No savages could have extirpated mammalia, besides we should have found them fossil in the same places with all those species of extinct Dinornis which have come to light. Perhaps you will say that the absence of mammalia in New Caledonia is a corresponding fact. This reminds me of another difficulty. On the hypothesis of the coral islands being the last remnants of a submerged continent, ought they not to have in them a crowd of peculiar and endemic types, each rivalling St. Helena, instead of which I believe they are very poor [in] peculiar genera.
Have they all got submerged for a short time during the ups and downs to which they have been subjected, Tahiti and some others having been built up by volcanic action in the Pliocene period? Madeira and the Canaries were islands in the Upper Miocene ocean, and may therefore well have peculiar endemic types of very old date, and destroyed elsewhere. He goes in for continental extension, which only costs him two.
My dear Sir,—I forgot to ask you last night about an ornithological point which I have been discussing with the Duke of Argyll. In Chapter V. For the Duke is willing to go so far towards the transmutation theory as to allow that different humming-birds may have had a common ancestral stock, provided it be admitted that a new and marked variety appears at once with the full distinctness of sex so remarkable in that genus.
According to his notion, the new male variety and the female must both appear at once, and this new race or species must be regarded as an "extraordinary birth. If this be the case, would it not present us with an exception to the rule laid down by Darwin and Hooker that when a genus is largely represented in a continuous tract of land the species of that genus tend to vary? In regard to shells, I have always found that dealers have a positive prejudice against intermediate forms, and one of the most philosophical of them, now no more, once confessed to me that it was very much against his trade interest to give an honest opinion that certain varieties were not real species, or that certain forms, made distinct genera by some conchologists, ought not so to rank.
Nine-tenths of his customers, if told that it was not a good genus or good species, would say, "Then I need not buy it. Of course there are genera in which the species are much better defined than in others, but you would explain this, as Darwin and Hooker do, by the greater length of time during which they have existed, or the greater activity of changes, organic and inorganic, which have taken place in the region inhabited by the generic or family type in question. The manufactory of new species has ceased, or nearly so, and in that case I suppose a variety is more likely to be one of the transitional links which has not yet been extinguished than the first step towards a new permanent race or allied species.
Your last letter will be of great use to me. I had cited the case of beetles recovering from immersion of hours in alcohol from my own experience, but am glad it, strikes you in the same light. McAndrew told me last night that the littoral shells of the Azores being European, or rather African, is in favour of a former continental extension, but I suspect that the floating of seaweed containing their eggs may dispense with the hypothesis of the submersion of 1, miles of land once intervening.
I want naturalists carefully to examine floating seaweed and pumice met with at sea. Tell your correspondents to look out. There should be a. Wallace,—I was very glad, though I take in the Westminster Review , to have a duplicate of your most entertaining and instructive essay on Mimicry of Colours, etc. I think it is admirably written and most persuasive.
Related books and articles
If any wing were a rigid plane surface, it appears to me that there are only two ways in which it could be made to produce flight. Firstly, on the principle that the resistance in a fluid, and I believe also in air, increases in a greater ratio than the velocity? Secondly, some kind of furling or feathering by a rotatory motion of the wing might take place on raising the wings. I think, however, it is clear that neither of these actions occurs during the flight of. In both slow and quick-flying species there is no appearance of such a difference of velocity, and I am not aware that anyone has attempted to prove that it occurs; and the fact that in so many insects the edges of the fore and hind wings are connected together, while their insertions at the base are at some distance apart, entirely precludes a rotation of the wings.
The whole structure and form of the wings of insects, moreover, indicate an action in flight quite analogous to that of birds. I believe that a careful examination will show that the wings of almost all insects are slightly concave beneath. Further, they are all constructed with a strong and rigid anterior margin, while the outer and hinder margins are exceedingly thin and flexible.
Yet further, I feel confident and a friend here agrees with me that they are much more rigid against upward than against downward pressure. Now in most insects take a butterfly as an example the body is weighted behind the insertion of the wings by the long and heavy abdomen, so as to produce an oblique position when freely suspended. There is also much more wing surface behind than before the fulcrum. Now if such an insect produces by muscular action a regular flapping of the wings, flight must result.
At the downward stroke the pressure of the air against the hind wings would raise them all to a nearly horizontal position, and at the same time bend up their posterior margins a little, producing an upward and onward motion. At the upward stroke the pressure on the hind wings would depress them considerably into an oblique position, and from their great flexibility in that direction would bend down their hind margins.
The resultant would be a slightly downward and considerably onward motion, the two strokes producing that undulating flight so characteristic of butterflies, and so especially observable in the broad-winged tropical species. If I remember rightly, it is on these principles that the Duke of Argyll has explained the flight of birds, in which, however, there are of course some specialities depending on the more perfect organisation of the wing, its greater mobility and flexibility, its capacity for enlargement and contraction, and the peculiar construction and arrangement of the feathers.
