I am very sorry to differ so much from you, but I have thought that you would desire my open opinion. Frank is away, otherwise he should have copied my scrawl.
I have got a good stock of pods of sweet peas, but the autumn has been frightfully bad; perhaps we may still get a few more to ripen.
LETTER 272. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 12th [1875].
Many thanks for your "Biology," which I have read. (272/1. "A Course of Practical Instruction in Elementary Biology," by T.H. Huxley and H.N.
Martin, 1875. For an account of the book see "Life and Letters of T.H.
Huxley," Volume I., page 380.) It was a real stroke of genius to think of such a plan. Lord, how I wish I had gone through such a course!
LETTER 273. TO FRANCIS GALTON. December 18th [1875].
George has been explaining our differences. I have admitted in the new edition (273/1. In the second edition (1875) of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 350, reference is made to Mr.
Galton"s transfusion experiments, "Proc. R. Soc." XIX., page 393; also to Mr. Galton"s letter to "Nature," April 27th, 1871, page 502. This is a curious mistake; the letter in "Nature," April 27th, 1871, is by Darwin himself, and refers chiefly to the question whether gemmules may be supposed to be in the blood. Mr. Galton"s letter is in "Nature,"
May 4th, 1871, Volume IV., page 5. See Letter 235.) (before seeing your essay) that perhaps the gemmules are largely multiplied in the reproductive organs; but this does not make me doubt that each unit of the whole system also sends forth its gemmules. You will no doubt have thought of the following objection to your views, and I should like to hear what your answer is. If two plants are crossed, it often, or rather generally, happens that every part of stem, leaf, even to the hairs, and flowers of the hybrid are intermediate in character; and this hybrid will produce by buds millions on millions of other buds all exactly reproducing the intermediate character. I cannot doubt that every unit of the hybrid is hybridised and sends forth hybridised gemmules. Here we have nothing to do with the reproductive organs. There can hardly be a doubt from what we know that the same thing would occur with all those animals which are capable of budding, and some of these (as the compound Ascidians) are sufficiently complex and highly organised.
LETTER 274. TO LAWSON TAIT. March 25th, 1876.
(274/1. The reference is to the theory put forward in the first edition of "Variation of Animals and Plants," II., page 15, that the a.s.serted tendency to regeneration after the amputation of supernumerary digits in man is a return to the recuperative powers characteristic of a "lowly organised progenitor provided with more than five digits." Darwin"s recantation is at Volume I., page 459 of the second edition.)
Since reading your first article (274/2. Lawson Tait wrote two notices on "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" in the "Spectator" of March 4th, 1876, page 312, and March 25th, page 406.), Dr. Rudinger has written to me and sent me an essay, in which he gives the results of the MOST EXTENSIVE inquiries from all eminent surgeons in Germany, and all are unanimous about non-growth of extra digits after amputation. They explain some apparent cases, as Paget did to me. By the way, I struck out of my second edition a quotation from Sir J. Simpson about re-growth in the womb, as Paget demurred, and as I could not say how a rudiment of a limb due to any cause could be distinguished from an imperfect re-growth. Two or three days ago I had another letter from Germany from a good naturalist, Dr. Kollmann (274/3. Dr. Kollmann was Secretary of the Anthropologische Gesellschaft of Munich, in which Society took place the discussion referred to in "Variation of Animals and Plants," I., 459, as originating Darwin"s doubts on the whole question. The fresh evidence adduced by Kollmann as to the normal occurrence of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians is Borus" paper, "Die sechste Zehe der Anuren" in "Morpholog. Jahrbuch," Bd. I., page 435. On this subject see Letter 178.), saying he was sorry that I had given up atavism and extra digits, and telling me of new and good evidence of rudiments of a rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians (which I had myself seen, but given up owing to Gegenbaur"s views); but, with re-growth failing me, I could not uphold my old notion.
LETTER 275. TO G.J. ROMANES.
(275/1. Mr. Romanes" reply to this letter is printed in his "Life and Letters," page 93, where by an oversight it is dated 1880-81.)
