LETTER 196. TO T. RIVERS. Down, January 7th [1867?].
I thank you much for your letter and the parcel of shoots. The case of the yellow plum is a treasure, and is now safely recorded on your authority in its proper place, in contrast with A. Knight"s case of the yellow magnum bonum sporting into red. (196/1. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 399.) I could see no difference in the shoots, except that those of the yellow were thicker, and I presume that this is merely accidental: as you do not mention it, I further presume that there are no further differences in leaves or flowers of the two plums. I am very glad to hear about the yellow ash, and that you yourself have seen the jessamine case. I must confess that I hardly fully believed in it; but now I do, and very surprising it is.
In an old French book, published in Amsterdam in 1786 (I think), there is an account, apparently authentic and attested by the writer as an eye-witness, of hyacinth bulbs of two colours being cut in two and grafted, and they sent up single stalks with differently coloured flowers on the two sides, and some flowers parti-coloured. I once thought of offering 5 pounds reward in the "Cottage Gardener" for such a plant; but perhaps it would seem too foolish. No instructions are given when to perform the operation; I have tried two or three times, and utterly failed. I find that I have a grand list of "bud-variations," and to-morrow shall work up such cases as I have about rose-sports, which seem very numerous, and which I see you state to occur comparatively frequently.
When a person is very good-natured he gets much pestered--a discovery which I daresay you have made, or anyhow will soon make; for I do want very much to know whether you have sown seed of any moss-roses, and whether the seedlings were moss-roses. (196/2. Moss-roses can be raised from seed ("Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 405.) Has a common rose produced by SEED a moss-rose?
If any light comes to you about very slight changes in the buds, pray have the kindness to illuminate me. I have cases of seven or eight varieties of the peach which have produced by "bud-variation"
nectarines, and yet only one single case (in France) of a peach producing another closely similar peach (but later in ripening). How strange it is that a great change in the peach should occur not rarely and slighter changes apparently very rarely! How strange that no case seems recorded of new apples or pears or apricots by "bud-variation"!
How ignorant we are! But with the many good observers now living our children"s children will be less ignorant, and that is a comfort.
LETTER 197. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 7th [1867].
Very many thanks for your letter, which has told me exactly what I wanted to know. I shall give up all thoughts of trying to get the book (197/1. Hackel"s "Generelle Morphologie," 1866. See "Life and Letters,"
III., pages 67, 68.) translated, for I am well convinced that it would be hopeless without too great an outlay. I much regret this, as I should think the work would be useful, and I am sure it would be to me, as I shall never be able to wade through more than here and there a page of the original. To all people I cannot but think that the number of new terms would be a great evil. I must write to him. I suppose you know his address, but in case you do not, it is "to care of Signor Nicolaus Krohn, Madeira." I have sent the MS. of my big book (197/2. "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.), and horridly, disgustingly big it will be, to the printers, but I do not suppose it will be published, owing to Murray"s idea on seasons, till next November. I am thinking of a chapter on Man, as there has lately been so much said on Natural Selection in relation to man. I have not seen the Duke"s (or Dukelet"s? how can you speak so of a living real Duke?) book, but must get it from Mudie, as you say he attacks us.
(197/3. "The Reign of Law" (1867), by the late Duke of Argyll. See "Life and Letters," III., page 65.)
P.S.--Nature never made species mutually sterile by selection, nor will men.
LETTER 197. TO E. HACKEL. Down, January 8th [1867].
I received some weeks ago your great work (198/1. "Generelle Morphologie," 1866.); I have read several parts, but I am too poor a German scholar and the book is too large for me to read it all. I cannot tell you how much I regret this, for I am sure that nearly the whole would interest me greatly, and I have already found several parts very useful, such as the discussion on cells and on the different forms of reproduction. I feel sure, after considering the subject deliberately and after consulting with Huxley, that it would be hopeless to endeavour to get a publisher to print an English translation; the work is too profound and too long for our English countrymen. The number of new terms would also, I am sure, tell much against its sale; and, indeed, I wish for my own sake that you had printed a glossary of all the new terms which you use. I fully expect that your book will be highly successful in Germany, and the manner in which you often refer to me in your text, and your dedication and the t.i.tle, I shall always look at as one of the greatest honours conferred on me during my life. (198/2. As regards the dedication and t.i.tle this seems a strong expression. The t.i.tle is "Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzuge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft mechanisch begrundet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie." The dedication of the second volume is "Den Begrundern der Descendenz-Theorie, den denkenden Naturforschern, Charles Darwin, Wolfgang Goethe, Jean Lamarck widmet diese Grundzuge der Allgemeinen Entwickelungsgeschichte in vorzuglicher Verehrung, der Verfa.s.ser.")
I sincerely hope that you have had a prosperous expedition, and have met with many new and interesting animals. If you have spare time I should much like to hear what you have been doing and observing. As for myself, I have sent the MS. of my book on domestic animals, etc., to the printers. It turns out to be much too large; it will not be published, I suppose, until next November. I find that we have discussed several of the same subjects, and I think we agree on most points fairly well.