These, however, are matters of detail; and there are no doubt many and important differences of detail in the mode of flight of the different types of insects which would require a special study of each. It appeared to me that the Duke of Argyll had given that special study to the flight of birds, and deserved praise for having done so successfully, although he may not have quite solved the whole problem, or have stated quite accurately the comparative importance of the various causes that combine to effect flight.djanpasmopa.tk/map9.php
Wallace,—I did not answer your last letter, being busy in getting out my second edition of "First Principles. I was quite aware of the alleged additional cause of flight which you name, and do not doubt that it is an aid. But I regard it simply as an aid. If you will move an outstretched wing backwards and forwards with equal velocity, I think you will find that the difference of resistance is nothing like.
I write, however, not so much to reply to your argument as to correct a misapprehension which my expressions seem to have given you. The objections are not made by Tyndall or Huxley; but they are objections made by me, which I stated to them, and in which they agreed—Tyndall expressing the opinion that I ought to make them public. I name this because you may otherwise some day startle Tyndall or Huxley by speaking to them of their objections, and giving me as the authority for so affiliating them.
Dear Wallace,—You probably remember an article by Agassiz in an American periodical, the Christian Observer , on the diversity of human races, etc. But while he makes out a good case for the circumscription of the principal races to distinct provinces, he evades in a singular manner the community of the Red Indian race to North and South America. He takes pains to show that the same American race pervades North and South America, or at least all America south of the Arctic region.
This was Dr. Have you ever considered the explana-. If there were not barbarous tribes like the Fuegians, one might imagine America to have been peopled when mankind was somewhat more advanced and more capable of diffusing itself over an entire continent. But I cannot well understand why isolation such as accompanies a very low state of social progress did not cause the Neo-tropical and Neo-arctic regions to produce by varieties and Natural Selection two very different human races. May it be owing to the smaller lapse of time, which time, nevertheless, was sufficient to allow of the spread of the representatives of one and the same type from Canada to Cape Horn?
Have you ever touched on this subject, or can you refer me to anyone who has? Dear Sir Charles,—Why the colour of man is sometimes constant over large areas while in other cases it varies, we cannot certainly tell; but we may well suppose it to be due to its being more or less correlated with constitutional characters favourable to life. By far the most common colour of man is a warm brown, not very different from that of the American Indian.
White and black are alike deviations from this, and are probably correlated with mental and physical peculiarities which have been favourable to the increase and maintenance of the particular race. I shall infer, therefore, that the brown or red was the original colour of man, and that it maintains itself throughout all climates in America because accidental deviations from it have not been accompanied by any useful constitutional peculiarities.
Dear Wallace,—… I am reading your new book, 1 of which you kindly sent me a copy, with very great pleasure. I am not yet through the first volume, but my wife is deep in the second and much taken with it. It is so rare to be able to depend on the scientific knowledge and accuracy of those who have so much of the wonderful to relate. My dear Sir,—I am reading—or rather have all but read—your new book, 1 with a delight which I cannot find words to express save those which are commonplace superlatives. Would that a like unselfish chivalry were more common—I do not say amongst scientific men, for they have it in great abundance, but—in the rest of the community.
May I ask—as a very great favour—to be allowed to call on you some day in London, and to see your insects? I and my daughter are soon, I hope, going to the West Indies, for plants and insects, among other things; and the young lady might learn much of typical forms from one glance at your treasures. I send this letter by our friend Bates—being ignorant of your address. It is overwhelming as proving the origin of man from some lower form, but that, I rather think, hardly anyone doubts now. He is very weak, as yet, on my objection about the "hair," but promises a better solution in the second volume.
It is exceedingly clever, and well worth reading. The arguments against Natural Selection as the exclusive mode of development are some of them exceedingly strong, and very well put, and it is altogether a most readable and interesting book. Though he uses some weak and bad arguments, and underrates the power of Natural Selection, yet I think I agree with his conclusion in the main, and am inclined to think it is more philosophical than my own. It is a book that I think will please Sir Charles Lyell.
Dear Miss Buckley,—Thanks for your note. I am hard at work criticising Darwin. I admire his Moral Sense chapter as much as anything in the book. It is both original and. There are plenty of points open to criticism, but it is a marvellous contribution to the history of the development of the forms of life. Dear Wallace,—I have read the Preface, 1 and like and approve of it much.
I do not believe there is a word which Darwin would wish altered. It is high time this modest assertion of your claims as an independent originator of Natural Selection should be published. My dear Wallace,—I think you have made an immense advance to our knowledge of the ways and means of distribution, and bridged many great gaps. I am disposed to regard the Western Australian flora as the latest in point of origin, and I hope to prove it by development, and by the absence of various types.
If Western Australia ever had an old flora, I am inclined to suppose that it has been destroyed by the invasion of Eastern types after the union with East Australia. My idea is that these types worked round by the south, and altered rapidly as. Nor can I conceive the Western Island, when surrounded by sea, har bouring a flora like its present one.
