There is hardly an opinion on the subject of descent with modification which does not find support in some one passage or another of the "Origin of Species." If it were desired to show that there is no substantial difference between the doctrine of Erasmus Darwin and that of his grandson, it would be easy to make out a good case for this, in spite of Mr. Darwin's calling his grandfather's views "erroneous," in the historical sketch prefixed to the later editions of the "Origin of Species." Passing over the passage already quoted on p. 62 of this book, in which Mr. Darwin declares "habit omnipotent and its effects hereditary"—a sentence, by the way, than which none can be either more unfalteringly Lamarckian or less tainted with the vices of Mr. Darwin's later style—passing this over as having been written some twenty years before the "Origin of Species"—the last paragraph of the "Origin of Species" itself is purely Lamarckian and Erasmus-Darwinian. It declares the laws in accordance with which organic forms assumed their present shape to be—"Growth with reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life and from use and disuse, &c." {158a} Wherein does this differ from the confession of faith made by Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck? Where are the accidental fortuitous, spontaneous variations now? And if they are not found important enough to demand mention in this peroration and stretto, as it were, of the whole matter, in which special prominence should be given to the special feature of the work, where ought they to be made important?

Mr. Darwin immediately goes on: "A ratio of existence so high as to lead to a struggle for life, and as a consequence to natural selection, entailing divergence of character and the extinction of less improved forms;" so that natural selection turns up after all. Yes—in the letters that compose it, but not in the spirit; not in the special sense up to this time attached to it in the "Origin of Species." The expression as used here is one with which Erasmus Darwin would have found little fault, for it means not as elsewhere in Mr. Darwin's book and on his title-page the preservation of "favoured" or lucky varieties, but the preservation of varieties that have come to be varieties through the causes assigned in the preceding two or three lines of Mr. Darwin's sentence; and these are mainly functional or Erasmus-Darwinian; for the indirect action of the conditions of life is mainly functional, and the direct action is admitted on all hands to be but small.

It now appears more plainly, as insisted upon on an earlier page, that there is not one natural selection and one survival of the fittest, but two, inasmuch as there are two classes of variations from which nature (supposing no exception taken to her personification) can select. The bottles have the same labels, and they are of the same colour, but the one holds brandy, and the other toast and water. Nature can, by a figure of speech, be said to select from variations that are mainly functional or from variations that are mainly accidental; in the first case she will eventually get an accumulation of variation, and widely different types will come into existence; in the second, the variations will not occur with sufficient steadiness for accumulation to be possible. In the body of Mr. Darwin's book the variations are supposed to be mainly due to accident, and function, though not denied all efficacy, is declared to be the greatly subordinate factor; natural selection, therefore, has been hitherto throughout tantamount to luck; in the peroration the position is reversed in toto; the selection is now made from variations into which luck has entered so little that it may be neglected, the greatly preponderating factor being function; here, then, natural selection is tantamount to cunning. We are such slaves of words that, seeing the words "natural selection" employed- -and forgetting that the results ensuing on natural selection will depend entirely on what it is that is selected from, so that the gist of the matter lies in this and not in the words "natural selection"—it escaped us that a change of front had been made, and a conclusion entirely alien to the tenor of the whole book smuggled into the last paragraph as the one which it had been written to support; the book preached luck, the peroration cunning.

And there can be no doubt Mr. Darwin intended that the change of front should escape us; for it cannot be believed that he did not perfectly well know what he had done. Mr. Darwin edited and re- edited with such minuteness of revision that it may be said no detail escaped him provided it was small enough; it is incredible that he should have allowed this paragraph to remain from first to last unchanged (except for the introduction of the words "by the Creator," which are wanting in the first edition) if they did not convey the conception he most wished his readers to retain. Even if in his first edition he had failed to see that he was abandoning in his last paragraph all that it had been his ostensible object most especially to support in the body of his book, he must have become aware of it long before he revised the "Origin of Species" for the last time; still he never altered it, and never put us on our guard.

It was not Mr. Darwin's manner to put his reader on his guard; we might as well expect Mr. Gladstone to put us on our guard about the Irish land bills. Caveat lector seems to have been his motto. Mr. Spencer, in the articles already referred to, is at pains to show that Mr. Darwin's opinions in later life underwent a change in the direction of laying greater stress on functionally produced modifications, and points out that in the sixth edition of the "Origin of Species" Mr. Darwin says, "I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them;" whereas in his first edition he said, "I think there can be LITTLE doubt" of this. Mr. Spencer also quotes a passage from "The Descent of Man," in which Mr. Darwin said that EVEN IN THE FIRST EDITION of the "Origin of Species" he had attributed great effect to function, as though in the later ones he had attributed still more; but if there was any considerable change of position, it should not have been left to be toilsomely collected by collation of editions, and comparison of passages far removed from one another in other books. If his mind had undergone the modification supposed by Mr. Spencer, Mr. Darwin should have said so in a prominent passage of some later edition of the "Origin of Species." He should have said—"In my earlier editions I underrated, as now seems probable, the effects of use and disuse as purveyors of the slight successive modifications whose accumulation in the ordinary course of things results in specific difference, and I laid too much stress on the accumulation of merely accidental variations;" having said this, he should have summarised the reasons that had made him change his mind, and given a list of the most important cases in which he has seen fit to alter what he had originally written. If Mr. Darwin had dealt thus with us we should have readily condoned all the mistakes he would have been at all likely to have made, for we should have known him as one who was trying to help us, tidy us up, keep us straight, and enable us to use our judgments to the best advantage. The public will forgive many errors alike of taste and judgment, where it feels that a writer persistently desires this.

I can only remember a couple of sentences in the later editions of the "Origin of Species" in which Mr. Darwin directly admits a change of opinion as regards the main causes of organic modification. How shuffling the first of these is I have already shown in "Life and Habit," p. 260, and in "Evolution, Old and New," p. 359; I need not, therefore, say more here, especially as there has been no rejoinder to what I then said. Curiously enough the sentence does not bear out Mr. Spencer's contention that Mr. Darwin in his later years leaned more decidedly towards functionally produced modifications, for it runs: {161a}—"In the earlier editions of this work I underrated, as now seems probable, the frequency and importance of modifications due," not, as Mr. Spencer would have us believe, to use and disuse, but "to spontaneous variability," by which can only be intended, "to variations in no way connected with use and disuse," as not being assignable to any known cause of general application, and referable as far as we are concerned to accident only; so that he gives the natural survival of the luckiest, which is indeed his distinctive feature, if it deserve to be called a feature at all, greater prominence than ever. Nevertheless there is no change in his concluding paragraph, which still remains an embodiment of the views of Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck.

The other passage is on p. 421 of the edition of 1876. It stands:- "I have now recapitulated the facts and considerations which have thoroughly" (why "thoroughly"?) "convinced me that species have been modified during a long course of descent. This has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous, successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts; and in an unimportant manner, that is, in relation to adaptive structures, whether past or present, by the direct action of external conditions, and by variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection."

Here, again, it is not use and disuse which Mr. Darwin declares himself to have undervalued, but spontaneous variations. The sentence just given is one of the most confusing I ever read even in the works of Mr Darwin. It is the essence of his theory that the "numerous successive, slight, favourable variations," above referred to, should be fortuitous, accidental, spontaneous; it is evident, moreover, that they are intended in this passage to be accidental or spontaneous, although neither of these words is employed, inasmuch as use and disuse and the action of the conditions of existence, whether direct or indirect, are mentioned specially as separate causes which purvey only the minor part of the variations from among which nature selects. The words "that is, in relation to adaptive forms" should be omitted, as surplusage that draws the reader's attention from the point at issue; the sentence really amounts to this—that modification has been effected CHIEFLY THROUGH SELECTION in the ordinary course of nature FROM AMONG SPONTANEOUS VARIATIONS, AIDED IN AN UNIMPORTANT MANNER BY VARIATIONS WHICH QUa US ARE SPONTANEOUS. Nevertheless, though these spontaneous variations are still so trifling in effect that they only aid spontaneous variations in an unimportant manner, in his earlier editions Mr. Darwin thought them still less important than he does now.

This comes of tinkering. We do not know whether we are on our heads or our heels. We catch ourselves repeating "important," "unimportant," "unimportant," "important," like the King when addressing the jury in "Alice in Wonderland;" and yet this is the book of which Mr. Grant Allen {163a} says that it is "one of the greatest, and most learned, the most lucid, the most logical, the most crushing, the most conclusive, that the world has ever seen. Step by step, and principle by principle, it proved every point in its progress triumphantly before it went on to the next. So vast an array of facts so thoroughly in hand had never before been mustered and marshalled in favour of any biological theory." The book and the eulogy are well mated.

