More Letters of Charles Darwin Volume I [213]
than this letter.
LETTER 289. W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE."
(289/1. The following letter ("Nature," Volume XLIII., page 535) criticises the interpretation given by the Duke to Mr. Darwin's letter.)
Royal Gardens, Kew, March 27th [1891].
In "Nature" of March 5th (page 415), the Duke of Argyll has printed a very interesting letter of Mr. Darwin's, from which he drew the inference that the writer "assumed mankind to have arisen...in a single pair." I do not think myself that the letter bears this interpretation. But the point in its most general aspect is a very important one, and is often found to present some difficulty to students of Mr. Darwin's writings.
Quite recently I have found by accident, amongst the papers of the late Mr. Bentham at Kew, a letter of friendly criticism from Mr. Darwin upon the presidential address which Mr. Bentham delivered to the Linnean Society on May 24th, 1869. This letter, I think, has been overlooked and not published previously. In it Mr. Darwin expresses himself with regard to the multiple origin of races and some other points in very explicit language. Prof. Meldola, to whom I mentioned in conversation the existence of the letter, urged me strongly to print it. This, therefore, I now do, with the addition of a few explanatory notes.
LETTER 290. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, November 25th, 1869.
(290/1. The notes to this letter are by Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, and appeared in "Nature," loc. cit.)
I was greatly interested by your address, which I have now read thrice, and which I believe will have much influence on all who read it. But you are mistaken in thinking that I ever said you were wrong on any point. All that I meant was that on certain points, and these very doubtful points, I was inclined to differ from you. And now, on further considering the point on which some two or three months ago I felt most inclined to differ--viz., on isolation--I find I differ very little. What I have to say is really not worth saying, but as I should be very sorry not to do whatever you asked, I will scribble down the slightly dissentient thoughts which have occurred to me. It would be an endless job to specify the points in which you have interested me; but I may just mention the relation of the extreme western flora of Europe (some such very vague thoughts have crossed my mind, relating to the Glacial period) with South Africa, and your remarks on the contrast of passive and active distribution.
Page lxx.--I think the contingency of a rising island, not as yet fully stocked with plants, ought always to be kept in mind when speaking of colonisation.
Page lxxiv.--I have met with nothing which makes me in the least doubt that large genera present a greater number of varieties relatively to their size than do small genera. (290/2. Bentham thought "degree of variability... like other constitutional characters, in the first place an individual one, which...may become more or less hereditary, and therefore specific; and thence, but in a very faint degree, generic." He seems to mean to argue against the conclusion which Sir Joseph Hooker had quoted from Mr. Darwin that "species of large genera are more variable than those of small." [On large genera varying, see Letter 53.]) Hooker was convinced by my data, never as yet published in full, only abstracted in the "Origin."
Page lxxviii.--I dispute whether a new race or species is necessarily, or even generally, descended from a single or pair of parents. The whole body of individuals, I believe, become altered together--like our race-horses, and like all domestic breeds which are changed through "unconscious selection" by man. (290/3. Bentham had said: "We must also admit that every race has probably been the offspring of one parent or pair of parents, and consequently originated in one spot." The Duke of Argyll inverts the proposition.)
When such great lengths of time are considered as are necessary to change a specific form, I greatly doubt whether more or less rapid powers of multiplication
LETTER 289. W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE."
(289/1. The following letter ("Nature," Volume XLIII., page 535) criticises the interpretation given by the Duke to Mr. Darwin's letter.)
Royal Gardens, Kew, March 27th [1891].
In "Nature" of March 5th (page 415), the Duke of Argyll has printed a very interesting letter of Mr. Darwin's, from which he drew the inference that the writer "assumed mankind to have arisen...in a single pair." I do not think myself that the letter bears this interpretation. But the point in its most general aspect is a very important one, and is often found to present some difficulty to students of Mr. Darwin's writings.
Quite recently I have found by accident, amongst the papers of the late Mr. Bentham at Kew, a letter of friendly criticism from Mr. Darwin upon the presidential address which Mr. Bentham delivered to the Linnean Society on May 24th, 1869. This letter, I think, has been overlooked and not published previously. In it Mr. Darwin expresses himself with regard to the multiple origin of races and some other points in very explicit language. Prof. Meldola, to whom I mentioned in conversation the existence of the letter, urged me strongly to print it. This, therefore, I now do, with the addition of a few explanatory notes.
LETTER 290. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, November 25th, 1869.
(290/1. The notes to this letter are by Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, and appeared in "Nature," loc. cit.)
I was greatly interested by your address, which I have now read thrice, and which I believe will have much influence on all who read it. But you are mistaken in thinking that I ever said you were wrong on any point. All that I meant was that on certain points, and these very doubtful points, I was inclined to differ from you. And now, on further considering the point on which some two or three months ago I felt most inclined to differ--viz., on isolation--I find I differ very little. What I have to say is really not worth saying, but as I should be very sorry not to do whatever you asked, I will scribble down the slightly dissentient thoughts which have occurred to me. It would be an endless job to specify the points in which you have interested me; but I may just mention the relation of the extreme western flora of Europe (some such very vague thoughts have crossed my mind, relating to the Glacial period) with South Africa, and your remarks on the contrast of passive and active distribution.
Page lxx.--I think the contingency of a rising island, not as yet fully stocked with plants, ought always to be kept in mind when speaking of colonisation.
Page lxxiv.--I have met with nothing which makes me in the least doubt that large genera present a greater number of varieties relatively to their size than do small genera. (290/2. Bentham thought "degree of variability... like other constitutional characters, in the first place an individual one, which...may become more or less hereditary, and therefore specific; and thence, but in a very faint degree, generic." He seems to mean to argue against the conclusion which Sir Joseph Hooker had quoted from Mr. Darwin that "species of large genera are more variable than those of small." [On large genera varying, see Letter 53.]) Hooker was convinced by my data, never as yet published in full, only abstracted in the "Origin."
Page lxxviii.--I dispute whether a new race or species is necessarily, or even generally, descended from a single or pair of parents. The whole body of individuals, I believe, become altered together--like our race-horses, and like all domestic breeds which are changed through "unconscious selection" by man. (290/3. Bentham had said: "We must also admit that every race has probably been the offspring of one parent or pair of parents, and consequently originated in one spot." The Duke of Argyll inverts the proposition.)
When such great lengths of time are considered as are necessary to change a specific form, I greatly doubt whether more or less rapid powers of multiplication