I have been disposed to regard New Caledonia and the New Hebrides as the parent country of many New Zealand and Australian forms of vegetation, but we do not know enough of the vegetation of the former to warrant the conclusion; and after all it would be but a slight modification of your views.
I very much like your whole working of the problem of the isolation and connection of New Zealand and Australia inter se and with the countries north of them, and the whole treatment of that respecting north and south migration over the globe is admirable. Wallace,—I have been waiting to thank you for "Island Life" till I should have read it through as carefully as I am digesting the chapters I have finished; but I can delay no longer, if only to say that I heartily enjoy it, and believe that you have brushed away more cobwebs that have obscured the subject than any other, besides giving a vast deal that is new, and admirably setting forth what is old, so as to throw new light on the whole subject.
It is, in short, a first rate book. I am making notes for you, but hitherto have seen no defect of importance except in the matter of the Bahamas, whose flora is Floridan, not Cuban, in so far as we know it. Thiselton-Dyer,—If I had had your lecture before me when writing the last chapters of my book I should certainly have quoted you in support of the view of the northern origin of the Southern flora by migration along existing continents.
On reading it again I am surprised to find how often you refer to this; but when I read it on its first appearance I did not pay special attention to this point except to note that your views agreed more closely with those I had advanced, derived from the distribution of animals, than those of any previous writer on botanical distribution.
When, at a much later period, on coming to the end of my work, I determined to give a chapter to the New Zealand flora in order to see how far the geological and physical relations between New Zealand and Australia would throw light on its origin, I went for my facts to the works of Sir Joseph Hooker and Mr. Had I referred again to your lecture I should certainly have quoted the cases you give in a note, p.
Whatever identity there is in our views was therefore arrived at independently, and it was an oversight on my part not referring to your views, partly due to your not having made them a more prominent feature of your very interesting and instructive lecture. Working as I do at home, I am obliged to get my facts from the few books I can get together; and I only attempted to deal with these great botanical questions because the facts seemed sufficiently broad and definite not to be much affected by errors of detail or recent additions to our. Without such splendid summaries of the relations of the Southern floras as are given in Sir J.
Many thanks for additional peculiar British plants. When I hear what Mr. Mitten has to say about the mosses, etc. Darwin strongly objects to my view of the migration of plants along mountain ranges, rather than along lowlands during cold periods. This latter view seems to me as difficult and inadequate as mine does to him. Wallace was in frequent correspondence with Professor Raphael Meldola, the eminent chemist, a friend both of Darwin and of Wallace, a student of Evolution, and a stout defender of Darwinism.
I received from him much help and advice in connection with this work, and had he lived until its completion—he died, suddenly, in —my indebtedness to him would have been even greater. The following letter to Meldola refers to a suggestion that the white colour of the undersides of animals might have been developed by selection through the physical advantage gained from the protection of the vital parts by a lighter colour and therefore by a surface of less radiative activity.
The idea was that there would be less loss of animal heat through such a white coating. We were at that time unaware of. My dear Meldola,—Your letter in Nature last week "riz my dander," as the Yankees say, and, for once in a way, we find ourselves deadly enemies prepared for mortal combat, armed with steel pens and prepared to shed any amount of our own—ink. Consequently I rushed into the fray with a letter to Nature intended to show that you are as wrong as wicked as are the Russians in Afghanistan.
Having, however, the most perfect confidence that the battle will soon be over,. The following letter refers to the theory of physiological selection which had recently been propounded by Romanes, and which Prof. Meldola had critiesed in Nature , xxxix. My dear Meldola,—I have just read your reply to Romanes in Nature , and so far as your view goes I agree, but it does not go far enough. I have asked Newton to whom I had lent it to forward to you at Birmingham a proof of my paper in the Fortnightly, and I shall be much obliged.
You will see that a considerable part of my paper is devoted to a demonstration of the fallacy of that part of "Romanes" which declares species to be distinguished generally by useless characters, and also that "simultaneous variations" do not usually occur. On the question of sterility, which, as you well observe, is the core of the question, I think I show that it could not work in the way Romanes puts it.
Without correlation they could not be so, only some few of them. Romanes always speaks of his physiological variations as being independent, "primary," in which case, as I show, they could hardly ever survive. At the end of my paper I show a correlation which is probably general and sufficient. In criticising Romanes, however, at the British Association, I want to call your special attention to a point I have hardly made clear enough in my paper.
Romanes always speaks of the "physiological variety" as if it were like any other simple variety, and could as easily he says more easily be increased.
- Reminiscences Ii by J. Roy M. D. Guyther, Paperback | Barnes & Noble®.
- Histoires de sorcières (Grands classiques pour petits lecteurs) (French Edition)!
- The Three Maidens of the Minds Mirror.