I see that in the paragraph following on the one just quoted, Mr. Allen says, that "to the world at large Darwinism and evolution became at once synonymous terms." Certainly it was no fault of Mr. Darwin's if they did not, but I will add more on this head presently; for the moment, returning to Mr. Darwin, it is hardly credible, but it is nevertheless true, that Mr Darwin begins the paragraph next following on the one on which I have just reflected so severely, with the words, "It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified." If Mr. Darwin found the large classes of facts "satisfactorily" explained by the survival of the luckiest irrespectively of the cunning which enabled them to turn their luck to account, he must have been easily satisfied. Perhaps he was in the same frame of mind as when he said {164a} that "even an imperfect answer would be satisfactory," but surely this is being thankful for small mercies.

On the following page Mr. Darwin says:- "Although I am fully" (why "fully"?) "convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume under the form of an abstract, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists," &c. I have not quoted the whole of Mr. Darwin's sentence, but it implies that any experienced naturalist who remained unconvinced was an old-fashioned, prejudiced person. I confess that this is what I rather feel about the experienced naturalists who differ in only too great numbers from myself, but I did not expect to find so much of the old Adam remaining in Mr. Darwin; I did not expect to find him support me in the belief that naturalists are made of much the same stuff as other people, and, if they are wise, will look upon new theories with distrust until they find them becoming generally accepted. I am not sure that Mr. Darwin is not just a little bit flippant here.

Sometimes I ask myself whether it is possible that, not being convinced, I may be an experienced naturalist after all; at other times, when I read Mr. Darwin's works and those of his eulogists, I wonder whether there is not some other Mr. Darwin, some other "Origin of Species," some other Professors Huxley, Tyndal, and Ray Lankester, and whether in each case some malicious fiend has not palmed off a counterfeit upon me that differs toto caelo from the original. I felt exactly the same when I read Goethe's "Wilhelm Meister"; I could not believe my eyes, which nevertheless told me that the dull diseased trash I was so toilsomely reading was a work which was commonly held to be one of the great literary masterpieces of the world. It seemed to me that there must be some other Goethe and some other Wilhelm Meister. Indeed I find myself so depressingly out of harmony with the prevailing not opinion only, but spirit—if, indeed, the Huxleys, Tyndals, Miss Buckleys, Ray Lankesters, and Romaneses express the prevailing spirit as accurately as they appear to do—that at times I find it difficult to believe I am not the victim of hallucination; nevertheless I know that either every canon, whether of criticism or honourable conduct, which I have learned to respect is an impudent swindle, suitable for the cloister only, and having no force or application in the outside world; or else that Mr. Darwin and his supporters are misleading the public to the full as much as the theologians of whom they speak at times so disapprovingly. They sin, moreover, with incomparably less excuse. Right as they doubtless are in much, and much as we doubtless owe them (so we owe much also to the theologians, and they also are right in much), they are giving way to a temper which cannot be indulged with impunity. I know the great power of academicism; I know how instinctively academicism everywhere must range itself on Mr. Darwin's side, and how askance it must look on those who write as I do; but I know also that there is a power before which even academicism must bow, and to this power I look not unhopefully for support.

As regards Mr. Spencer's contention that Mr. Darwin leaned more towards function as he grew older, I do not doubt that at the end of his life Mr. Darwin believed modification to be mainly due to function, but the passage quoted on page 62 written in 1839, coupled with the concluding paragraph of the "Origin of Species" written in 1859, and allowed to stand during seventeen years of revision, though so much else was altered—these passages, when their dates and surroundings are considered, suggest strongly that Mr. Darwin thought during all the forty years or so thus covered exactly as his grandfather and Lamarck had done, and indeed as all sensible people since Buffon wrote have done if they have accepted evolution at all.

Then why should he not have said so? What object could he have in writing an elaborate work to support a theory which he knew all the time to be untenable? The impropriety of such a course, unless the work was, like Buffon's, transparently ironical, could only be matched by its fatuousness, or indeed by the folly of one who should assign action so motiveless to any one out of a lunatic asylum.

This sounds well, but unfortunately we cannot forget that when Mr. Darwin wrote the "Origin of Species" he claimed to be the originator of the theory of descent with modification generally; that he did this without one word of reference either to Buffon or Erasmus Darwin until the first six thousand copies of his book had been sold, and then with as meagre, inadequate notice as can be well conceived. Lamarck was just named in the first editions of the "Origin of Species," but only to be told that Mr. Darwin had not got anything to give him, and he must go away; the author of the "Vestiges of Creation" was also just mentioned, but only in a sentence full of such gross misrepresentation that Mr. Darwin did not venture to stand by it, and expunged it in later editions, as usual, without calling attention to what he had done. It would have been in the highest degree imprudent, not to say impossible, for one so conscientious as Mr. Darwin to have taken the line he took in respect of descent with modification generally, if he were not provided with some ostensibly distinctive feature, in virtue of which, if people said anything, he might claim to have advanced something different, and widely different, from the theory of evolution propounded by his illustrious predecessors; a distinctive theory of some sort, therefore, had got to be looked for—and if people look in this spirit they can generally find.

I imagine that Mr. Darwin, casting about for a substantial difference, and being unable to find one, committed the Gladstonian blunder of mistaking an unsubstantial for a substantial one. It was doubtless because he suspected it that he never took us fully into his confidence, nor in all probability allowed even to himself how deeply he distrusted it. Much, however, as he disliked the accumulation of accidental variations, he disliked not claiming the theory of descent with modification still more; and if he was to claim this, accidental his variations had got to be. Accidental they accordingly were, but in as obscure and perfunctory a fashion as Mr. Darwin could make them consistently with their being to hand as accidental variations should later developments make this convenient. Under these circumstances it was hardly to be expected that Mr. Darwin should help the reader to follow the workings of his mind—nor, again, that a book the writer of which was hampered as I have supposed should prove clear and easy reading.

The attitude of Mr. Darwin's mind, whatever it may have been in regard to the theory of descent with modification generally, goes so far to explain his attitude in respect to the theory of natural selection (which, it cannot be too often repeated, is only one of the conditions of existence advanced as the main means of modification by the earlier evolutionists), that it is worth while to settle the question once for all whether Mr. Darwin did or did not believe himself justified in claiming the theory of descent as an original discovery of his own. This will be a task of some little length, and may perhaps try the reader's patience, as it assuredly tried mine; if, however, he will read the two following chapters, he will probably be able to make up his mind upon much that will otherwise, if he thinks about it at all, continue to puzzle him.



CHAPTER XIII—Darwin's Claim to Descent with Modification



Mr. Allen, in his "Charles Darwin," {168a} says that "in the public mind Mr. Darwin is commonly regarded as the discoverer and founder of the evolution hypothesis," and on p. 177 he says that to most men Darwinism and evolution mean one and the same thing. Mr. Allen declares misconception on this matter to be "so extremely general" as to be "almost universal;" this is more true than creditable to Mr. Darwin.

Mr. Allen says {168b} that though Mr. Darwin gained "far wider general acceptance" for both the doctrine of descent in general, and for that of the descent of man from a simious or semi-simious ancestor in particular, "he laid no sort of claim to originality or proprietorship in either theory." This is not the case. No one can claim a theory more frequently and more effectually than Mr. Darwin claimed descent with modification, nor, as I have already said, is it likely that the misconception of which Mr. Allen complains would be general, if he had not so claimed it. The "Origin of Species" begins:-

"When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relation of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. On my return home it occurred to me, in 1837, that something might perhaps be made out on this question by patiently accumulating and reflecting upon all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on it. After five years' work I allowed myself to speculate upon the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 {169a} into a sketch of the conclusions which then seemed to me probable. From that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the same object. I hope I may be excused these personal details, as I give them to show that I have not been hasty in coming to a decision."

This is bland, but peremptory. Mr. Darwin implies that the mere asking of the question how species has come about opened up a field into which speculation itself had hardly yet ventured to intrude. It was the mystery of mysteries; one of our greatest philosophers had said so; not one little feeble ray of light had ever yet been thrown upon it. Mr. Darwin knew all this, and was appalled at the greatness of the task that lay before him; still, after he had pondered on what he had seen in South America, it really did occur to him, that if he was very very patient, and went on reflecting for years and years longer, upon all sorts of facts, good, bad, and indifferent, which could possibly have any bearing on the subject— and what fact might not possibly have some bearing?—well, something, as against the nothing that had been made out hitherto, might by some faint far-away possibility be one day dimly seem. It was only what he had seen in South America that made all this occur to him. He had never seen anything about descent with modification in any book, nor heard any one talk about it as having been put forward by other people; if he had, he would, of course, have been the first to say so; he was not as other philosophers are; so the mountain went on for years and years gestating, but still there was no labour.