H. Wedgwood, Esq., Hopedene, Dorking, May 29th [1876].
As you are interested in pangenesis, and will some day, I hope, convert an "airy nothing" into a substantial theory, I send by this post an essay by Hackel (275/2. "Die Perigenesis der Plastidule oder die Wellenzeugung der Lebenstheilchen," 79 pages. Berlin, 1876.) attacking Pan. and subst.i.tuting a molecular hypothesis. If I understand his views rightly, he would say that with a bird which strengthened its wings by use, the formative protoplasm of the strengthened parts became changed, and its molecular vibrations consequently changed, and that these vibrations are transmitted throughout the whole frame of the bird, and affect the s.e.xual elements in such a manner that the wings of the offspring are developed in a like strengthened manner. I imagine he would say, in cases like those of Lord Morton"s mare (275/3. A nearly pure-bred Arabian chestnut mare bore a hybrid to a quagga, and subsequently produced two striped colts by a black Arabian horse: see "Animals and Plants," I., page 403. The case was originally described in the "Philosophical Transactions," 1821, page 20. For an account of recent work bearing on this question, see article on "Zebras, Horses, and Hybrids," in the "Quarterly Review," October 1899. See Letter 235.), that the vibrations from the protoplasm, or "pla.s.son," of the seminal fluid of the zebra set pla.s.son vibrating in the mare; and that these vibrations continued until the hair of the second colt was formed, and which consequently became barred like that of a zebra. How he explains reversion to a remote ancestor, I know not. Perhaps I have misunderstood him, though I have skimmed the whole with some care. He lays much stress on inheritance being a form of unconscious memory, but how far this is part of his molecular vibration, I do not understand. His views make nothing clearer to me; but this may be my fault. No one, I presume, would doubt about molecular movements of some kind. His essay is clever and striking. If you read it (but you must not on my account), I should much like to hear your judgment, and you can return it at any time. The blue lines are Hackel"s to call my attention.
We have come here for rest for me, which I have much needed; and shall remain here for about ten days more, and then home to work, which is my sole pleasure in life. I hope your splendid Medusa work and your experiments on pangenesis are going on well. I heard from my son Frank yesterday that he was feverish with a cold, and could not dine with the physiologists, which I am very sorry for, as I should have heard what they think about the new Bill. I see that you are one of the secretaries to this young Society.
LETTER 276. TO H.N. MOSELEY. Down, November 22nd [1876].
It is very kind of you to send me the j.a.panese books, which are extremely curious and amusing. My son Frank is away, but I am sure he will be much obliged for the two papers which you have sent him.
Thanks, also, for your interesting note. It is a pity that Peripatus (276/1. Moseley "On the Structure and Development of Peripatus capensis"
("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 164, page 757, 1874). "When suddenly handled or irritated, they (i.e. Peripatus) shoot out fine threads of a remarkably viscid and tenacious milky fluid... projected from the tips of the oral papillae" (page 759).) is so stupid as to spit out the viscid matter at the wrong end of its body; it would have been beautiful thus to have explained the origin of the spider"s web.
LETTER 277. NAPHTALI LEWY TO CHARLES DARWIN.
(277/1. The following letter refers to a book, "Toledoth Adam," written by a learned Jew with the object of convincing his co-religionists of the truth of the theory of evolution. The translation we owe to the late Henry Bradshaw, University Librarian at Cambridge. The book is unfortunately no longer to be found in Mr. Darwin"s library.)
[1876].
To the Lord, the Prince, who "stands for an ensign of the people" (Isa.
xi. 10), the Investigator of the generation, the "bright son of the morning" (Isa. xiv. 12), Charles Darwin, may he live long!
"From the rising of the sun and from the west" (Isa. xlv. 6) all the nations know concerning the Torah (Theory) (277/2. Lit., instruction.
The Torah is the Pentateuch, strictly speaking, the source of all knowledge.) which has "proceeded from thee for a light of the people"
(Isa. li. 4), and the nations "hear and say, It is truth" (Isa. xliii.
9). But with "the portion of my people" (Jer. x. 16), Jacob, "the lot of my inheritance" (Deut. x.x.xii. 9), it is not so. This nation, "the ancient people" (Isa. xliv. 7), which "remembers the former things and considers the things of old (Isa. xliii. 18), "knows not, neither doth it understand" (Psalm lx.x.xii. 5), that by thy Torah (instruction or theory) thou hast thrown light upon their Torah (the Law), and that the eyes of the Hebrews (277/3. One letter in this word changed would make the word "blind," which is what Isaiah uses in the pa.s.sage alluded to.) "can now see out of obscurity and out of darkness" (Isa. xxix. 18).