Whereas it is really complex, requiring a remarkable correlation between different sets of individuals which he never recognises. To illustrate what I mean, let me suppose a case. Let there occur in a species three individual physiological varieties—A, B and C—each being infertile with the bulk of the species, but quite fertile with some small part of it. Let A, for example, be fertile with X, Y and Z. Now I maintain it to be in the highest degree improbable that B, a quite distinct individual, with distinct. It seems to me to be at least to 1 that it will be fertile with some other quite distinct set of individuals.
And so with C, and any other similar variety. I express this by saying that each has its "sexual complements," and that the complements of the one are almost sure not to be the complements of the other. Hence it follows that A, B, C, though differing in the same character of general infertility with the bulk of the species, will really be three distinct varieties physiologically, and can in no way unite to form a single physiological variety. This enormous difficulty Romanes apparently never sees, but argues as if all individuals that are infertile with the bulk of the species must be or usually are fertile with the same set of individuals or with each other.
This I call a monstrous assumption, for which not a particle of evidence exists. I wrote my paper, however, quite as much to expose the great presumption and ignorance of Romanes in declaring that Natural Selection is not a theory of the origin of species—as it is calculated to do much harm. See, for instance, the way the Duke of Argyll jumped at it like a trout at a fly! The earlier part of the next letter refers to "The Experimental Proof of the Protective Value of Colour and Markings in Insects in reference to their Vertebrate Enemies," in the proceedings of the Zoological society of London, , p.
My dear Poulton,—It is very interesting to me to see how very generally the facts are in accordance with theory, and I am only surprised that the exceptions and irregularities are not more numerous than they are found to be. The only difficult case, that of D. Are lizards and sea birds the only, or even the chief, possible enemies of the species?
They evidently do not prevent its coming to maturity in considerable abundance, and it is therefore no doubt preserved from its chief enemies during its various stages of growth. The only point on which I differ from you—as you know—is your acceptance, as proved, of the theory of sexual colour selection, and your speaking of insects as having a sense of "the beautiful" in colour, as if that were a known fact. But that is a wide question, requiring full discussion. I was not aware before that your father had been so distressed—or rather disturbed—by my sending him my essay from Ternate, and I am very glad to feel that his exaggerated sense of honour was quite needless so far as I was concerned, and that the incident did not in any way disturb our friendly relations.
I always felt, and feel still, that people generally give me far too much credit for my mere sketch of the theory—so. My dear Mrs. Fisher,—I know nothing of the physiology of ferns and mosses, but as a matter of fact I think they will be found to increase and diminish together all over the world. Both like moist, equable climates and shade, and are therefore both so abundant in oceanic islands, and in the high regions of the tropics.
I am inclined to think that the reason ferns have persisted so long in competition with flowering plants is the fact that they thrive best in shade, flowers best in the light. In our woods and ravines the flowers are mostly spring flowers, which die away just as the foliage of the trees is coming out and the shade deepens; while ferns are often dormant at that time, but grow as the shade increases.
Why tree-ferns should not grow in cold countries I know not, except that it may be the winds are too violent and would tear all the fronds off before the spores were ripe. Everywhere they grow in ravines, or in forests where they are sheltered, even in the tropics. And they are not generally abundant, but grow in particular zones only.
I too am struggling with my "Popular Sketch of Darwinism," and am just now doing a chapter on the great. I really think I shall be able to arrange the whole subject more intelligibly than Darwin did, and simplify it immensely by leaving out the endless discussion of collateral details and difficulties which in the "Origin of Species" confuse the main issue.
The most remarkable steps yet made in advance are, I think, the theory of Weismann of the continuity of the germ plasm, and its corollary that acquired modifications are never inherited! My dear Meldola,—I have been working away at my hybridity chapters, 1 and am almost disposed to cry "Eureka! When almost in despair of making it clear that Natural Selection could act one way or the other, I luckily routed out an old paper that I wrote twenty years ago, giving a demonstration of the action of Natural Selection.
It did not convince Darwin then, but it has convinced me now, and I think it can be proved that in some cases and those I think most probable Natural Selection will accumulate variations in infertility between incipient species. Many other causes of infertility co-operate, and I really think I have overcome the fundamental difficulties of the question and made it a good deal clearer than Darwin left it.
The next letter relates to a question which Prof. Meldola raised as to whether, in view of the extreme importance of "divergence" in the Darwinian sense for the separation and maintenance of specific types, it might not be possible that sterility, when of advantage as a check to crossing, had in itself, as a physiological character, been brought. My dear Meldola,—Many thanks for your criticism. It is a perfectly sound one as against my view being a complete explanation of the phenomena, but that I do not claim.
And I do not see any chance of the required facts being forthcoming for many years to come. Experiments in the hybridisation of animals are so difficult and tedious that even Darwin never undertook any, and the only people who could and ought to have done it—the Zoological Society—will not. There is one point, however, I think you have overlooked. You urge the improbability of the required infertility being correlated with the particular variations which characterised each incipient species.