"My work," continues Mr. Darwin, "is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three years to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this abstract. I have been more especially induced to do this, as Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the natural history of the Malay Archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions that I have on the origin of species." Mr. Darwin was naturally anxious to forestall Mr. Wallace, and hurried up with his book. What reader, on finding descent with modification to be its most prominent feature, could doubt—especially if new to the subject, as the greater number of Mr. Darwin's readers in 1859 were—that this same descent with modification was the theory which Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace had jointly hit upon, and which Mr. Darwin was so anxious to show that he had not been hasty in adopting? When Mr. Darwin went on to say that his abstract would be very imperfect, and that he could not give references and authorities for his several statements, we did not suppose that such an apology could be meant to cover silence concerning writers who during their whole lives, or nearly so, had borne the burden and heat of the day in respect of descent with modification in its most extended application. "I much regret," says Mr. Darwin, "that want of space prevents my having the satisfaction of acknowledging the generous assistance I have received from very many naturalists, some of them personally unknown to me." This is like what the Royal Academicians say when they do not intend to hang our pictures; they can, however, generally find space for a picture if they want to hang it, and we assume with safety that there are no master-works by painters of the very highest rank for which no space has been available. Want of space will, indeed, prevent my quoting from more than one other paragraph of Mr. Darwin's introduction; this paragraph, however, should alone suffice to show how inaccurate Mr. Allen is in saying that Mr. Darwin "laid no sort of claim to originality or proprietorship" in the theory of descent with modification, and this is the point with which we are immediately concerned. Mr. Darwin says:-

"In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended like varieties from other species."

It will be observed that not only is no hint given here that descent with modification was a theory which, though unknown to the general public, had been occupying the attention of biologists for a hundred years and more, but it is distinctly implied that this was not the case. When Mr. Darwin said it was "conceivable that a naturalist might" arrive at the theory of descent, straightforward readers took him to mean that though this was conceivable, it had never, to Mr. Darwin's knowledge, been done. If we had a notion that we had already vaguely heard of the theory that men and the lower animals were descended from common ancestors, we must have been wrong; it was not this that we had heard of, but something else, which, though doubtless a little like it, was all wrong, whereas this was obviously going to be all right.

To follow the rest of the paragraph with the closeness that it merits would be a task at once so long and so unpleasant that I will omit further reference to any part of it except the last sentence. That sentence runs:-

"In the case of the mistletoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of the external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself."

Doubtless it would be preposterous to refer the structure of either woodpecker or mistletoe to the single agency of any one of these three causes; but neither Lamarck nor any other writer on evolution has, so far as I know, even contemplated this; the early evolutionists supposed organic modification to depend on the action and interaction of all three, and I venture to think that this will ere long be considered as, to say the least of it, not more preposterous than the assigning of the largely preponderating share in the production of such highly and variously correlated organisms as the mistletoe and woodpecker mainly to luck pure and simple, as is done by Mr. Charles Darwin's theory.

It will be observed that in the paragraph last quoted from, Mr. Darwin, more suo, is careful not to commit himself. All he has said is, that it would be preposterous to do something the preposterousness of which cannot be reasonably disputed; the impression, however, is none the less effectually conveyed, that some one of the three assigned agencies, taken singly, was the only cause of modification ever yet proposed, if, indeed, any writer had even gone so far as this. We knew we did not know much about the matter ourselves, and that Mr. Darwin was a naturalist of long and high standing; we naturally, therefore, credited him with the same good faith as a writer that we knew in ourselves as readers; it never so much as crossed our minds to suppose that the head which he was holding up all dripping before our eyes as that of a fool, was not that of a fool who had actually lived and written, but only of a figure of straw which had been dipped in a bucket of red paint. Naturally enough we concluded, since Mr. Darwin seemed to say so, that if his predecessors had nothing better to say for themselves than this, it would not be worth while to trouble about them further; especially as we did not know who they were, nor what they had written, and Mr. Darwin did not tell us. It would be better and less trouble to take the goods with which it was plain Mr. Darwin was going to provide us, and ask no questions. We have seen that even tolerably obvious conclusions were rather slow in occurring to poor simple-minded Mr. Darwin, and may be sure that it never once occurred to him that the British public would be likely to argue thus; he had no intention of playing the scientific confidence trick upon us. I dare say not, but unfortunately the result has closely resembled the one that would have ensued if Mr. Darwin had had such an intention.

The claim to originality made so distinctly in the opening sentences of the" Origin of Species" is repeated in a letter to Professor Haeckel, written October 8, 1864, and giving an account of the development of his belief in descent with modification. This letter, part of which is quoted by Mr. Allen, {173a} is given on p. 134 of the English translation of Professor Haeckel's "History of Creation," {173b} and runs as follows:-

"In South America three classes of facts were brought strongly before my mind. Firstly, the manner in which closely allied species replace species in going southward. Secondly, the close affinity of the species inhabiting the islands near South America to those proper to the continent. This struck me profoundly, especially the difference of the species in the adjoining islets in the Galapagos Archipelago. Thirdly, the relation of the living Edentata and Rodentia to the extinct species. I shall never forget my astonishment when I dug out a gigantic piece of armour like that of the living armadillo.

"Reflecting on these facts, and collecting analogous ones, it seemed to me probable that allied species were descended from a common ancestor. But during several years I could not conceive how each form could have been modified so as to become admirably adapted to its place in nature. I began, therefore, to study domesticated animals and cultivated plants, and after a time perceived that man's power of selecting and breeding from certain individuals was the most powerful of all means in the production of new races. Having attended to the habits of animals and their relations to the surrounding conditions, I was able to realise the severe struggle for existence to which all organisms are subjected, and my geological observations had allowed me to appreciate to a certain extent the duration of past geological periods. Therefore, when I happened to read Malthus on population, the idea of natural selection flashed on me. Of all minor points, the last which I appreciated was the importance and cause of the principle of divergence."

This is all very naive, and accords perfectly with the introductory paragraphs of the "Origin of Species;" it gives us the same picture of a solitary thinker, a poor, lonely, friendless student of nature, who had never so much as heard of Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, or Lamarck. Unfortunately, however, we cannot forget the description of the influences which, according to Mr. Grant Allen, did in reality surround Mr. Darwin's youth, and certainly they are more what we should have expected than those suggested rather than expressly stated by Mr. Darwin. "Everywhere around him," says Mr. Allen, {174a} "in his childhood and youth these great but formless" (why "formless"?) "evolutionary ideas were brewing and fermenting. The scientific society of his elders and of the contemporaries among whom he grew up was permeated with the leaven of Laplace and Lamarck, of Hutton and of Herschel. Inquiry was especially everywhere rife as to the origin and nature of specific distinctions among plants and animals. Those who believed in the doctrine of Buffon and of the 'Zoonomia,' and those who disbelieved in it, alike, were profoundly interested and agitated in soul by the far- reaching implications of that fundamental problem. On every side evolutionism, in its crude form." (I suppose Mr. Allen could not help saying "in its crude form," but descent with modification in 1809 meant, to all intents and purposes, and was understood to mean, what it means now, or ought to mean, to most people.) "The universal stir," says Mr. Allen on the following page, "and deep prying into evolutionary questions which everywhere existed among scientific men in his early days was naturally communicated to a lad born of a scientific family and inheriting directly in blood and bone the biological tastes and tendencies of Erasmus Darwin."

I confess to thinking that Mr. Allen's account of the influences which surrounded Mr. Darwin's youth, if tainted with picturesqueness, is still substantially correct. On an earlier page he had written:- "It is impossible to take up any scientific memoirs or treatises of the first half of our own century without seeing at a glance how every mind of high original scientific importance was permeated and disturbed by the fundamental questions aroused, but not fully answered, by Buffon, Lamarck, and Erasmus Darwin. In Lyell's letters, and in Agassiz's lectures, in the 'Botanic Journal' and in the 'Philosophical Transactions,' in treatises on Madeira beetles and the Australian flora, we find everywhere the thoughts of men profoundly influenced in a thousand directions by this universal evolutionary solvent and leaven.

"And while the world of thought was thus seething and moving restlessly before the wave of ideas set in motion by these various independent philosophers, another group of causes in another field was rendering smooth the path beforehand for the future champion of the amended evolutionism. Geology on the one hand and astronomy on the other were making men's minds gradually familiar with the conception of slow natural development, as opposed to immediate and miraculous creation.

. . .

"The influence of these novel conceptions upon the growth and spread of evolutionary ideas was far-reaching and twofold. In the first place, the discovery of a definite succession of nearly related organic forms following one another with evident closeness through the various ages, inevitably suggested to every inquiring observer the possibility of their direct descent one from the other. In the second place, the discovery that geological formations were not really separated each from its predecessor by violent revolutions, but were the result of gradual and ordinary changes, discredited the old idea of frequent fresh creations after each catastrophe, and familiarised the minds of men of science with the alternative notion of slow and natural evolutionary processes. The past was seen in effect to be the parent of the present; the present was recognised as the child of the past."

