Today | News | Books | Recipes Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History Booksame relation to them as the diagram to a geometrical theorem, and like
it, at once, imaginary and true.") (in your sense, for I detest the word
as used by Owen, Agassiz & Co.) of each great class, I cannot doubt,
is one of the very highest ends of Natural History; and certainly most
interesting to the worker-out. Several of your remarks have interested
me: I am, however, surprised at what you say versus "anamorphism" (33/4.
The passage referred to is at page 63: "If, however, all Cephalous
Mollusks...be only modifications by excess or defect of the parts of
a definite archetype, then, I think, it follows as a necessary
consequence, that no anamorphism takes place in this group. There is
no progression from a lower to a higher type, but merely a more or
less complete evolution of one type." Huxley seems to use the term
anamorphism in a sense differing from that of some writers. Thus in
Jourdan's "Dictionnaire des Termes Usites dans les Sciences Naturelles,"
1834, it is defined as the production of an atypical form either by
arrest or excess of development.), I should have thought that the
archetype in imagination was always in some degree embryonic, and
therefore capable [of] and generally undergoing further development.
Is it not an extraordinary fact, the great difference in position of the
heart in different species of Cleodora? (33/5. A genus of Pteropods.) I
am a believer that when any part, usually constant, differs considerably
in different allied species that it will be found in some degree
variable within the limits of the same species. Thus, I should expect
that if great numbers of specimens of some of the species of Cleodora
had been examined with this object in view, the position of the heart in
some of the species would have been found variable. Can you aid me with
any analogous facts?
I am very much pleased to hear that you have not given up the idea of
noticing my cirripedial volume. All that I have seen since confirms
everything of any importance stated in that volume--more especially I
have been able rigorously to confirm in an anomalous species, by the
clearest evidence, that the actual cellular contents of the ovarian
tubes, by the gland-like action of a modified portion of the continuous
tube, passes into the cementing stuff: in fact cirripedes make glue out
of their own unformed eggs! (33/6. On Darwin's mistake in this point see
"Life and Letters," III., page 2.)
Pray believe me, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.
I told the above case to Milne Edwards, and I saw he did not place the
smallest belief in it.
LETTER 34. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 2nd, [1854].
My second volume on the everlasting barnacles is at last published
(34/1. "A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia. II. The Balanidae, the
Verrucidae." Ray Society, 1854.), and I will do myself the pleasure of
sending you a copy to Jermyn Street next Thursday, as I have to send
another book then to Mr. Baily.
And now I want to ask you a favour--namely, to answer me two questions.
As you are so perfectly familiar with the doings, etc., of all
Continental naturalists, I want you to tell me a few names of those
whom you think would care for my volume. I do not mean in the light of
puffing my book, but I want not to send copies to those who from other
studies, age, etc., would view it as waste paper. From assistance
rendered me, I consider myself bound to send copies to: (1) Bosquet of
Maestricht, (2) Milne Edwards, (3) Dana, (4) Agassiz, (5) Muller, (6)
W. Dunker of Hesse Cassel. Now I have five or six other copies to
distribute, and will you be so very kind as to help me? I had thought of
Von Siebold, Loven, d'Orbigny, Kolliker, Sars, Kroyer, etc., but I know
hardly anything about any of them.
My second question, it is merely a chance whether you can answer,--it is
whether I can send these books or any of them (in some cases accompanied
by specimens), through the Royal Society: I have some vague idea of
having heard that the Royal Society did sometimes thus assist members.
I have just been reading your review of the "Vestiges" (34/2. In his
chapter on the "Reception of the Origin of Species" ("Life and Letters,"
II., pages 188-9), Mr. Huxley wrote: "and the only review I ever have
qualms of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one
I wrote on the 'Vestiges.'" The article is in the "British and Foreign
Medico-chirurgical Review," XIII., 1854, page 425. The "great man"
referred to below is Owen: see Huxley's review, page 439, and Huxley's
"Life." I., page 94.), and the way you handle a great Professor is
really exquisite and inimitable. I have been extremely interested in
other parts, and to my mind it is incomparably the best review I have
read on the "Vestiges"; but I cannot think but that you are rather hard
on the poor author. I must think that such a book, if it does no other
good, spreads the taste for Natural Science.
But I am perhaps no fair judge, for I am almost as unorthodox
about species as the "Vestiges" itself, though I hope not quite so
unphilosophical. How capitally you analyse his notion about law. I
do not know when I have read a review which interested me so much. By
Heavens, how the blood must have gushed into the capillaries when a
certain great man (whom with all his faults I cannot help liking) read
it!
I am rather sorry you do not think more of Agassiz's embryological
stages (34/3. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 310: also Letter 40,
Note.), for though I saw how exceedingly weak the evidence was, I was
led to hope in its truth.
LETTER 35. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [1854].
With respect to "highness" and "lowness," my ideas are only eclectic and
not very clear. It appears to me that an unavoidable wish to compare all
animals with men, as supreme, causes some confusion; and I think that
nothing besides some such vague comparison is intended, or perhaps is
even possible, when the question is whether two kingdoms such as the
Articulata or Mollusca are the highest. Within the same kingdom I am
inclined to think that "highest" usually means that form which has
undergone most "morphological differentiation" from the common embryo or
archetype of the class; but then every now and then one is bothered
(as Milne Edwards has remarked) by "retrograde development," i.e.,
the mature animal having fewer and less important organs than its own
embryo. The specialisation of parts to different functions, or
"the division of physiological labour" (35/1. A slip of the pen for
"physiological division of labour.") of Milne Edwards exactly agrees
(and to my mind is the best definition, when it can be applied)
with what you state is your idea in regard to plants. I do not think
zoologists agree in any definite ideas on this subject; and my ideas are
not clearer than those of my brethren.
LETTER 36. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 2nd [1854].
I have had the house full of visitors, and when I talk I can do
absolutely nothing else; and since then I have been poorly enough,
otherwise |