But the whole point of my argument is, that the physiological adjustments producing fertility are so delicate that they are disturbed by almost any variation or change of conditions—except in the case of domestic animals, which have been domesticated because they are not subject to this disturbance. The whole first half of the chapter is to bring out this fact, which Darwin has dwelt upon, and it certainly does afford a foundation for the assumption that usually, and in some considerable number of individuals, variation in nature, accompanied by somewhat changed conditions of life, is accompanied by, and probably correlated with, some amount of infertility.
No doubt this assumption wants proving, but in the meantime I am glad yon think that, granting the assumption, I have shown that Natural Selection is able to accumulate sterility variations. If you should happen to come across any facts which seem to bear upon it, pray let me know. I can find none but those I have referred to. I have just finished a chapter on male ornament and display, which I trust will help to clear up that point. Hemsley,—You are aware that Patrick Geddes proposes to exclude Natural Selection in the origination of thorns and spines, which he imputes to "diminishing vegetativeness" or "ebbing vitality of the species.
Your study of these floras will no doubt enable you to answer a few questions on this point. Spines and thorns are, I believe, usually abundant in arid regions of continents, especially in South Africa, where large herbivorous mammals abound. Now, if the long continued presence of these mammals is a factor in the production of spines by Natural Selection, they should be wholly or comparatively absent in regions equally arid where there are no mammals. The Galapagos seem to be such a case—also per haps some of the Sandwich Islands, and generally the extra tropical volcanic islands. Also Australia comparatively, and the highlands of Madagascar.
Of course, the endemic species must be chiefly considered, as they have had time to be modified by the conditions. I you can give me the facts, or your general impression from your study of these floras, I shall be much obliged. Hemsley,—Many thanks for your interesting letter. The facts you state seem quite to support the usual view, that thorns and spines have been developed as a protection against other animals.
The few spiny plants in New Zealand may be for protection against land molluscs, of which there are several species as large as any in the tropics. Of course in Australia we should expect only a comparative scarcity of spines, as there are many herbivorous marsupials in the country.
That I think masterly. The paper on. I will refer to these papers in notes in my book, though perhaps yours will be out first. The last critical one is rather heavy, and adds nothing of importance to the earlier one on Duration of Life. I enclose my "Note" on the subject, which was written, I think, about , certainly before You will see it was only a few ideas jotted down for further elaboration and then forgotten.
Poulton,—My attention has been called by Mr. I have just read it again in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute, Vol. Being no physiologist, his language is not technical, and for this reason, and the place of publication perhaps, his remarkable paper appears to have been overlooked by physiologists. I think you will find the paper very suggestive, even supplying some points overlooked by Weismann. In one of them is a paper on the Origin of Wheat, in which he puts forth the theory that the grasses, etc. Now Henslow, in his "Floral Structures," 1 adopts the same theory for all the wind-fertilised or self-fertilised flowers, and he tells me that he is alone in the view.
I believe the view is a true one, and I want to give G. Allen the credit. If you have or can get this work of his with that paper, can you lend it me for a few days? I know not who to write to for it, as botanists of course ignore it, and G. Allen himself is, I believe, in Algeria. Wallace,—A few days ago there reached me a copy of your new book, "Darwinism," for which, along with this acknowledgment, I send my thanks.
In my present state of health I dare not read, and fear I shall be unable to profit by the accumulation of evidence you have brought together. I see sundry points on which I might raise discussions, but beyond the fact that I am at present unable to enter into them, I doubt whether they would be of any use. I regret that you have used the title "Darwinism," for notwithstanding your qualification of its meaning you will, by using it, tend greatly to confirm the erroneous conception almost universally current.
I think you will find a good deal in it to criticise, and it will be well for you to know what the leader of the Neo-Lamarckians regards as the foundation. I greatly enjoyed my visit to Oxford, and only regretted that I could not leave more time for personal talk with yourself, for I am so deplorably ignorant of modern physiology that I am delighted to get intelligible explanations of its bearings on the subjects that most interest me in science.
I expect, however, great light from your new book. Wallace,—I send the paper with pleasure, and am glad that you will read it, and I hope then see more clearly than the abstract could show the grounds of my argument. These finger-marks are most remarkable things. Of course I have made out much more about them since writing that memoir. Indeed I have another paper on them next Thursday at the Royal Society, but that only refers to ways of cataloguing them, either for criminal administration, or what I am more interested in, viz.
They are the same in the lowest idiots as in ordinary persons. I took the impressions of some 80 of these, so idiotic that they mostly could not speak, or even stand, at the great Darenth Asylum, Dartford. They are the same in clodhoppers as in the upper classes, and yet they are as hereditary as other qualities, I think. Their tendency to symmetrical distribution on the two hands is marked , and symmetry is a form of kinship. My argument is that sexual selection can have had nothing to do with the patterns, neither can any other form of selection due to vigour, wits, and so forth, because they are not correlated with them.