This is certainly not Mr. Darwin's own account of the matter. Probably the truth will lie somewhere between the two extreme views: and on the one hand, the world of thought was not seething quite so badly as Mr. Allen represents it, while on the other, though "three classes of fact," &c., were undoubtedly "brought strongly before" Mr. Darwin's "mind in South America," yet some of them had perhaps already been brought before it at an earlier time, which he did not happen to remember at the moment of writing his letter to Professor Haeckel and the opening paragraph of the "Origin of Species."



CHAPTER XIV—Darwin and Descent with Modification (continued)



I have said enough to show that Mr. Darwin claimed I to have been the originator of the theory of descent with modification as distinctly as any writer usually claims any theory; but it will probably save the reader trouble in the end if I bring together a good many, though not, probably, all (for I much disliked the task, and discharged it perfunctorily), of the passages in the "Origin of Species" in which the theory of descent with modification in its widest sense is claimed expressly or by implication. I shall quote from the original edition, which, it should be remembered, consisted of the very unusually large number of four thousand copies, and from which no important deviation was made either by addition or otherwise until a second edition of two thousand further copies had been sold; the "Historical Sketch," &c., being first given with the third edition. The italics, which I have employed so as to catch the reader's eye, are mine, not Mr. Darwin's. Mr. Darwin writes:-

"Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I CAN ENTERTAIN NO DOUBT, AFTER THE MOST DELIBERATE STUDY AND DISPASSIONATE JUDGMENT OF WHICH I AM CAPABLE, THAT THE VIEW WHICH MOST NATURALISTS ENTERTAIN, AND WHICH I FORMERLY ENTERTAINED—NAMELY THAT EACH SPECIES HAS BEEN INDEPENDENTLY CREATED—IS ERRONEOUS. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable, but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that natural selection" (or the preservation of fortunate races) "has been the main but not exclusive means of modification" (p. 6).

It is not here expressly stated that the theory of the mutability of species is Mr. Darwin's own; this, nevertheless, is the inference which the great majority of his readers were likely to draw, and did draw, from Mr. Darwin's words.

Again:-

"It is not that all large genera are now varying much, and are thus increasing in the number of their species, or that no small genera are now multiplying and increasing; for if this had been so it would have been fatal to MY THEORY; inasmuch as geology," &c. (p. 56).

The words "my theory" stand in all the editions. Again:-

"This relation has a clear meaning ON MY VIEW of the subject; I look upon all the species of any genus as having as certainly descended from the same progenitor, as have the two sexes of any one of the species" (p. 157).

"My view" here, especially in the absence of reference to any other writer as having held the same opinion, implies as its most natural interpretation that descent pure and simple is Mr. Darwin's view. Substitute "the theory of descent" for "my view," and we do not feel that we are misinterpreting the author's meaning. The words "my view" remain in all editions.

Again:-

"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but to the best of my belief the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, FATAL TO MY THEORY.

"These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:- Firstly, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, why do we not everywhere see?" &c. (p. 171).

We infer from this that "my theory" is the theory "that species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations"—that is to say, that it is the theory of descent with modification; for the theory that is being objected to is obviously the theory of descent in toto, and not a mere detail in connection with that theory.

The words "my theory" were altered in 1872, with the sixth edition of the "Origin of species," into "the theory;" but I am chiefly concerned with the first edition of the work, my object being to show that Mr. Darwin was led into his false position as regards natural selection by a desire to claim the theory of descent with modification; if he claimed it in the first edition, this is enough to give colour to the view which I take; but it must be remembered that descent with modification remained, by the passage just quoted "my theory," for thirteen years, and even when in 1869 and 1872, for a reason that I can only guess at, "my theory" became generally "the theory," this did not make it become any one else's theory. It is hard to say whose or what it became, if the words are to be construed technically; practically, however, with all ingenuous readers, "the theory" remained as much Mr. Darwin's theory as though the words "my theory" had been retained, and Mr. Darwin cannot be supposed so simple-minded as not to have known this would be the case. Moreover, it appears, from the next page but one to the one last quoted, that Mr. Darwin claimed the theory of descent with modification generally, even to the last, for we there read, "BY MY THEORY these allied species have descended from a common parent," and the "my" has been allowed, for some reason not quite obvious, to survive the general massacre of Mr. Darwin's "my's" which occurred in 1869 and 1872.

Again:-

"He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it, must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met," &c. (p. 185).

Here the argument evidently lies between descent and independent acts of creation. This appears from the paragraph immediately following, which begins, "He who believes in separate and innumerable acts of creation," &c. We therefore understand descent to be the theory so frequently spoken of by Mr. Darwin as "my."

Again:-

"He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained BY THE THEORY OF DESCENT, ought not to hesitate to go farther, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as an eagle's eye might be formed BY NATURAL SELECTION, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades" (p. 188).

The natural inference from this is that descent and natural selection are one and the same thing.

Again:-

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, MY THEORY would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my THEORY, there has been much extinction" (p. 189).

This makes "my theory" to be "the theory that complex organs have arisen by numerous, successive, slight modifications;" that is to say, to be the theory of descent with modification. The first of the two "my theory's" in the passage last quoted has been allowed to stand. The second became "the theory" in 1872. It is obvious, therefore, that "the theory" means "my theory;" it is not so obvious why the change should have been made at all, nor why the one "my theory" should have been taken and the other left, but I will return to this question.

Again, Mr. Darwin writes:-

"Although we must be extremely cautious in concluding that any organ could not possibly have been produced by small successive transitional gradations, yet, undoubtedly grave cases of difficulty occur, some of which will be discussed in my future work" (p. 192).

This, as usual, implies descent with modification to be the theory that Mr. Darwin is trying to make good.

Again:-

"I have been astonished how rarely an organ can be named towards which no transitional variety is known to lead . . . Why, ON THE THEORY OF CREATION, should this be so? Why should not nature have taken a leap from structure to structure? ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION we can clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the slowest and shortest steps" (p. 194).

Here "the theory of natural selection" is opposed to "the theory of creation;" we took it, therefore, to be another way of saying "the theory of descent with modification."

Again:-

"We have in this chapter discussed some of the difficulties and objections which may be urged against MY THEORY. Many of them are very grave, but I think that in the discussion light has been thrown on several facts which, ON THE THEORY OF INDEPENDENT ACTS OF CREATION, are utterly obscure" (p. 203).

Here we have, on the one hand, "my theory," on the other, "independent acts of creation." The natural antithesis to independent acts of creation is descent, and we assumed with reason that Mr. Darwin was claiming this when he spoke of "my theory." "My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.

Again:-

"On the theory of natural selection we can clearly understand the full meaning of that old canon in natural history, 'Natura non facit saltum.' This canon, if we look only to the present inhabitants of the world is not strictly correct, but if we include all those of past times, it must BY MY THEORY be strictly true" (p. 206).

Here the natural interpretation of "by my theory" is "by the theory of descent with modification;" the words "on the theory of natural selection," with which the sentence opens, lead us to suppose that Mr. Darwin regarded natural selection and descent as convertible terms. "My theory" was altered to "this theory" in 1872. Six lines lower down we read, "ON MY THEORY unity of type is explained by unity of descent." The "my" here has been allowed to stand.

Again:-

"Again, as in the case of corporeal structure, and conformably with MY THEORY, the instinct of each species is good for itself, but has never," &c. (p. 210).

Who was to see that "my theory" did not include descent with modification? The "my" here has been allowed to stand.

Again:-

"The fact that instincts . . . are liable to make mistakes;—that no instinct has been produced for the exclusive good of other animals, but that each animal takes advantage of the instincts of others;— that the canon of natural history, 'Natura non facit saltum,' is applicable to instincts as well as to corporeal structure, and is plainly explicable on the foregoing views, but is otherwise inexplicable,—ALL TEND TO CORROBORATE THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 243).

We feel that it is the theory of evolution, or descent with modification, that is here corroborated, and that it is this which Mr. Darwin is mainly trying to establish; the sentence should have ended "all tend to corroborate the theory of descent with modification;" the substitution of "natural selection" for descent tends to make us think that these conceptions are identical. That they are so regarded, or at any rate that it is the theory of descent in full which Mr. Darwin has in his mind, appears from the immediately succeeding paragraph, which begins "THIS THEORY," and continues six lines lower, "For instance, we can understand, on the PRINCIPLE OF INHERITANCE, how it is that," &c.

Again:-

"In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, ON MY THEORY, formerly have existed" (p. 280).

"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869. No reader who read in good faith could doubt that the theory of descent with modification was being here intended.

"It is just possible BY MY THEORY, that one of two living forms might have descended from the other; for instance, a horse from a tapir; but in this case DIRECT intermediate links will have existed between them" (p. 281).

"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.

Again:-

"BY THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION all living species have been connected with the parent species of each genus," &c. We took this to mean, "By the theory of descent with modification all living species," &c. (p. 281).