Therefore "I arose" (Judges v. 7) and wrote this book, "Toledoth Adam"
("the generations of man," Gen. v. 1), to teach the children of my people, the seed of Jacob, the Torah (instruction) which thou hast given for an inheritance to all the nations of the earth.
And I have "proceeded to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder" (Isa. xxix. 14), enabling them now to read in the Torah of Moses our teacher, "plainly and giving the sense"
(Neh. viii. 8), that which thou hast given in thy Torahs (works of instruction). And when my people perceive that thy view has by no means "gone astray" (Num. v. 12, 19, etc.) from the Torah of G.o.d, they will hold thy name in the highest reverence, and "will at the same time glorify the G.o.d of Israel" (Isa. xxix. 23).
"The vision of all this" (Isa. xxix. 11) thou shalt see, O Prince of Wisdom, in this book, "which goeth before me" (Gen. x.x.xii. 21); and whatever thy large understanding finds to criticise in it, come, "write it in a table and note it in a book" (Isa. x.x.x. 8); and allow me to name my work with thy name, which is glorified and greatly revered by
Thy servant, Naphtali Hallevi [i.e. the Levite].
Dated here in the city of Radom, in the province of Poland, in the month of Nisan in the year 636, according to the lesser computation (i.e. A.M.
[5]636 = A.D. 1876).
LETTER 278. TO OTTO ZACHARIAS. 1877.
When I was on board the "Beagle" I believed in the permanence of species, but, as far as I can remember, vague doubts occasionally flitted across my mind. On my return home in the autumn of 1836 I immediately began to prepare my journal for publication, and then saw how many facts indicated the common descent of species (278/1. "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 which Darwin (writing in 1837) a.s.signs to the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind becomes intelligible."--From "Darwiniana,"
Essays by Thomas H. Huxley, London, 1893; pages 274-5.), so that in July, 1837, I opened a notebook to record any facts which might bear on the question; but I did not become convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years had elapsed. (278/2. On this last point see page 38.)
LETTER 279. TO G.J. ROMANES.
(279/1. The following letter refers to MS. notes by Romanes, which we have not seen. Darwin"s remarks on it are, however, sufficiently clear.)
My address will be "Ba.s.sett, Southampton," June 11th [1877].
I have received the crossing paper which you were so kind as to send me.
It is very clear, and I quite agree with it; but the point in question has not been a difficulty to me, as I have never believed in a new form originating from a single variation. What I have called unconscious selection by man ill.u.s.trates, as it seems to me, the same principle as yours, within the same area. Man purchases the individual animals or plants which seem to him the best in any respect--some more so, and some less so--and, without any matching or pairing, the breed in the course of time is surely altered. The absence in numerous instances of intermediate or blending forms, in the border country between two closely allied geographical races or close species, seemed to me a greater difficulty when I discussed the subject in the "Origin."
With respect to your ill.u.s.tration, it formerly drove me half mad to attempt to account for the increase or diminution of the productiveness of an organism; but I cannot call to mind where my difficulty lay.
(279/2. See Letters 209-16.) Natural Selection always applies, as I think, to each individual and its offspring, such as its seeds, eggs, which are formed by the mother, and which are protected in various ways.
(279/3. It was in regard to this point that Romanes had sent the MS. to Darwin. In a letter of June 16th he writes: "It was with reference to the possibility of Natural Selection acting on organic types as distinguished from individuals,--a possibility which you once told me did not seem at all clear.") There does not seem any difficulty in understanding how the productiveness of an organism might be increased; but it was, as far as I can remember, in reducing productiveness that I was most puzzled. But why I scribble about this I know not.
I have read your review of Mr. Allen"s book (279/4. See "Nature"
(June 7th, 1877, page 98), a review of Grant Allen"s "Physiological Aesthetics."), and it makes me more doubtful, even, than I was before whether he has really thrown much light on the subject.
I am glad to hear that some physiologists take the same view as I did about your giving too much credit to H. Spencer--though, heaven knows, this is a rare fault. (279/5. The reference is to Romanes" lecture on Medusa, given at the Royal Inst.i.tution, May 25th. (See "Nature," XVI., pages 231, 269, 289.) It appears from a letter of Romanes (June 6th) that it was the abstract in the "Times" that gave the impression referred to. References to Mr. Spencer"s theories of nerve-genesis occur in "Nature," pages 232, 271, 289.)
The more I think of your medusa-nerve-work the more splendid it seems to me.