They just go their own gait, uninfluenced by anything that we can find or reasonably believe in, of a naturally selective influence , in the plain meaning of the phrase. Cockerell,—… Your theory to account for the influence of a first male on progeny by a second seems very probable—and in fact if, as I suppose, spermatozoa often enter ova without producing complete fertilisation, it must be so. That would be easily experimented on, with fowls, dogs, etc. It ought to be common, when females have young by successive males.
Meldola endeavoured to show that the difficulties raised by Spencer and supported. There was no real divergence between Wallace and Prof. Meldola on this matter when they subsequently discussed it. The correspondence is in Nature, xliii. See also "Darwin and After Darwin," by Romanes, , ii.
- Log in with your society membership.
- Mrs. Hansens Boarding House and The Education of Paul.
- The Lizard God (The Handy Couples Guide To Bush Sex In American Samoa).
- REMINISCENCES II;
My dear Meldola,—You have now put your foot in it! Romanes agrees with you! Henceforth he will claim you as a disciple, converted by his arguments! There was one admission in your letter I was very sorry to see, because it cannot be strictly true, and is besides open to much misrepresentation. I mean the admission that Romanes pounces upon in his second paragraph. Of course, the number of individuals in a species being finite, the chance of four coincident variations occurring in any one individual—each such variation being separately very common—cannot be anything like "infinity to one" Why, then, do you concede it most fully?
As a fact, more than half the whole population of most species seems to vary to a perceptible and measurable, and therefore sufficient, amount in scores of ways. Will it not be about 1 in 64? Given sufficient variation, I believe divergent modification of a species in two lines could easily occur, even if free intercrossing occurred, because, the numbers varying being a large proportion of the whole, the numbers which bred like with like would be sufficient to carry on the two lines of divergence, those that intercrossed and produced less perfectly adapted offspring being eliminated.
Of course some amount of segregate breeding does always occur, as Darwin always maintained, but, as he also maintained, it is not absolutely essential to evolution. Romanes argues as if "free intercrossing" meant that none would pair like with like! I have, however, read the first, and am much disappointed with it.
It seems to me. Romanes and others have pointed out this weakness in his theory, but he does not notice it, and goes on calmly throughout the essay to assume that mere panmixia must cause progressive degeneration to an unlimited extent; whereas all it can do is to effect a reduction to the average of the total population on which selection has been previously worked. He says "individuals with weak eyes would not be eliminated," but omits to notice that individuals with strong eyes would also " not be eliminated," and as there is no reason alleged why variations in all directions should not occur as before, the free intercrossing would tend to keep up a mean condition only a little below that which was kept up by selection.
It is clear that some form of selection must always co-operate in degeneration, such as economy of growth, which he hardly notices except as a possible but not a necessary factor, or actual injuriousness. It appears to me that what is wanted is to take a number of typical cases, and in each of them show how Natural Selection comes in to carry on the degeneration begun by panmixia. Poulton,—As to panmixia you have quite misunderstood my position. By the "mean condition," I. That would indeed be absurd. I do mean the "mean" of the whole series of individual variations now occurring, during a period sufficient to contain all or almost all the variations to which the species is now subject.
Take, for instance, such a case as the wings of the swallow, on the full development of which the life of the bird depends. Many individuals no doubt perish for lack of wing power, due to deficiency in size or form of wing, or in the muscles which move it. The extreme limits of variation would be seen probably if we examined every swallow that had reached maturity during the last century.
The average of all those would perhaps be 5 or 10 per cent. Any further reduction must be due either to some form of selection or to "economy of growth"—which is also, fundamentally, a form of selection. So with the eyes of cave animals, panmixia could only cause an imperfection of vision equal to the average of those variations which occurred, say, during a century before the animal entered the cave. It could only produce more effect than this if the effects of disuse are hereditary—which is a non-Weismannian doctrine.
I think this is also the position that Romanes took. My dear Marshall,—I am glad you enjoyed Mr. His observations are inimitable—and his theories and.
I was most pleased with his demonstration as to the supposed instincts of young birds and lambs, showing clearly that the former at all events are not due to inherited experience, as Darwin thought. The whole book, too, is pervaded by such a true love of nature and such a perception of its marvels and mysteries as to be unique in my experience. The modern scientific morphologists seem so wholly occupied in tracing out the mechanism of organisms that they hardly seem to appreciate the overwhelming marvel of the powers of life, which result in such infinitely varied structures and such strange habits and so called instincts.
The older I grow the more marvellous seem to me the mere variety of form and habit in plants and animals, and the unerring certitude with which from a minute germ the whole complex organism is built up, true to the type of its kind in all the infinitude of details! It is this which gives such a charm to the watching of plants growing, and of kittens so rapidly developing their senses and habitudes! My dear Poulton,—Thanks for the separate copy of your great paper on colours of larva, pupa, etc.
I am reading through the new volume of the Life of Darwin, and am struck with the curious example his own case affords of non-heredity of acquired variations. He expresses his constant dread—one of the troubles of his. It seems pretty clear, from what F. It was thoroughly established before, and in the early years of, his marriage, and, on his own theory his children ought all to have inherited it. Have they? You know perhaps better than I do, whether any of the family show any symptoms of that particular form of illness—and if not it is a fine case!