Again:-

"Some experienced conchologists are now sinking many of the very fine species of D'Orbigny and others into the rank of varieties; and on this view we do find the kind of evidence of change which ON MY THEORY we ought to find" (p. 297).

"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.

In the fourth edition (1866), in a passage which is not in either of the two first editions, we read (p. 359), "So that here again we have undoubted evidence of change in the direction required by MY THEORY." "My theory" became "the theory" in 1869; the theory of descent with modification is unquestionably intended.

Again:-

"Geological research has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against MY VIEWS" (p. 299).

We naturally took "my views" to mean descent with modification. The "my" has been allowed to stand.

Again:-

"If, then, there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find in our geological formations an infinite number of those transitional forms which ON MY THEORY assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group in one long and branching chain of life . . . But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and at the close of each formation pressed so hardly ON MY THEORY" (pp. 301, 302).

Substitute "descent with modification" for "my theory" and the meaning does not suffer. The first of the two "my theories" in the passage last quoted was altered in 1869 into "our theory;" the second has been allowed to stand.

Again:-

"The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in some formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists . . . as a fatal objection TO THE BELIEF IN THE TRANSMUTATION OF SPECIES. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal TO THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH SLOW MODIFICATION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 302).

Here "the belief in the transmutation of species," or descent with modification, is treated as synonymous with "the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection; "but it has nowhere been explained that there are two widely different "theories of descent with slow modification through natural selection," the one of which may be true enough for all practical purposes, while the other is seen to be absurd as soon as it is examined closely. The theory of descent with modification is not properly convertible with either of these two views, for descent with modification deals with the question whether species are transmutable or no, and dispute as to the respective merits of the two natural selections deals with the question how it comes to be transmuted; nevertheless, the words "the theory of descent with slow modification through the ordinary course of things" (which is what "descent with modification through natural selection" comes to) may be considered as expressing the facts with practical accuracy, if the ordinary course of nature is supposed to be that modification is mainly consequent on the discharge of some correlated function, and that modification, if favourable, will tend to accumulate so long as the given function continues important to the wellbeing of the organism; the words, however, have no correspondence with reality if they are supposed to imply that variations which are mainly matters of pure chance and unconnected in any way with function will accumulate and result in specific difference, no matter how much each one of them may be preserved in the generation in which it appears. In the one case, therefore, the expression natural selection may be loosely used as a synonym for descent with modification, and in the other it may not. Unfortunately with Mr. Charles Darwin the variations are mainly accidental. The words "through natural selection," therefore, in the passage last quoted carry no weight, for it is the wrong natural selection that is, or ought to be, intended; practically, however, they derived a weight from Mr. Darwin's name to which they had no title of their own, and we understood that "the theory of descent with slow modification" through the kind of natural selection ostensibly intended by Mr. Darwin was a quasi-synonymous expression for the transmutation of species. We understood—so far as we understood anything beyond that we were to believe in descent with modification—that natural selection was Mr. Darwin's theory; we therefore concluded, since Mr. Darwin seemed to say so, that the theory of the transmutation of species generally was so also. At any rate we felt as regards the passage last quoted that the theory of descent with modification was the point of attack and defence, and we supposed it to be the theory so often referred to by Mr. Darwin as "my."

Again:-

"Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from the living species; and it cannot ON MY THEORY be supposed that these old species were the progenitors," &c. (p. 306) . . . "Consequently IF MY THEORY BE TRUE, it is indisputable," &c. (p. 307).

Here the two "my theories" have been altered, the first into "our theory," and the second into "the theory," both in 1869; but, as usual, the thing that remains with the reader is the theory of descent, and it remains morally and practically as much claimed when called "the theory"—as during the many years throughout which the more open "my" distinctly claimed it.

Again:-

"All the most eminent palaeontologists, namely, Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained THE IMMUTABILITY OF SPECIES. . . . I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities . . . Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds brought forward in this volume, will undoubtedly at once REJECT MY THEORY" (p. 310).

What is "my theory" here, if not that of the mutability of species, or the theory of descent with modification? "My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.

Again:-

"Let us now see whether the several facts and rules relating to the geological succession of organic beings, better accord with the common view of the immutability of species, or with that of their SLOW AND GRADUAL MODIFICATION, THROUGH DESCENT AND NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 312).

The words "natural selection" are indeed here, but they might as well be omitted for all the effect they produce. The argument is felt to be about the two opposed theories of descent, and independent creative efforts.

Again:-

"These several facts accord well with MY THEORY" (p. 314). That "my theory" is the theory of descent is the conclusion most naturally drawn from the context. "My theory" became "our theory" in 1869.

Again:-

"This gradual increase in the number of the species of a group is strictly conformable WITH MY THEORY; for the process of modification and the production of a number of allied forms must be slow and gradual, . . . like the branching of a great tree from a single stem, till the group becomes large" (p. 314).

"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869. We took "my theory" to be the theory of descent; that Mr. Darwin treats this as synonymous with the theory of natural selection appears from the next paragraph, on the third line of which we read, "On THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION the extinction of old forms," &c.

Again:-

"THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION is grounded on the belief that each new variety and ultimately each new species, is produced and maintained by having some advantage over those with which it comes into competition; and the consequent extinction of less favoured forms almost inevitably follows" (p. 320). Sense and consistency cannot be made of this passage. Substitute "The theory of the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" for "The theory of natural selection" (to do this is only taking Mr. Darwin's own synonym for natural selection) and see what the passage comes to. "The preservation of favoured races" is not a theory, it is a commonly observed fact; it is not "grounded on the belief that each new variety," &c., it is one of the ultimate and most elementary principles in the world of life. When we try to take the passage seriously and think it out, we soon give it up, and pass on, substituting "the theory of descent" for "the theory of natural selection," and concluding that in some way these two things must be identical.

Again:-

"The manner in which single species and whole groups of species become extinct accords well with THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 322).

Again:-

"This great fact of the parallel succession of the forms of life throughout the world, is explicable ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 325).

Again:-

"Let us now look to the mutual affinities of extinct and living species. They all fall into one grand natural system; and this is at once explained ON THE PRINCIPLE OF DESCENT" (p. 329).

Putting the three preceding passages together, we naturally inferred that "the theory of natural selection" and "the principle of descent" were the same things. We knew Mr. Darwin claimed the first, and therefore unhesitatingly gave him the second at the same time.

Again:-

"Let us see how far these several facts and inferences accord with THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION" (p. 331)

Again:-

"Thus, ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, the main facts with regard to the mutual affinities of the extinct forms of life to each other and to living forms, seem to me explained in a satisfactory manner. And they are wholly inexplicable ON ANY OTHER VIEW" (p. 333).

The words "seem to me" involve a claim in the absence of so much as a hint in any part of the book concerning indebtedness to earlier writers.

Again:-

"ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT, the full meaning of the fossil remains," &c. (p. 336).

In the following paragraph we read:-

"But in one particular sense the more recent forms must, ON MY THEORY, be higher than the more ancient."

Again:-

"Agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of recent animals of the same classes; or that the geological succession of extinct forms is in some degree parallel to the embryological development of recent forms. . . . This doctrine of Agassiz accords well with THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 338).

"The theory of natural selection" became "our theory" in 1869. The opinion of Agassiz accords excellently with the theory of descent with modification, but it is not easy to see how it bears upon the fact that lucky races are preserved in the struggle for life—which, according to Mr. Darwin's title-page, is what is meant by natural selection.

Again:-

"ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, the great law of the long-enduring but not immutable succession of the same types within the same areas, is at once explained" (p. 340).

Again:-

"It must not be forgotten that, ON MY THEORY, all the species of the same genus have descended from some one species" (p. 341).

"My theory" became "our theory" in 1869.

Again:-

"He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject MY WHOLE THEORY" (p. 342).

"My" became "our" in 1869.

Again:-

"Passing from these difficulties, the other great leading facts in palaeontology agree admirably with THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION THROUGH VARIATION AND NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 343).

Again:-

The succession of the same types of structure within the same areas during the later geological periods CEASES TO BE MYSTERIOUS, and IS SIMPLY EXPLAINED BY INHERITANCE (p. 345).

I suppose inheritance was not when Mr. Darwin wrote considered mysterious. The last few words have been altered to "and is intelligible on the principle of inheritance." It seems as though Mr. Darwin did not like saying that inheritance was not mysterious, but had no objection to implying that it was intelligible.

The next paragraph begins—"If, then, the geological record be as imperfect as I believe it to be, . . . the main objections TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION are greatly diminished or disappear. On the other hand, all the chief laws of palaeontology plainly proclaim, AS IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT SPECIES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY ORDINARY GENERATION."

Here again the claim to the theory of descent with modification is unmistakable; it cannot, moreover, but occur to us that if species "have been produced by ordinary generation," then ordinary generation has as good a claim to be the main means of originating species as natural selection has. It is hardly necessary to point out that ordinary generation involves descent with modification, for all known offspring differ from their parents, so far, at any rate, as that practised judges can generally tell them apart.

