To those, however, who do feel an interest in the question, I would venture to give a word or two of advice. I would strongly deprecate forming a hurried opinion for or against the theory. Naturalists in Europe are canvassing the matter with the utmost diligence, and a few years must show whether they will accept the theory or no. It is plausible; that can be decided by no one. Whether it is true or no can be decided only among naturalists themselves. We are outsiders, and most of us must be content to sit on the stairs till the great men come forth and give us the benefit of their opinion.
I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, A. M.
DARWIN ON SPECIES: [From the Press, March 14th, 1863.]
To the Editor of the Press.
Sir--A correspondent signing himself "A. M." in the issue of February 21st says: --"Will the writer (of an article on barrel-organs) refer to anything bearing upon natural selection and the struggle for existence in Dr. Darwin's work?" This is one of the trade forms by which writers imply that there is no such passage, and yet leave a loophole if they are proved wrong. I will, however, furnish him with a passage from the notes of Darwin's Botanic Garden:-"I am acquainted with a philosopher who, contemplating this subject, thinks it not impossible that the first insects were anthers or stigmas of flowers, which had by some means loosed themselves from their parent plant; and that many insects have gradually in long process of time been formed from these, some acquiring wings, others fins, and others claws, from their ceaseless efforts to procure their food or to secure themselves from injury. The anthers or stigmas are therefore separate beings."This passage contains the germ of Mr. Charles Darwin's theory of the origin of species by natural selection:-"Analogy would lead me to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from one prototype."Here are a few specimens, his illustrations of the theory:-"There seems to me no great difficulty in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swim-bladder into a lung or organ used exclusively for respiration." "A swim-bladder has apparently been converted into an air-breathing lung." "We must be cautious in concluding that a bat could not have been formed by natural selection from an animal which at first could only glide through the air." "Ican see no insuperable difficulty in further believing it possible that the membrane-connected fingers and forearm of the galeopithecus might be greatly lengthened by natural selection, and this, as far as the organs of flight are concerned, would convert it into a bat.""The framework of bones being the same in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of a porpoise, and leg of a horse, the same number of vertebrae forming the neck of the giraffe and of the elephant, and innumerable other such facts, at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications."I do not mean to go through your correspondent's letter, otherwise "Icould hardly reprehend in sufficiently strong terms" (and all that sort of thing) the perversion of what I said about Giordano Bruno.
But "ex uno disce omnes"--I am, etc., "THE SAVOYARD."DARWIN ON SPECIES: [From the Press, 18 March, 1863.]
To the Editor of the Press.
Sir--The "Savoyard" of last Saturday has shown that he has perused Darwin's Botanic Garden with greater attention than myself. I am obliged to him for his correction of my carelessness, and have not the smallest desire to make use of any loopholes to avoid being "proved wrong." Let, then, the "Savoyard's" assertion that Dr.
Darwin had to a certain extent forestalled Mr. C. Darwin stand, and let my implied denial that in the older Darwin's works passages bearing on natural selection, or the struggle for existence, could be found, go for nought, or rather let it be set down against me.
What follows? Has the "Savoyard" (supposing him to be the author of the article on barrel-organs) adduced one particle of real argument the more to show that the real Darwin's theory is wrong?
The elder Darwin writes in a note that "he is acquainted with a philosopher who thinks it not impossible that the first insects were the anthers or stigmas of flowers, which by some means, etc. etc."This is mere speculation, not a definite theory, and though the passage above as quoted by the" Savoyard" certainly does contain the germ of Darwin's theory, what is it more than the crudest and most unshapen germ? And in what conceivable way does this discovery of the egg invalidate the excellence of the chicken?
Was there ever a great theory yet which was not more or less developed from previous speculations which were all to a certain extent wrong, and all ridiculed, perhaps not undeservedly, at the time of their appearance? There is a wide difference between a speculation and a theory. A speculation involves the notion of a man climbing into a lofty position, and descrying a somewhat remote object which he cannot fully make out. A theory implies that the theorist has looked long and steadfastly till he is clear in his own mind concerning the nature of the thing which he is beholding. Isubmit that the "Savoyard" has unfairly made use of the failure of certain speculations in order to show that a distinct theory is untenable.