Wallace was formally admitted to the Royal Society in June, The postscript of the following letter refers to his cordial reception by the Fellows. My dear Meldola,—As we had no time to "discourse" on Thursday, I will say a few words on the individual adaptability question. We have to deal with facts, and facts certainly show that, in many groups, there is a great amount of adaptable change produced in the individual by external conditions, and that that change is not inherited. I do not see that this places Natural Selection in any subordinate position, because this individual adaptability is evidently advantageous to many species, and may itself have been produced or increased by Natural Selection.
When a species is subject to great changes of conditions, either locally or at uncertain times, it may be a decided advantage to it to become individually adapted to that change while retaining the power to revert instantly to its original form when the normal conditions return. But whenever the changed conditions are permanent, or are such that. In plants these two forms of adaptation are well marked and easily tested, and we shall soon have a large body of evidence upon it. In the higher animals I imagine that individual adaptation is small in amount, as indicated by the fact that even slight varieties often breed true.
In Lepidoptera we have the two forms of colour-adaptability clearly shown. Many species are, in all their stages, permanently adapted to their environment. Each kind of adaptation has its own sphere, and it is essential that the one should be non-inheritable, the other heritable. The whole thing seems to me quite harmonious and "as it should be. Thiselton-Dyer tells me that H. Spencer is dreadfully disturbed on the question. He fears that acquired characters may not be inherited, in which case the foundation of his whole philosophy is undermined! My dear Poulton,—I suppose you were not at Nottingham and did not get the letter, paper, and photographs I.
It was about a wonderful and perfectly authenticated case of a woman who dressed the arm of a gamekeeper after amputation, and six or seven months afterwards had a child born without the forearm on the right side, exactly corresponding in form and length of stump to that of the man. These, with my short paper, appear to have produced an effect, for a committee of Section D has been appointed to collect evidence on this and other matters.
My dear Poulton,—The letter I wrote to you at Nottingham was returned to me here after a month , so I did not think it worth while to send it to you again, though it did contain my congratulations on your appointment, 1 which I now repeat. Deformities by Prof. Hare : " In an increasing proportion of cases which are carefully investigated, it appears that maternal impressions, the result of shock or unpleasant experiences, may have a considerable influence in producing deformities in the offspring. The facts are these:. A gamekeeper had his right forearm amputated at the North Devon Infirmary.
About six months after she had a child born without, right hand and forearm , the stump exactly corresponding in length to that of the gamekeeper. Richard Budd, M. I have these facts direct from Dr. Budd, who was personally cognisant of the whole circumstances. A few years after, in November, , Dr. Budd gave an account of the case and exhibited the photographs to a large meeting at the College of Physicians, and I have no doubt it is one of the eases referred to in the article I have quoted, though Dr.
Budd thinks it has never been published. It will be at once admitted that this is not a chance coincidence, and that all theoretical difficulties must give way to such facts as this. His nonsensical representation of the theory ought to be exposed, for it will mislead very many people. I see it is adopted by the Pall Mall. I have been myself strongly prompted to take the matter up, but it is evidently your business to do that. Pray write a letter to the Times explaining that selection or survival of the fittest does not necessarily take place in the way he describes.
You might set out by remarking that whereas lie begins by comparing himself to a volunteer-colonel reviewing a regiment of regulars, he very quickly changes his attitude and becomes a colonel of regulars reviewing volunteers and making fun of their bunglings. He deserves a severe castigation. There are other points on which his views should be rectified, but this is the essential point. Wallace,—I cannot at all agree with you respecting the relative importance of the work you are doing and that which I wanted you to do.
As to the non-publication of your letter in the Times , that is absurd, considering that your name and that of Darwin are constantly coupled together. I was much pleased with your point of the adaptations supposed to be produced by the inorganic environment when they are related to the organic. It is I think new and very forcible. They seem to think that, given a stable variation, Natural Selection must hide its diminished head! My dear Poulton,—I have read your paper on "Theories of Evolution" 1 with great pleasure. It is very clear and very forcible, and I should think must have opened the eyes of some of your hearers.
Your cases against Lamarckism were very strong, and I think quite conclusive. There is one, however, which seems to me weak—that about the claws of lobsters and the tails of lizards moving and acting when detached from the body. It may be argued, fairly, that this is only an incidental result of the extreme muscular irritability and contractibility of the organs, which might have been caused on Lamarckian as well as on the Darwinian hypothesis.
The running of a fowl after its head is chopped off is an example of the same kind of thing, and this is certainly not useful. The detachment itself of claw and tail is no doubt useful and adaptive. When discussing the objection as to failures not being found fossil, there are two additional arguments to those yon adduce: 1 Every failure has been, first, a success, or it could not have come into existence as a species ; and 2. They were successes as long as the struggle was with animal competitors only, physical conditions being highly favourable.