Again:-

"We see in these facts some deep organic bond, prevailing throughout space and time, over the same areas of land and water, and independent of their physical condition. The naturalist must feel little curiosity who is not led to inquire what this bond is.

"This bond, ON MY THEORY, IS SIMPLY INHERITANCE, that cause which alone," &c. (p. 350).

This passage was altered in 1869 to "The bond is simply inheritance." The paragraph concludes, "ON THIS PRINCIPLE OF INHERITANCE WITH MODIFICATION, we can understand how it is that sections of genera . . . are confined to the same areas," &c.

Again:-

"He who rejects it rejects the vera causa of ordinary generation," &c. (p. 352).

We naturally ask, Why call natural selection the "main means of modification," if "ordinary generation" is a vera causa?

Again:-

"In discussing this subject, we shall be enabled at the same time to consider a point equally important for us, namely, whether the several distinct species of a genus, WHICH ON MY THEORY HAVE ALL DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR, can have migrated (undergoing modification during some part of their migration) from the area inhabited by their progenitor" (p. 354).

The words "on my theory" became "on our theory" in 1869.

Again:-

"With those organic beings which never intercross (if such exist) THE SPECIES, ON MY THEORY, MUST HAVE DESCENDED FROM A SUCCESSION OF IMPROVED VARIETIES," &c. (p. 355).

The words "on my theory" were cut out in 1869.

Again:-

"A slow southern migration of a marine fauna will account, ON THE THEORY OF MODIFICATION, for many closely allied forms," &c. (p. 372).

Again:-

"But the existence of several quite distinct species, belonging to genera exclusively confined to the southern hemisphere, is, ON MY THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, a far more remarkable case of difficulty" (p. 381).

"My" became "the" in 1866 with the fourth edition. This was the most categorical claim to the theory of descent with modification in the "Origin of Species." The "my" here is the only one that was taken out before 1869. I suppose Mr. Darwin thought that with the removal of this "my" he had ceased to claim the theory of descent with modification. Nothing, however, could be gained by calling the reader's attention to what had been done, so nothing was said about it.

Again:-

"Some species of fresh-water shells have a very wide range, AND ALLIED SPECIES, WHICH, ON MY THEORY, ARE DESCENDED FROM A SINGLE SOURCE, prevail throughout the world" (p. 385).

"My theory" became "our theory" in 1869.

Again:-

"In the following remarks I shall not confine myself to the mere question of dispersal, but shall consider some other facts which bear upon the truth of THE TWO THEORIES OF INDEPENDENT CREATION AND OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION" (p. 389). What can be plainer than that the theory which Mr. Darwin espouses, and has so frequently called "my," is descent with modification?

Again:-

"But as these animals and their spawn are known to be immediately killed by sea-water, ON MY VIEW, we can see that there would be great difficulty in their transportal across the sea, and therefore why they do not exist on any oceanic island. But why, ON THE THEORY OF CREATION, they should not have been created there, it would be very difficult to explain" (p. 393).

"On my view" was cut out in 1869.

On the following page we read—"On my view this question can easily be answered." "On my view" is retained in the latest edition.

Again:-

"Yet there must be, ON MY VIEW, some unknown but highly efficient means for their transportation" (p. 397).

"On my view" became "according to our view" in 1869.

Again:-

"I believe this grand fact can receive no sort of explanation ON THE ORDINARY VIEW OF INDEPENDENT CREATION; whereas, ON THE VIEW HERE MAINTAINED, it is obvious that the Galapagos Islands would be likely to receive colonists . . . from America, and the Cape de Verde Islands from Africa; and that such colonists would be liable to modification; the principle of inheritance still betraying their original birth-place" (p. 399).

Again:-

"With respect to the distinct species of the same genus which, ON MY THEORY, must have spread from one parent source, if we make the same allowances as before," &c.

"On my theory" became "on our theory" in 1869.

Again:-

"ON MY THEORY these several relations throughout time and space are intelligible; . . . the forms within each class have been connected by the same bond of ordinary generation; . . . in both cases the laws of variation have been the same, and modifications have been accumulated by the same power of natural selection" (p. 410).

"On my theory" became "according to our theory" in 1869, and natural selection is no longer a power, but has become a means.

Again:-

"I BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING MORE IS INCLUDED, and that propinquity of descent—the only known cause of the similarity of organic beings— is the bond, hidden as it is by various degrees of modification, which is partially revealed to us by our classification" (p. 418).

Again:-

"THUS, ON THE VIEW WHICH I HOLD, the natural system is genealogical in its arrangement, like a pedigree" (p. 422).

"On the view which I hold" was cut out in 1872.

Again:-

"We may feel almost sure, ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT, that these characters have been inherited from a common ancestor" (p. 426).

Again:-

"ON MY VIEW OF CHARACTERS BEING OF REAL IMPORTANCE FOR CLASSIFICATION ONLY IN SO FAR AS THEY REVEAL DESCENT, we can clearly understand," &c. (p. 427).

"On my view" became "on the view" in 1872.

Again:-

"The more aberrant any form is, the greater must be the number of connecting forms which, ON MY THEORY, have been exterminated and utterly lost" (p. 429).

The words "on my theory" were excised in 1869.

Again:-

"Finally, we have seen that NATURAL SELECTION. . . EXPLAINS that great and universal feature in the affinities of all organic beings, namely, their subordination in group under group. WE USE THE ELEMENT OF DESCENT in classing the individuals of both sexes, &c.; . . . WE USE DESCENT in classing acknowledged varieties; . . . and I believe this element of descent is the hidden bond of connection which naturalists have sought under the term of the natural system" (p. 433).

Lamarck was of much the same opinion, as I showed in "Evolution Old and New." He wrote:- "An arrangement should be considered systematic, or arbitrary, when it does not conform to the genealogical order taken by nature in the development of the things arranged, and when, by consequence, it is not founded on well- considered analogies. There is a natural order in every department of nature; it is the order in which its several component items have been successively developed." {195a} The point, however, which should more particularly engage our attention is that Mr. Darwin in the passage last quoted uses "natural selection" and "descent" as though they were convertible terms.

Again:-

"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class by utility or the doctrine of final causes . . . ON THE ORDINARY VIEW OF THE INDEPENDENT CREATION OF EACH BEING, we can only say that so it is . . . THE EXPLANATION IS MANIFEST ON THE THEORY OF THE NATURAL SELECTION OF SUCCESSIVE SLIGHT modifications," &c. (p. 435).

This now stands—"The explanation is to a large extent simple, on the theory of the selection of successive, slight modifications." I do not like "a large extent" of simplicity; but, waiving this, the point at issue is not whether the ordinary course of things ensures a quasi-selection of the types that are best adapted to their surroundings, with accumulation of modification in various directions, and hence wide eventual difference between species descended from common progenitors—no evolutionist since 1750 has doubted this—but whether a general principle underlies the modifications from among which the quasi-selection is made, or whether they are destitute of such principle and referable, as far as we are concerned, to chance only. Waiving this again, we note that the theories of independent creation and of natural selection are contrasted, as though they were the only two alternatives; knowing the two alternatives to be independent creation and descent with modification, we naturally took natural selection to mean descent with modification.

Again:-

"ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION we can satisfactorily answer these questions" (p. 437).

"Satisfactorily" now stands "to a certain extent."

Again:-

"ON MY VIEW these terms may be used literally" (pp. 438, 439).

"On my view" became "according to the views here maintained such language may be," &c., in 1869.

Again:-

"I believe all these facts can be explained as follows, ON THE VIEW OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION" (p. 443).

This sentence now ends at "follows."

Again:-

"Let us take a genus of birds, DESCENDED, ON MY THEORY, FROM SOME ONE PARENT SPECIES, and of which the several new species HAVE BECOME MODIFIED THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION in accordance with their divers habits" (p. 446).

The words "on my theory" were cut out in 1869, and the passage now stands, "Let us take a group of birds, descended from some ancient form and modified through natural selection for different habits."

Again:-

"ON MY VIEW OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, the origin of rudimentary organs is simple" (p. 454).

"On my view" became "ON THE VIEW" in 1869.

Again:-

"ON THE VIEW OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION," &c. (p. 455).

Again:-

"ON THIS SAME VIEW OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION all the great facts of morphology become intelligible" (p. 456).

Again:-

"That many and grave objections may be advanced against THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION, I do not deny" (p. 459).

This now stands, "That many and serious objections may be advanced against THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION THROUGH VARIATION AND NATURAL SELECTION, I do not deny."

Again:-

"There are, it must be admitted, cases of special difficulty ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 460).

"On" has become "opposed to;" it is not easy to see why this alteration was made, unless because "opposed to" is longer.

Again:-

"Turning to geographical distribution, the difficulties encountered ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION are grave enough."

"Grave" has become "serious," but there is no other change (p. 461).

Again:-

"As ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION an interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed," &c.

"On" has become "according to"—which is certainly longer, but does not appear to possess any other advantage over "on." It is not easy to understand why Mr. Darwin should have strained at such a gnat as "on," though feeling no discomfort in such an expression as "an interminable number."

Again:-

"This is the most forcible of the many objections which may be urged AGAINST MY THEORY . . . For certainly, ON MY THEORY," &c. (p. 463).

The "my" in each case became "the" in 1869.

Again:-

"Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may be justly urged AGAINST MY THEORY" (p. 465).

"My" became "the" in 1869.

Again:-

"Grave as these several difficulties are, IN MY JUDGMENT they do not overthrow THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATIONS" (p. 466).

This now stands, "Serious as these several objections are, in my judgment they are by no means sufficient to overthrow THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION;" which, again, is longer, and shows at what little, little gnats Mr. Darwin could strain, but is no material amendment on the original passage.

Again:-

"THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION, even if we looked no further than this, SEEMS TO ME TO BE IN ITSELF PROBABLE" (p. 469).

This now stands, "The theory of natural selection, even if we look no further than this, SEEMS TO BE IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE PROBABLE." It is not only probable, but was very sufficiently proved long before Mr. Darwin was born, only it must be the right natural selection and not Mr. Charles Darwin's.

Again:-

"It is inexplicable, ON THE THEORY OF CREATION, why a part developed, &c., . . . BUT, ON MY VIEW, this part has undergone," &c. (p. 474).

"On my view" became "on our view" in 1869.

Again:-

"Glancing at instincts, marvellous as some are, they offer no greater difficulty than does corporeal structure ON THE THEORY OF THE NATURAL SELECTION OF SUCCESSIVE, SLIGHT, BUT PROFITABLE MODIFICATIONS" (p. 474).

Again:-

"ON THE VIEW OF ALL THE SPECIES OF THE SAME GENUS HAVING DESCENDED FROM A COMMON PARENT, and having inherited much in common, we can understand how it is," &c. (p. 474).

Again:-

"If we admit that the geological record is imperfect in an extreme degree, then such facts as the record gives, support THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION.

" . . . The extinction of species . . . almost inevitably follows on THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL SELECTION" (p. 475).

The word "almost" has got a great deal to answer for.

Again:-

"We can understand, ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, most of the great leading facts in Distribution" (p. 476).

Again:-

"The existence of closely allied or representative species in any two areas, implies, ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, that the same parents formerly inhabited both areas . . . It must be admitted that these facts receive no explanation ON THE THEORY OF CREATION . . . The fact . . . is intelligible ON THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION, with its contingencies of extinction and divergence of character" (p. 478).

Again:-

"Innumerable other such facts at once explain themselves ON THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH SLOW AND SLIGHT SUCCESSIVE MODIFICATIONS" (p. 479).

"Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts, WILL CERTAINLY REJECT MY THEORY" (p. 482).

"My theory" became "the theory" in 1869.

From this point to the end of the book the claim is so ubiquitous, either expressly or by implication, that it is difficult to know what not to quote. I must, however, content myself with only a few more extracts. Mr. Darwin says:-

"It may be asked HOW FAR I EXTEND THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODIFICATION OF SPECIES" (p. 482).

Again:-

"Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype . . . Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

From an amoeba—Adam, in fact, though not in name. This last sentence is now completely altered, as well it might be.

Again:-

"When THE VIEWS ENTERTAINED IN THIS VOLUME ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, OR WHEN ANALOGOUS VIEWS ARE GENERALLY ADMITTED, we can dimly foresee that there will be a considerable revolution in natural history" (p. 434).

Possibly. This now stands, "When the views advanced by me in this volume, and by Mr. Wallace, or when analogous views on the origin of species are generally admitted, we can dimly foresee," &c. When the "Origin of Species" came out we knew nothing of any analogous views, and Mr. Darwin's words passed unnoticed. I do not say that he knew they would, but he certainly ought to have known.

Again:-

"A GRAND AND ALMOST UNTRODDEN FIELD OF INQUIRY WILL BE OPENED, on the causes and laws of variation, on correlation of growth, on the effects of use and disuse, on the direct action of external conditions, and so forth" (p. 486).

Buffon and Lamarck had trodden this field to some purpose, but not a hint to this effect is vouchsafed to us. Again; -

"WHEN I VIEW ALL BEINGS NOT AS SPECIAL CREATIONS, BUT AS THE LINEAL DESCENDANTS OF SOME FEW BEINGS WHICH LIVED LONG BEFORE the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled . . . We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species."

There is no alteration in this except that "Silurian" has become "Cambrian."

The idyllic paragraph with which Mr. Darwin concludes his book contains no more special claim to the theory of descent en bloc than many another which I have allowed to pass unnoticed; it has been, moreover, dealt with in an earlier chapter (Chapter XII.)



CHAPTER XV—The Excised "My's"



I have quoted in all ninety-seven passages, as near as I can make them, in which Mr. Darwin claimed the theory of descent, either expressly by speaking of "my theory" in such connection that the theory of descent ought to be, and, as the event has shown, was, understood as being intended, or by implication, as in the opening passages of the "Origin of Species," in which he tells us how he had thought the matter out without acknowledging obligation of any kind to earlier writers. The original edition of the "Origin of Species" contained 490 pp., exclusive of index; a claim, therefore, more or less explicit, to the theory of descent was made on the average about once in every five pages throughout the book from end to end; the claims were most prominent in the most important parts, that is to say, at the beginning and end of the work, and this made them more effective than they are made even by their frequency. A more ubiquitous claim than this it would be hard to find in the case of any writer advancing a new theory; it is difficult, therefore, to understand how Mr. Grant Allen could have allowed himself to say that Mr. Darwin "laid no sort of claim to originality or proprietorship" in the theory of descent with modification.

Nevertheless I have only found one place where Mr. Darwin pinned himself down beyond possibility of retreat, however ignominious, by using the words "my theory of descent with modification." {202a} He often, as I have said, speaks of "my theory," and then shortly afterwards of "descent with modification," under such circumstances that no one who had not been brought up in the school of Mr. Gladstone could doubt that the two expressions referred to the same thing. He seems to have felt that he must be a poor wriggler if he could not wriggle out of this; give him any loophole, however small, and Mr. Darwin could trust himself to get out through it; but he did not like saying what left no loophole at all, and "my theory of descent with modification" closed all exits so firmly that it is surprising he should ever have allowed himself to use these words. As I have said, Mr. Darwin only used this direct categorical form of claim in one place; and even here, after it had stood through three editions, two of which had been largely altered, he could stand it no longer, and altered the "my" into "the" in 1866, with the fourth edition of the "Origin of Species."

This was the only one of the original forty-five my's that was cut out before the appearance of the fifth edition in 1869, and its excision throws curious light upon the working of Mr. Darwin's mind. The selection of the most categorical my out of the whole forty- five, shows that Mr. Darwin knew all about his my's, and, while seeing reason to remove this, held that the others might very well stand. He even left "On my VIEW of descent with modification," {203a} which, though more capable of explanation than "my theory," &c., still runs it close; nevertheless the excision of even a single my that had been allowed to stand through such close revision as those to which the "Origin of Species" had been subjected betrays uneasiness of mind, for it is impossible that even Mr. Darwin should not have known that though the my excised in 1866 was the most technically categorical, the others were in reality just as guilty, though no tower of Siloam in the shape of excision fell upon them. If, then, Mr. Darwin was so uncomfortable about this one as to cut it out, it is probable he was far from comfortable about the others.

This view derives confirmation from the fact that in 1869, with the fifth edition of the "Origin of Species," there was a stampede of my's throughout the whole work, no less than thirty out of the original forty-five being changed into "the," "our," "this," or some other word, which, though having all the effect of my, still did not say "my" outright. These my's were, if I may say so, sneaked out; nothing was said to explain their removal to the reader or call attention to it. Why, it may be asked, having been considered during the revisions of 1861 and 1866, and with only one exception allowed to stand, why should they be smitten with a homing instinct in such large numbers with the fifth edition? It cannot be maintained that Mr. Darwin had had his attention called now for the first time to the fact that he had used my perhaps a little too freely, and had better be more sparing of it for the future. The my excised in 1866 shows that Mr. Darwin had already considered this question, and saw no reason to remove any but the one that left him no loophole. Why, then, should that which was considered and approved in 1859, 1861, and 1866 (not to mention the second edition of 1859 or 1860) be retreated from with every appearance of panic in 1869? Mr. Darwin could not well have cut out more than he did—not at any rate without saying something about it, and it would not be easy to know exactly what say. Of the fourteen my's that were left in 1869, five more were cut out in 1872, and nine only were allowed eventually to remain. We naturally ask, Why leave any if thirty-six ought to be cut out, or why cut out thirty-six if nine ought to be left—especially when the claim remains practically just the same after the excision as before it?