I have lately heard several times from Fritz Muller, but he seems now chiefly to be working on plants. I often think of your visit to this house, which I enjoyed extremely, and it will ever be to me a real pleasure to remember our acquaintance. From what I heard in London I think you made many friends there. Shall you return through England?
If so, and you can spare the time, we shall all be delighted to see you here again.
LETTER 199. TO T. RIVERS. Down, January 11th [1867?].
How rich and valuable a letter you have most kindly sent me! The case of Baronne Prevost (199/1. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 406. Mr. Rivers had a new French rose with a delicate smooth stem, pale glaucous leaves and striped flesh-coloured flowers; on branches thus characterised there appeared "the famous old rose called "Baronne Prevost,"" with its stout th.o.r.n.y stem and uniform rich-coloured double flowers.), with its different shoots, foliage, spines, and flowers, will be grand to quote. I am extremely glad to hear about the seedling moss-roses. That case of a seedling like a Scotch rose, unless you are sure that no Scotch rose grew near (and it is unlikely that you can remember), must, one would think, have been a cross.
I have little compunction for being so troublesome--not more than a grand Inquisitor has in torturing a heretic--for am I not doing a real good public service in s.c.r.e.w.i.n.g crumbs of knowledge out of your wealth of information?
P.S. Since the above was written I have read your paper in the "Gardeners" Chronicle": it is admirable, and will, I know, be a treasure to me. I did not at all know how strictly the character of so many flowers is inherited.
On my honour, when I began this note I had no thought of troubling you with a question; but you mention one point so interesting, and which I have had occasion to notice, that I must supplicate for a few more facts to quote on your authority. You say that you have one or two seedling peaches (199/2. "On raising Peaches, Nectarines, and other Fruits from Seed." By Thomas Rivers, Sawbridgeworth.--"Gard. Chron." 1866, page 731.) approaching very nearly to thick-fleshed almonds (I know about A.
Knight and the Italian hybrid cases). Now, did any almond grow near your mother peach? But especially I want to know whether you remember what shape the stone was, whether flattened like that of an almond; this, botanically, seems the most important distinction. I earnestly wish to quote this. Was the flesh at all sweet?
Forgive if you can.
Have you kept these seedling peaches? if you would give me next summer a fruit, I want to have it engraved.
LETTER 200. TO I. ANDERSON-HENRY. May 22nd [1867].
You are so kind as to offer to lend me Maillet"s (200/1. For De Maillet see Mr. Huxley"s review on "The Origin of Species" in the "Westminster Review," 1860, reprinted in "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 314. De Maillet"s evolutionary views were published after his death in 1748 under the name of Telliamed (De Maillet spelt backwards).) work, which I have often heard of, but never seen. I should like to have a look at it, and would return it to you in a short time. I am bound to read it, as my former friend and present bitter enemy Owen generally ranks me and Maillet as a pair of equal fools.
LETTER 201. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 4th [1867].
You have done me a very great service in sending me the pages of the "Farmer." I do not know whether you wish it returned; but I will keep it unless I hear that you want it. Old I. Anderson-Henry pa.s.ses a magnificent but rather absurd eulogium on me; but the point of such extreme value in my eyes is Mr. Traill"s (201/1. Mr. Traill"s results are given at page 420 of "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I.
In the "Life and Letters of G.J. Romanes," 1896, an interesting correspondence is published with Mr. Darwin on this subject. The plan of the experiments suggested to Romanes was to raise seedlings from graft-hybrids: if the seminal offspring of plants hybridised by grafting should show the hybrid character, it would be striking evidence in favour of pangenesis. The experiment, however, did not succeed.) statement that he made a mottled mongrel by cutting eyes through and joining two kinds of potatoes. (201/2. For an account of similar experiments now in progress, see a "Note on some Grafting Experiments"
by R. Biffen in the "Annals of Botany," Volume XVI., page 174, 1902.) I have written to him for full information, and then I will set to work on a similar trial. It would prove, I think, to demonstration that propagation by buds and by the s.e.xual elements are essentially the same process, as pangenesis in the most solemn manner declares to be the case.
LETTER 202. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 12th [1867?].
We come up on Sat.u.r.day, the 15th, for a week. I want much to see you for a short time to talk about my youngest boy and the School of Mines. I know it is rather unreasonable, but you must let me come a little after 10 o"clock on Sunday morning, the 16th. If in any way inconvenient, send me a line to "6, Queen Anne Street W.,"; but if I do not hear, I will (stomacho volente) call, but I will not stay very long and spoil your whole morning as a holiday. Will you turn two or three times in your mind this question: what I called "pangenesis" means that each cell throws off an atom of its contents or a gemmule, and that these aggregated form the true ovule or bud, etc.? Now I want to know whether I could not invent a better word. "Cyttarogenesis" (202/1. From kuttaros, a bee"s-cell: cytogenesis would be a natural form of the word from kutos.)--i.e. cell-genesis--is more true and expressive, but long.
"Atomogenesis" sounds rather better, I think, but an "atom" is an object which cannot be divided; and the term might refer to the origin of atoms of inorganic matter. I believe I like "pangenesis" best, though so indefinite; and though my wife says it sounds wicked, like pantheism; but I am so familiar now with this word, that I cannot judge. I supplicate you to help me.
LETTER 203. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, October, 12th and 13th [1867].
I ordered the journal (203/1. "Quarterly Journal of Science," October, 1867, page 472. A review of the Duke of Argyll"s "Reign of Law.") 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 Angraec.u.m (203/2. Angraec.u.m sesquipedale, a Madagascan orchid, with a whiplike nectary, 11 to 12 inches in length, which, according to Darwin ("Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II., page 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. Muller has described ("Nature," 1873, page 223)--a Brazilian sphinx-moth with a trunk of 10 to 11 inches in length. Moreover, Forbes has given evidence to show that such an insect does exist in Madagascar ("Nature," VIII., 1873, page 121). The case of Angraec.u.m was put forward by the Duke of Argyll as being necessarily due to the personal contrivance of the Deity. Mr. Wallace (page 476) shows that both proboscis and nectary might be increased in length by means of Natural Selection. It may be added that Hermann Muller has shown good grounds for believing that mutual specialisation of this kind is beneficial both to insect and plant.) 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 bull-dog (203/3. "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume II., page 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?"), with respect to variations not having been specially ordained. Your metaphor of the river (203/4. See Wallace, op. cit., pages 477-8. He imagines an observer examining a great river-system, and finding everywhere adaptations which reveal the design of the Creator. "He would see special adaptation to the wants of man in 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 only for a small population of shepherds and herdsmen.") is new to me, and admirable; but your other metaphor, in which you compare cla.s.sification 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 cla.s.sification, and it is this which descent explains. I wish you had insisted a little more against the "North British" (203/5. At page 485 Mr. Wallace deals with Fleeming Jenkin"s review in the "North British Review," 1867. The review strives to show that there are strict limits 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 Mr. Wallace remarks that "this 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 acc.u.mulation of variations by selection.") on the reviewer a.s.suming 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 a.n.a.logous. 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 b.u.t.terfly in "Science Gossip." By the way, I cannot but think that you push protection too 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. (203/6. An abstract of a paper on "Birds" Nests and Plumage," read before the British a.s.sociation: see "Gard. Chron." 1867, page 1047.) 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 finished Volume I. of my book ["Variation of Animals and Plants"], 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 acc.u.mulation of facts which will be of service to you in future papers; and they could not be put to better use, for you certainly are a master in the n.o.ble art of reasoning.
LETTER 204. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, October 3rd [no date].
I know you have no time for speculative correspondence; and I did not in the least expect an answer to my last. But I am very glad to have had it, for in my eclectic work the opinions of the few good men are of great value to me.
I knew, of course, of the Cuvierian view of cla.s.sification (204/1.
Cuvier proved that "animals cannot be arranged in a single series, but that there are several distinct plans of organisation to be observed among them, no one of which, in its highest and most complicated modification, leads to any of the others" (Huxley"s "Darwiniana," page 215).); but I think that most naturalists look for something further, and search for "the natural system,"--"for the plan on which the Creator has worked," etc., etc. It is this further element which I believe to be simply genealogical.
But I should be very glad to have your answer (either when we meet or by note) to the following case, taken by itself, and not allowing yourself to look any further than to the point in question. Grant all races of man descended from one race--grant that all the structure of each race of man were perfectly known--grant that a perfect table of the descent of each race was perfectly known--grant all this, and then do you not think that most would prefer as the best cla.s.sification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if collocated by structure alone?
Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races and their pedigrees would go together.
I should like to hear what you would say on this purely theoretical case.
It might be asked why is development so all-potent in cla.s.sification, as I fully admit it is? I believe it is because it depends on, and best betrays, genealogical descent; but this is too large a point to enter on.
LETTER 205. TO C. LYELL. Down, December 7th [1867].
I send by this post the article in the Victorian Inst.i.tute with respect to frogs" sp.a.w.n. If you remember in your boyhood having ever tried to take a small portion out of the water, you will remember that it is most difficult. I believe all the birds in the world might alight every day on the sp.a.w.n of batrachians, and never transport a single ovum. With respect to the young of molluscs, undoubtedly if the bird to which they were attached alighted on the sea, they would be instantly killed; but a land-bird would, I should think, never alight except under dire necessity from fatigue. This, however, has been observed near Heligoland (205/1. Instances are recorded by Gatke in his "Heligoland as an Ornithological Observatory" (translated by Rudolph Rosenstock, Edinburgh, 1895) of land-birds, such as thrushes, buntings, finches, etc., resting for a short time on the surface of the water. The author describes observations made by himself about two miles west of Heligoland (page 129).); and land-birds, after resting for a time on the tranquil sea, have been seen to rise and continue their flight. I cannot give you the reference about Heligoland without much searching. This alighting on the sea may aid you in your unexpected difficulty of the too-easy diffusion of land-molluscs by the agency of birds. I much enjoyed my morning"s talk with you.
LETTER 206. TO F. HILDEBRAND. Down, January 5th [1868].
I thank you for your letter, which has quite delighted me. I sincerely congratulate you on your success in making a graft-hybrid (206/1. Prof.