More Letters of Charles Darwin Volume I Part 10

I thank you sincerely for your very kind offer of occasionally a.s.sisting me with your opinion, and I will not trespa.s.s much. I have a case, but [it is one] about which I am almost sure; and so to save you writing, if I conclude rightly, pray do not answer, and I shall understand silence as a.s.sent.

Olfers in 1814 made Lepas aurita Linn. into the genus Conchoderma; [Oken] in 1815 gave the name Branta to Lepas aurita and vittata, and by so doing he alters essentially Olfers' generic definition. Oken was right (as it turns out), and Lepas aurita and vittata must form together one genus. (30/3. In the "Monograph on the Cirripedia" (Lepadidae) the names used are Conchoderma aurita and virgata.) (I leave out of question a mult.i.tude of subsequent synonyms.) Now I suppose I must retain Conchoderma of Olfers. I cannot make out a precise rule in the "British a.s.sociation Report" for this. When a genus is cut into two I see that the old name is retained for part and altered to it; so I suppose the definition may be enlarged to receive another species--though the cases are somewhat different. I should have had no doubt if Lepas aurita and vittata had been made into two genera, for then when run together the oldest of the two would have been retained. Certainly to put Conchoderma Olfers is not quite correct when applied to the two species, for such was not Olfers' definition and opinion. If I do not hear, I shall retain Conchoderma for the two species...

P.S.--Will you by silence give consent to the following?

Linnaeus gives no type to his genus Lepas, though L. bala.n.u.s comes first. Several oldish authors have used Lepas exclusively for the pedunculate division, and the name has been given to the family and compounded in sub-generic names. Now, this shows that old authors attached the name Lepas more particularly to the pedunculate division.

Now, if I were to use Lepas for Anatifera (30/4. Anatifera and Anatifa were used as generic names for what Linnaeus and Darwin called Lepas anatifera.) I should get rid of the difficulty of the second edition of Hill and of the difficulty of Anatifera vel Anatifa. Linnaeus's generic description is equally applicable to Anatifera and Bala.n.u.s, though the latter stands first. Must the mere precedence rigorously outweigh the apparent opinion of many old naturalists? As for using Lepas in place of Bala.n.u.s, I cannot. Every one will understand what is meant by Lepas Anatifera, so that convenience would be wonderfully thus suited. If I do not hear, I shall understand I have your consent.

LETTER 31. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(31/1. In the "Life and Letters," I., page 392, is a letter to Sir J.D.

Hooker from Mr. Darwin, to whom the former had dedicated his "Himalayan Journals." Mr. Darwin there wrote: "Your letter, received this morning, has interested me extremely, and I thank you sincerely for telling me your old thoughts and aspirations." The following is the letter referred to, which at our request Sir Joseph has allowed us to publish.)

Kew, March 1st, 1854.

Now that my book (31/2. "Himalayan Journals," 2 volumes. London, 1854.) has been publicly acknowledged to be of some value, I feel bold to write to you; for, to tell you the truth, I have never been without a misgiving that the dedication might prove a very bad compliment, however kindly I knew you would receive it. The idea of the dedication has been present to me from a very early date: it was formed during the Antarctic voyage, out of love for your own "Journal," and has never deserted me since; nor would it, I think, had I never known more of you than by report and as the author of the said "Naturalist's Journal." Short of the gratification I felt in getting the book out, I know no greater than your kind, hearty acceptation of the dedication; and, had the reviewers gibbeted me, the dedication would alone have given me real pain. I have no wish to a.s.sume a stoical indifference to public opinion, for I am well alive to it, and the critics might have irritated me sorely, but they could never have caused me the regret that the a.s.sociation of your name with a bad book of mine would have.

You will laugh when I tell you that, my book out, I feel past the meridian of life! But you do not know how from my earliest childhood I nourished and cherished the desire to make a creditable journey in a new country, and write such a respectable account of its natural features as should give me a niche amongst the scientific explorers of the globe I inhabit, and hand my name down as a useful contributor of original matter. A combination of most rare advantages has enabled me to gain as much of my object as contents me, for I never wished to be greatest amongst you, nor did rivalry ever enter my thoughts. No ulterior object has ever been present to me in this pursuit. My ambition is fully gratified by the satisfactory completion of my task, and I am now happy to go on jog-trot at Botany till the end of my days--downhill, in one sense, all the way. I shall never have such another object to work for, nor shall I feel the want of it...As it is, the craving of thirty years is satisfied, and I now look back on life in a way I never could previously. There never was a past hitherto to me. The phantom was always in view; mayhap it is only a "ridiculus mus" after all, but it is big enough for me...

(PLATE: T.H. HUXLEY, 1857. Maull & Polyblank photo., Walker & c.o.c.kerell ph. sc.)

(32/1. The story of Huxley's life has been fully given in the interesting biography edited by Mr. Leonard Huxley. (32/2. "Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley." London 1900.) Readers of this book and of the "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" gain an insight into the relations.h.i.+p between this pair of friends to which any words of ours can add but little. Darwin realised to the full the essential strength of Mr. Huxley's nature; he knew, as all the world now knows, the delicate sense of honour of his friend, and he was ever inclined to lean on his guidance in practical matters, as on an elder brother. Of Mr. Huxley's dialectical and literary skill he was an enthusiastic admirer, and he never forgot what his theories owed to the fighting powers of his "general agent." (32/3. Ibid., I., page 171.) Huxley's estimate of Darwin is very interesting: he valued him most highly for what was so strikingly characteristic of himself--the love of truth. He spoke of finding in him "something bigger than ordinary humanity--an unequalled simplicity and directness of purpose--a sublime unselfishness." (32/4.

Ibid., II., page 94. Huxley is speaking of Gordon's death, and goes on: "Of all the people whom I have met with in my life, he and Darwin are the two in whom I have found," etc.) The same point of view comes out in Huxley's estimate of Darwin's mental power. (32/5. Ibid., II., page 39.) "He had a clear, rapid intelligence, a great memory, a vivid imagination, and what made his greatness was the strict subordination of all these to his love of truth." This, as an a.n.a.lysis of Darwin's mental equipment, seems to us incomplete, though we do not pretend to mend it. We do not think it is possible to dissect and label the complex qualities which go to make up that which we all recognise as genius.

But, if we may venture to criticise, we would say that Mr. Huxley's words do not seem to cover that supreme power of seeing and thinking what the rest of the world had overlooked, which was one of Darwin's most striking characteristics. As throwing light on the quality of their friends.h.i.+p, we give below a letter which has already appeared in the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," I., page 366. Mr. L. Huxley gives an account of the breakdown in health which convinced Huxley's friends that rest and relief from anxiety must be found for him. Mr. L. Huxley aptly remarks of the letter, "It is difficult to say whether it does more honour to him who sent it or to him who received it." (32/6. Huxley's "Life," I., page 366. Mr. Darwin left to Mr. Huxley a legacy of 1,000 pounds, "as a slight memorial of my lifelong affection and respect for him."))

LETTER 32. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 23rd, 1873.

My dear Huxley

I have been asked by some of your friends (eighteen in number) to inform you that they have placed, through Robarts, Lubbock & Co., the sum of 2,100 pounds to your account at your bankers. We have done this to enable you to get such complete rest as you may require for the re-establishment of your health; and in doing this we are convinced that we act for the public interest, as well as in accordance with our most earnest desires. Let me a.s.sure you that we are all your warm personal friends, and that there is not a stranger or mere acquaintance amongst us. If you could have heard what was said, or could have read what was, as I believe, our inmost thoughts, you would know that we all feel towards you, as we should to an honoured and much loved brother. I am sure that you will return this feeling, and will therefore be glad to give us the opportunity of aiding you in some degree, as this will be a happiness to us to the last day of our lives. Let me add that our plan occurred to several of your friends at nearly the same time and quite independently of one another.

My dear Huxley, Your affectionate friend, CHARLES DARWIN.

LETTER 33. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(33/1. The following letter is one of the earliest of the long series addressed to Mr. Huxley.)

Down, April 23rd [1854].

My dear Sir

I have got out all the specimens, which I have thought could by any possibility be of any use to you; but I have not looked at them, and know not what state they are in, but should be much pleased if they are of the smallest use to you. I enclose a catalogue of habitats: I thought my notes would have turned out of more use. I have copied out such few points as perhaps would not be apparent in preserved specimens. The bottle shall go to Mr. Gray on Thursday next by our weekly carrier.

I am very much obliged for your paper on the Mollusca (33/2. The paper of Huxley's is "On the Morphology of the Cephalous Mollusca, etc."

("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 143, Part I., 1853, page 29.)); I have read it all with much interest: but it would be ridiculous in me to make any remarks on a subject on which I am so utterly ignorant; but I can see its high importance. The discovery of the type or "idea" (33/3.

Huxley defines his use of the word "archetype" at page 50: "All that I mean is the conception of a form embodying the most general propositions that can be affirmed respecting the Cephalous Mollusca, standing in the same relation to them as the diagram to a geometrical theorem, and like it, at once, imaginary and true.") (in your sense, for I detest the word as used by Owen, Aga.s.siz & Co.) of each great cla.s.s, I cannot doubt, is one of the very highest ends of Natural History; and certainly most interesting to the worker-out. Several of your remarks have interested me: I am, however, surprised at what you say versus "anamorphism" (33/4.

The pa.s.sage referred to is at page 63: "If, however, all Cephalous Mollusks...be only modifications by excess or defect of the parts of a definite archetype, then, I think, it follows as a necessary consequence, that no anamorphism takes place in this group. There is no progression from a lower to a higher type, but merely a more or less complete evolution of one type." Huxley seems to use the term anamorphism in a sense differing from that of some writers. Thus in Jourdan's "Dictionnaire des Termes Usites dans les Sciences Naturelles,"

1834, it is defined as the production of an atypical form either by arrest or excess of development.), I should have thought that the archetype in imagination was always in some degree embryonic, and therefore capable [of] and generally undergoing further development.

Is it not an extraordinary fact, the great difference in position of the heart in different species of Cleodora? (33/5. A genus of Pteropods.) I am a believer that when any part, usually constant, differs considerably in different allied species that it will be found in some degree variable within the limits of the same species. Thus, I should expect that if great numbers of specimens of some of the species of Cleodora had been examined with this object in view, the position of the heart in some of the species would have been found variable. Can you aid me with any a.n.a.logous facts?

I am very much pleased to hear that you have not given up the idea of noticing my cirripedial volume. All that I have seen since confirms everything of any importance stated in that volume--more especially I have been able rigorously to confirm in an anomalous species, by the clearest evidence, that the actual cellular contents of the ovarian tubes, by the gland-like action of a modified portion of the continuous tube, pa.s.ses into the cementing stuff: in fact cirripedes make glue out of their own unformed eggs! (33/6. On Darwin's mistake in this point see "Life and Letters," III., page 2.)

Pray believe me, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.

I told the above case to Milne Edwards, and I saw he did not place the smallest belief in it.

LETTER 34. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 2nd, [1854].

My second volume on the everlasting barnacles is at last published (34/1. "A Monograph of the Sub-cla.s.s Cirripedia. II. The Balanidae, the Verrucidae." Ray Society, 1854.), and I will do myself the pleasure of sending you a copy to Jermyn Street next Thursday, as I have to send another book then to Mr. Baily.

And now I want to ask you a favour--namely, to answer me two questions.

As you are so perfectly familiar with the doings, etc., of all Continental naturalists, I want you to tell me a few names of those whom you think would care for my volume. I do not mean in the light of puffing my book, but I want not to send copies to those who from other studies, age, etc., would view it as waste paper. From a.s.sistance rendered me, I consider myself bound to send copies to: (1) Bosquet of Maestricht, (2) Milne Edwards, (3) Dana, (4) Aga.s.siz, (5) Muller, (6) W. Dunker of Hesse Ca.s.sel. Now I have five or six other copies to distribute, and will you be so very kind as to help me? I had thought of Von Siebold, Loven, d'Orbigny, Kolliker, Sars, Kroyer, etc., but I know hardly anything about any of them.

My second question, it is merely a chance whether you can answer,--it is whether I can send these books or any of them (in some cases accompanied by specimens), through the Royal Society: I have some vague idea of having heard that the Royal Society did sometimes thus a.s.sist members.

