you in this letter an a.n.a.logous question, with respect to genera, in lieu of individual species,--that is, whether you know of any case of a genus with most of its species being variable (say Rubus) in one continent, having another set of species in another continent non-variable, or not in so marked a manner. Mr. Herbert (14/2. No doubt Dean Herbert, the horticulturist. See "Life and Letters," I., page 343.) incidentally mentioned in a letter to me that the heaths at the Cape of Good Hope were very variable, whilst in Europe they are (?) not so; but then the species here are few in comparison, so that the case, even if true, is not a good one. In some genera of insects the variability appears to be common in distant parts of the world. In sh.e.l.ls, I hope hereafter to get much light on this question through fossils. If you can help me, I should be very much obliged: indeed, all your letters are most useful to me.
MONDAY:--Now for your first long letter, and to me quite as interesting as long. Several things are quite new to me in it--viz., for one, your belief that there are more extra-tropical than intra-tropical species. I see that my argument from the Arctic regions is false, and I should not have tried to argue against you, had I not fancied that you thought that equability of climate was the direct cause of the creation of a greater or lesser number of species. I see you call our climate equable; I should have thought it was the contrary. Anyhow, the term is vague, and in England will depend upon whether a person compares it with the United States or Tierra del Fuego. In my Journal (page 342) I see I state that in South Chiloe, at a height of about 1,000 feet, the forests had a Fuegian aspect: I distinctly recollect that at the sea-level in the middle of Chiloe the forest had almost a tropical aspect. I should like much to hear, if you make out, whether the N. or S. boundaries of a plant are the most restricted; I should have expected that the S. would be, in the temperate regions, from the number of antagonist species being greater. N.B. Humboldt, when in London, told me of some river (14/3. The Obi (see "Flora Antarctica," page 211, note). Hooker writes: "Some of the most conspicuous trees attain either of its banks, but do not cross them.") in N.E. Europe, on the opposite banks of which the flora was, on the same soil and under same climate, widely different!
I forget (14/4. The last paragraph is published in "Life and Letters,"
II., page 29.) my last letter, but it must have been a very silly one, as it seems I gave my notion of the number of species being in great degree governed by the degree to which the area had been often isolated and divided. I must have been cracked to have written it, for I have no evidence, without a person be willing to admit all my views, and then it does follow.
(14/5. The remainder of the foregoing letter is published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 29. It is interesting as giving his views on the mutability of species. Thus he wrote: "With respect to books on this subject, I do not know any systematical ones, except Lamarck"s, which is veritable rubbish; but there are plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, etc., on the view of the immutability." By "Pritchard" is no doubt intended James Cowles "Prichard," author of the "Physical History of Mankind." Prof.
Poulton has given in his paper, "A remarkable Antic.i.p.ation of Modern Views on Evolution" (14/6. "Science Progress," Volume I., April 1897, page 278.), an interesting study of Prichard"s work. He shows that Prichard was in advance of his day in his views on the non-transmission of acquired characters. Prof. Poulton also tries to show that Prichard was an evolutionist. He allows that Prichard wrote with hesitation, and that in the later editions of his book his views became weaker.
But, even with these qualifications, we think that Poulton has unintentionally exaggerated the degree to which Prichard believed in evolution.
One of Prichard"s strongest sentences is quoted by Poulton (loc. cit., page 16); it occurs in the "Physical History of Mankind," Ed. 2, Volume II., page 570:--
"Is it not probable that the varieties which spring up within the limits of particular species are further adaptations of structure to the circ.u.mstances under which the tribe is destined to exist? Varieties branch out from the common form of a species, just as the forms of species deviate from the common type of a genus. Why should the one cla.s.s of phenomena be without end or utility, a mere effect of contingency or chance, more than the other?"
If this pa.s.sage, and others similar to it, stood alone, we might agree with Prof. Poulton; but this is impossible when we find in Volume I.
of the same edition, page 90, the following uncompromising statement of immutability:--
"The meaning attached to the term species, in natural history, is very simple and obvious. It includes only one circ.u.mstance--namely, an original distinctness and constant transmission of any character. A race of animals, or plants, marked by any peculiarities of structure which have always been constant and undeviating, const.i.tutes a species."
On page 91, in speaking of the idea that the species which make up a genus may have descended from a common form, he says:--
"There must, indeed, be some principle on which the phenomena of resemblance, as well as those of diversity, may be explained; and the reference of several forms to a common type seems calculated to suggest the idea of some original affinity; but, as this is merely a conjecture, it must be kept out of sight when our inquiries respect matters of fact only."
This view is again given in Volume II., page 569, where he asks whether we should believe that "at the first production of a genus, when it first grew into existence, some slight modification in the productive causes stamped it originally with all these specific diversities? Or is it most probable that the modification was subsequent to its origin, and that the genus at its first creation was one and uniform, and afterwards became diversified by the influence of external agents?" He concludes that "the former of these suppositions is the conclusion to which we are led by all that can be ascertained respecting the limits of species, and the extent of variation under the influence of causes at present existing and operating."
In spite of the fact that Prichard did not carry his ideas to their logical conclusion, it may perhaps excite surprise that Mr. Darwin should have spoken of him as absolutely on the side of immutability.