I imagine complaint had early reached Mr. Darwin that the difference between himself and his predecessors was unsubstantial and hard to grasp; traces of some such feeling appear even in the late Sir Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology," in which he writes that he had reprinted his abstract of Lamarck's doctrine word for word, "in justice to Lamarck, in order to show how nearly the opinions taught by him at the beginning of this century resembled those now in vogue among a large body of naturalists respecting the infinite variability of species, and the progressive development in past time of the organic world." {205a} Sir Charles Lyell could not have written thus if he had thought that Mr. Darwin had already done "justice to Lamarck," nor is it likely that he stood alone in thinking as he did. It is probable that more reached Mr. Darwin than reached the public, and that the historical sketch prefixed to all editions after the first six thousand copies had been sold— meagre and slovenly as it is—was due to earlier manifestation on the part of some of Mr. Darwin's friends of the feeling that was afterwards expressed by Sir Charles Lyell in the passage quoted above. I suppose the removal of the my that was cut out in 1866 to be due partly to the Gladstonian tendencies of Mr. Darwin's mind, which would naturally make that particular my at all times more or less offensive to him, and partly to the increase of objection to it that must have ensued on the addition of the "brief but imperfect" historical sketch in 1861; it is doubtless only by an oversight that this particular my was not cut out in 1861. The stampede of 1869 was probably occasioned by the appearance in Germany of Professor Haeckel's "History of Creation." This was published in 1868, and Mr. Darwin no doubt foresaw that it would be translated into English, as indeed it subsequently was. In this book some account is given—very badly, but still much more fully than by Mr. Darwin— of Lamarck's work; and even Erasmus Darwin is mentioned— inaccurately—but still he is mentioned. Professor Haeckel says:-

"Although the theory of development had been already maintained at the beginning of this century by several great naturalists, especially by Lamarck and Goethe, it only received complete demonstration and causal foundation nine years ago through Darwin's work, and it is on this account that it is now generally (though not altogether rightly) regarded as exclusively Mr. Darwin's theory." {206a}

Later on, after giving nearly a hundred pages to the works of the early evolutionists—pages that would certainly disquiet the sensitive writer who had cut out the "my" which disappeared in 1866- -he continued:-

"We must distinguish clearly (though this is not usually done) between, firstly, the theory of descent as advanced by Lamarck, which deals only with the fact of all animals and plants being descended from a common source, and secondly, Darwin's theory of natural selection, which shows us WHY this progressive modification of organic forms took place" (p. 93).

This passage is as inaccurate as most of those by Professor Haeckel that I have had occasion to examine have proved to be. Letting alone that Buffon, not Lamarck, is the foremost name in connection with descent, I have already shown in "Evolution Old and New" that Lamarck goes exhaustively into the how and why of modification. He alleges the conservation, or preservation, in the ordinary course of nature, of the most favourable among variations that have been induced mainly by function; this, I have sufficiently explained, is natural selection, though the words "natural selection" are not employed; but it is the true natural selection which (if so metaphorical an expression is allowed to pass) actually does take place with the results ascribed to it by Lamarck, and not the false Charles-Darwinian natural selection that does not correspond with facts, and cannot result in specific differences such as we now observe. But, waiving this, the "my's," within which a little rift had begun to show itself in 1866, might well become as mute in 1869 as they could become without attracting attention, when Mr. Darwin saw the passages just quoted, and the hundred pages or so that lie between them.

I suppose Mr. Darwin cut out the five more my's that disappeared in 1872 because he had not yet fully recovered from his scare, and allowed nine to remain in order to cover his retreat, and tacitly say that he had not done anything and knew nothing whatever about it. Practically, indeed, he had not retreated, and must have been well aware that he was only retreating technically; for he must have known that the absence of acknowledgment to any earlier writers in the body of his work, and the presence of the many passages in which every word conveyed the impression that the writer claimed descent with modification, amounted to a claim as much when the actual word "my" had been taken out as while it was allowed to stand. We took Mr. Darwin at his own estimate because we could not for a moment suppose that a man of means, position, and education,—one, moreover, who was nothing if he was not unself-seeking—could play such a trick upon us while pretending to take us into his confidence; hence the almost universal belief on the part of the public, of which Professors Haeckel and Ray Lankester and Mr. Grant Allen alike complain—namely, that Mr. Darwin is the originator of the theory of descent, and that his variations are mainly functional. Men of science must not be surprised if the readiness with which we responded to Mr. Darwin's appeal to our confidence is succeeded by a proportionate resentment when the peculiar shabbiness of his action becomes more generally understood. For myself, I know not which most to wonder at—the meanness of the writer himself, or the greatness of the service that, in spite of that meanness, he unquestionably rendered.

If Mr. Darwin had been dealing fairly by us, when he saw that we had failed to catch the difference between the Erasmus-Darwinian theory of descent through natural selection from among variations that are mainly functional, and his own alternative theory of descent through natural selection from among variations that are mainly accidental, and, above all, when he saw we were crediting him with other men's work, he would have hastened to set us right. "It is with great regret," he might have written, "and with no small surprise, that I find how generally I have been misunderstood as claiming to be the originator of the theory of descent with modification; nothing can be further from my intention; the theory of descent has been familiar to all biologists from the year 1749, when Buffon advanced it in its most comprehensive form, to the present day." If Mr. Darwin had said something to the above effect, no one would have questioned his good faith, but it is hardly necessary to say that nothing of the kind is to be found in any one of Mr. Darwin's many books or many editions; nor is the reason why the requisite correction was never made far to seek. For if Mr. Darwin had said as much as I have put into his mouth above, he should have said more, and would ere long have been compelled to have explained to us wherein the difference between himself and his predecessors precisely lay, and this would not have been easy. Indeed, if Mr. Darwin had been quite open with us he would have had to say much as follows:-

"I should point out that, according to the evolutionists of the last century, improvement in the eye, as in any other organ, is mainly due to persistent, rational, employment of the organ in question, in such slightly modified manner as experience and changed surroundings may suggest. You will have observed that, according to my system, this goes for very little, and that the accumulation of fortunate accidents, irrespectively of the use that may be made of them, is by far the most important means of modification. Put more briefly still, the distinction between me and my predecessors lies in this;- -my predecessors thought they knew the main normal cause or principle that underlies variation, whereas I think that there is no general principle underlying it at all, or that even if there is, we know hardly anything about it. This is my distinctive feature; there is no deception; I shall not consider the arguments of my predecessors, nor show in what respect they are insufficient; in fact, I shall say nothing whatever about them. Please to understand that I alone am in possession of the master key that can unlock the bars of the future progress of evolutionary science; so great an improvement, in fact, is my discovery that it justifies me in claiming the theory of descent generally, and I accordingly claim it. If you ask me in what my discovery consists, I reply in this;— that the variations which we are all agreed accumulate are caused— by variation. {209a} I admit that this is not telling you much about them, but it is as much as I think proper to say at present; above all things, let me caution you against thinking that there is any principle of general application underlying variation."

This would have been right. This is what Mr. Darwin would have had to have said if he had been frank with us; it is not surprising, therefore, that he should have been less frank than might have been wished. I have no doubt that many a time between 1859 and 1882, the year of his death, Mr. Darwin bitterly regretted his initial error, and would have been only too thankful to repair it, but he could only put the difference between himself and the early evolutionists clearly before his readers at the cost of seeing his own system come tumbling down like a pack of cards; this was more than he could stand, so he buried his face, ostrich-like, in the sand. I know no more pitiable figure in either literature or science.

As I write these lines (July 1886) I see a paragraph in Nature which I take it is intended to convey the impression that Mr. Francis Darwin's life and letters of his father will appear shortly. I can form no idea whether Mr. F. Darwin's forthcoming work is likely to appear before this present volume; still less can I conjecture what it may or may not contain; but I can give the reader a criterion by which to test the good faith with which it is written. If Mr. F. Darwin puts the distinctive feature that differentiates Mr. C. Darwin from his predecessors clearly before his readers, enabling them to seize and carry it away with them once for all—if he shows no desire to shirk this question, but, on the contrary, faces it and throws light upon it, then we shall know that his work is sincere, whatever its shortcomings may be in other respects; and when people are doing their best to help us and make us understand all that they understand themselves, a great deal may be forgiven them. If, on the other hand, we find much talk about the wonderful light which Mr. Charles Darwin threw on evolution by his theory of natural selection, without any adequate attempt to make us understand the difference between the natural selection, say, of Mr. Patrick Matthew, and that of his more famous successor, then we may know that we are being trifled with; and that an attempt is being again made to throw dust in our eyes.