I have just been reading your review of the "Vestiges" (34/2. In his chapter on the "Reception of the Origin of Species" ("Life and Letters,"

II., pages 188-9), Mr. Huxley wrote: "and the only review I ever have qualms of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one I wrote on the 'Vestiges.'" The article is in the "British and Foreign Medico-chirurgical Review," XIII., 1854, page 425. The "great man"

referred to below is Owen: see Huxley's review, page 439, and Huxley's "Life." I., page 94.), and the way you handle a great Professor is really exquisite and inimitable. I have been extremely interested in other parts, and to my mind it is incomparably the best review I have read on the "Vestiges"; but I cannot think but that you are rather hard on the poor author. I must think that such a book, if it does no other good, spreads the taste for Natural Science.

But I am perhaps no fair judge, for I am almost as unorthodox about species as the "Vestiges" itself, though I hope not quite so unphilosophical. How capitally you a.n.a.lyse his notion about law. I do not know when I have read a review which interested me so much. By Heavens, how the blood must have gushed into the capillaries when a certain great man (whom with all his faults I cannot help liking) read it!

I am rather sorry you do not think more of Aga.s.siz's embryological stages (34/3. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 310: also Letter 40, Note.), for though I saw how exceedingly weak the evidence was, I was led to hope in its truth.

LETTER 35. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1854].

With respect to "highness" and "lowness," my ideas are only eclectic and not very clear. It appears to me that an unavoidable wish to compare all animals with men, as supreme, causes some confusion; and I think that nothing besides some such vague comparison is intended, or perhaps is even possible, when the question is whether two kingdoms such as the Articulata or Mollusca are the highest. Within the same kingdom I am inclined to think that "highest" usually means that form which has undergone most "morphological differentiation" from the common embryo or archetype of the cla.s.s; but then every now and then one is bothered (as Milne Edwards has remarked) by "retrograde development," i.e., the mature animal having fewer and less important organs than its own embryo. The specialisation of parts to different functions, or "the division of physiological labour" (35/1. A slip of the pen for "physiological division of labour.") of Milne Edwards exactly agrees (and to my mind is the best definition, when it can be applied) with what you state is your idea in regard to plants. I do not think zoologists agree in any definite ideas on this subject; and my ideas are not clearer than those of my brethren.

LETTER 36. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 2nd [1854].

I have had the house full of visitors, and when I talk I can do absolutely nothing else; and since then I have been poorly enough, otherwise I should have answered your letter long before this, for I enjoy extremely discussing such points as those in your last note. But what a villain you are to heap gratuitous insults on my ELASTIC theory: you might as well call the virtue of a lady elastic, as the virtue of a theory accommodating in its favours. Whatever you may say, I feel that my theory does give me some advantages in discussing these points. But to business: I keep my notes in such a way, viz., in bulk, that I cannot possibly lay my hand on any reference; nor as far as the vegetable kingdom is concerned do I distinctly remember having read any discussion on general highness or lowness, excepting Schleiden (I fancy) on Compositae being highest. Ad. de Jussieu (36/1. "Monographie de la Famille des Malpighiacees," by Adrien de Jussieu, "Arch. du Museum."

Volume III., page 1, 1843.), in "Arch. du Museum," Tome 3, discusses the value of characters of degraded flowers in the Malpighiaceae, but I doubt whether this at all concerns you. Mirbel somewhere has discussed some such question.

Plants lie under an enormous disadvantage in respect to such discussions in not pa.s.sing through larval stages. I do not know whether you can distinguish a plant low from non-development from one low from degradation, which theoretically, at least, are very distinct. I must agree with Forbes that a mollusc may be higher than one articulate animal and lower than another; if one was asked which was highest as a whole, the Molluscan or Articulate Kingdom, I should look to and compare the highest in each, and not compare their archetypes (supposing them to be known, which they are not.)

But there are, in my opinion, more difficult cases than any we have alluded to, viz., that of fish--but my ideas are not clear enough, and I do not suppose you would care to hear what I obscurely think on this subject. As far as my elastic theory goes, all I care about is that very ancient organisms (when different from existing) should tend to resemble the larval or embryological stages of the existing.

I am glad to hear what you say about parallelism: I am an utter disbeliever of any parallelism more than mere accident. It is very strange, but I think Forbes is often rather fanciful; his "Polarity"

(36/2. See Letter 41, Note.) makes me sick--it is like "magnetism"

turning a table.

If I can think of any one likely to take your "Ill.u.s.trations" (36/3.