We believe it to be partly accounted for (as Poulton suggests) by the fact that Mr. Darwin possessed only the third edition (1836 and 1837) and the fourth edition (1841-51). (14/7. The edition of 1841-51 consists of reprints of the third edition and three additional volumes of various dates. Volumes I. and II. are described in the t.i.tle-page as the fourth edition; Volumes III. and IV. as the third edition, and Volume V. has no edition marked in the t.i.tle.) In neither of these is the evolutionary point of view so strong as in the second edition.
We have gone through all the pa.s.sages marked by Mr. Darwin for future reference in the third and fourth editions, and have been only able to find the following, which occurs in the third edition (Volume I., 1836, page 242) (14/8. There is also (ed. 1837, Volume II., page 344) a vague reference to Natural Selection, of which the last sentence is enclosed in pencil in inverted commas, as though Mr. Darwin had intended to quote it: "In other parts of Africa the xanthous variety [of man] often appears, but does not multiply. Individuals thus characterised are like seeds which perish in an uncongenial soil.")
"The variety in form, prevalent among all organised productions of nature, is found to subsist between individual beings of whatever species, even when they are offspring of the same parents. Another circ.u.mstance equally remarkable is the tendency which exists in almost every tribe, whether of animals or of plants, to transmit to their offspring and to perpetuate in their race all individual peculiarities which may thus have taken their rise. These two general facts in the economy of organised beings lay a foundation for the existence of diversified races, originating from the same primitive stock and within the limits of identical species."
On the following page (page 243) a pa.s.sage (not marked by Mr. Darwin) emphasises the limitation which Prichard ascribed to the results of variation and inheritance:--
"Even those physiologists who contend for what is termed the indefinite nature of species admit that they have limits at present and under ordinary circ.u.mstances. Whatever diversities take place happen without breaking in upon the characteristic type of the species. This is transmitted from generation to generation: goats produce goats, and sheep, sheep."
The pa.s.sage on page 242 occurs in the reprint of the 1836-7 edition which forms part of the 1841-51 edition, but is not there marked by Mr.
Darwin. He notes at the end of Volume I. of the 1836-7 edition: "March, 1857. I have not looked through all these [i.e. marked pa.s.sages], but I have gone through the later edition"; and a similar entry is in Volume II. of the third edition. It is therefore easy to understand how he came to overlook the pa.s.sage on page 242 when he began the fuller statement of his species theory which is referred to in the "Life and Letters" as the "unfinished book." In the historical sketch prefixed to the "Origin of Species" writers are named as precursors whose claims are less strong than Prichard"s, and it is certain that Mr. Darwin would have given an account of him if he had thought of him as an evolutionist.
The two following pa.s.sages will show that Mr. Darwin was, from his knowledge of Prichard"s books, justified in cla.s.sing him among those who did not believe in the mutability of species:
"The various tribes of organised beings were originally placed by the Creator in certain regions, for which they are by their nature peculiarly adapted. Each species had only one beginning in a single stock: probably a single pair, as Linnaeus supposed, was first called into being in some particular spot, and the progeny left to disperse themselves to as great a distance from the original centre of their existence as the locomotive powers bestowed on them, or their capability of bearing changes of climate and other physical agencies, may have enabled them to wander." (14/9. Prichard, third edition, 1836-7, Volume I., page 96.)
The second pa.s.sage is annotated by Mr. Darwin with a shower of exclamation marks:
"The meaning attached to the term SPECIES in natural history is very definite and intelligible. It includes only the following conditions--namely, separate origin and distinctness of race, evinced by the constant transmission of some characteristic peculiarity of organisation. A race of animals or of plants marked by any peculiar character which has always been constant and undeviating const.i.tutes a species; and two races are considered as specifically different, if they are distinguished from each other by some characteristic which one cannot be supposed to have acquired, or the other to have lost through any known operation of physical causes; for we are hence led to conclude that the tribes thus distinguished have not descended from the same original stock." (14/10. Prichard, ed. 1836-7, Volume I., page 106. This pa.s.sage is almost identical with that quoted from the second edition, Volume I., page 90. The latter part, from "and two races...," occurs in the second edition, though not quoted above.)
As was his custom, Mr. Darwin pinned at the end of the first volume of the 1841-51 edition a piece of paper containing a list of the pages where marked pa.s.sages occur. This paper bears, written in pencil, "How like my book all this will be!" The words appear to refer to Prichard"s discussion on the dispersal of animals and plants; they certainly do not refer to the evolutionary views to be found in the book.)
LETTER 15. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1844].
Thank you exceedingly for your long letter, and I am in truth ashamed of the time and trouble you have taken for me; but I must some day write again to you on the subject of your letter. I will only now observe that you have extended my remark on the range of species of sh.e.l.ls into the range of genera or groups. a.n.a.logy from sh.e.l.ls would only go so far, that if two or three species...were found to range from America to India, they would be found to extend through an unusual thickness of strata--say from the Upper Cretaceous to its lowest bed, or the Neocomian. Or you may reverse it and say those species which range throughout the whole Cretaceous, will have wide ranges: viz., from America through Europe to India (this is one actual case with sh.e.l.ls in the Cretaceous period).
LETTER 16. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1845].