But, when physical conditions became adverse, as by drought, cold, etc. The entrance of new enemies from another area might equally render them failures. As to your question about myself and Darwin, I had met him once only for a few minutes at the British Museum before I went to the East. It is in a ferruginous conglomerate lying beneath 4. But perhaps you have seen the article in Natural Science describing it, by Rupert Jones, who, very properly, accepts it! Of course we want the bones, but we have got the flints, and they may follow.
Hurrah for the missing link! Excuse more. My dear Professor Meldola,—I hope to have copies of my "Evolution" article in a few days, and will send you a. The article wag in print last September, but, being long, was crowded out month after month, and only now got in by being cut in two. I think I have demolished "discontinuous variation" as having any but the most subordinate part in evolution of species.
My dear Poulton,—I have now nearly finished reading Romanes, but do not find it very convincing. There is a large amount of special pleading.
Ossory Laois and Leinster— Reminiscences of Marianne-Caroline Hamilton (–)
On two points only I feel myself hit. My doubt that Darwin really meant that all the individuals of a species could be similarly modified without selection is evidently wrong, as he adduces other quotations which I had overlooked. The other point is, that my suggested explanation of sexual ornaments gives away my case as to the utility of all specific characters.
It certainly docs as it stands, but I now believe, and should have added, that all these ornaments, where they differ from species to species, are also recognition characters, and as such were rendered stable by Natural Selection from their first appearance. I rather doubt the view you state, and which Gulick and Romanes make much of, that a portion of a species, separated from the main body, will have a different average of characters, unless they are a local race which has already been somewhat selected.
The large amount of variation, and the regularity of the curve of variation, whenever about 50 or individuals are measured in the same locality, shows that the bulk of a species are similar in amount of variation everywhere. But when a portion of a species begins to be modified in adaptation to new conditions, distinction of some kind is essential, and therefore any slight difference. I see no reason to believe that species usually have been isolated first and modified afterwards, but rather that new species usually arise from species which have a wide range, and in different areas need somewhat different characters and habits.
Then distinctness arises both by adaptation and by development of recognition marks to minimise intercrossing. I wonder Darwin did not see that if the unknown "constant causes" he supposes can modify all the individuals of a species, either indifferently, usefully, or hurtfully, and that these characters so produced are, as Romanes says, very, very numerous in all species, and are sometimes the only specific characters, then the Neo Lamarckians are quite right in putting Natural Selection as a very secondary and subordinate influence, since all it has to do is to weed out the hurtful variations.
Of course, if a species with warning colours were, in part, completely isolated, and its colours or markings were accidentally different from the parent form, whatever set of markings and colours it had would be, I consider, rendered stable for recognition, and also for protection, since if it varied too much the young birds and other enemies would take a heavier toll in learning it was uneatable.
It might then be said that the character by which this species differs from the parent species is a useless character. But surely this is not what is usually meant by a "useless character. If they were in contact it would be useful, as a distinction preventing intercrossing, and so long as they are not brought together we cannot really tell if it is a species at all, since it might breed freely with the parent form and thus return back to one type.
The "useless characters" I have always had in mind when arguing this question are those which are or are supposed to be. At that time we had a house in Galveston as well. The series consists of typewritten transcripts of three separate documents prepared over a number of years under Colonel House's personal supervision. The diary proper , dated September 25 , to June 5 , , consists of roughly 3, pages and is not indexed.
Denton transcribed the entries , resulting in an original typewritten transcript and a carbon copy. The transcripts were reviewed by House , who occasionally made annotations and corrections.
Kagwahiv Mourning II: Ghosts, Grief, and Reminiscences
The letters and various documents cited by House in the test of the diary that he intended to insert to complete the records were not added to the diary and remain in the House papers. The diary provides a daily record of Colonel House's activities from to , and less elaborate entries from to House began to keep a daily record in September during the presidential campaign and continued almost without interruption until the end of After concluding the regular entries with a discussion of the Wilson Administration and its legacy of idealism , he made sporadic entries through November of Also included in Series II is a bound volume containing electrostatic copies of four log books kept on a day-to-day basis by Colonel House's secretarial staff in Paris covering the period October 31 , June 29 , : the entries recorded therein provide dramatic evidence of the incredible number of " suitors and supplicants " who passed through Colonel House's private offices during the winter and spring of I think, along in '62 and '63 when our soldiers were coming and going to and from the front.
Father came home to at luncheon and I recall where Mother was standing when he told her that the President had been shot. Your comment:. Your Name:. Back to top. Select the collections to add or remove from your search. Select All Collections. B Books Full Access. Church of North India. House Diaries. The Music Library Letters Database. Uganda Christian University Archives. Yale Daily News Historical Archive. Yale Map Department.
House , Edward Mandell , Archives and Manuscripts. Related Resource. Manuscripts and Archives. Related Resource Identifier. Location, YUL.
Related REMINISCENCES II
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved