The sun., 1903-05-17

8I0at6f L0en Dy ehoWnB ~0'A' W ~" = :
and then to procreate." ,,,
On page ST. OF the first volume WIN 90
found reprinted letter dated Sept. %, l5o'
and first published In Nature March ., lwi' :
together with q note from tho late Duko
OF Argyll, In which the latter stated ths'
the letter had been written to him ny Lar WI"
in reply to the question, -Why II was that
he did assume the unity OF mankind az de-
scended from a single pair?' The DUKE
added that. in the reply, Darwin docs not
Yepudiate this Interpretation OF his theory
but simply proceeds to explain and de-
fend the doctrine" On former occasion
the Duke OF Argyll had alluded az TACT
TO the circumstance that Charles Darwin
assumed mankind to have arisen IN one
place. and. therefore, In single pair.
Tho letter from Darwin WAS published IN
answer to some scientific friends VINO
doubted the fact and asked for reference
on which the statement WAS based. we re-
produce Darwin's words: THE problem
which you state 30 clearly Ia a very interest
ing one, on which have often speculated'
As far as I can Judge, the improbabiiity
Is extreme that the same well-character,zeo
species should be produced in two distinct
countries or at two distinct times. 10
certain that the same rdridtion may arse
in two distinct places, as with albinlsm
or with the nectarine on the peachtree.
But the evidence seems to me overwhelm-
ing that well-marked species ia the prod
uot, not Of single or Of few variations,
but Of a long series OF notifications, each
modification resulting chiefly from adapta-
tion to infinitely complex conditions Qn-
zI,,l. ~ 1T La ftA nty-vl
with more or less inheritance Of all the pre-
cedlng notifications. Moreover, as varl-
ability depends more on the nature OF the
organism than that OF the environment,
the variations will tend to differ at each
successive stage Of descent. Now 1t
seems to me improbable in the highest
degree that o species should ever have
been exposed in tive places to infinitely
complex relations of exactly the same nat
ure during a long series of notifications.
An illustration will perhaps make what
have said clearer though 1t applies only to
the less important factors. Inheritance and
variability. and not to adaptation-viz.
the improbabilty Of two men being born
In two countries Identical in body and mind.
II, however, II he assumed that species
at each successive stage Of its modification
was surrounded In two distinct countries
or times by exactly tho same assemblage
Of plants and animals and by the same
physical conditions, then I can see no
theoretical difficulty in such species giving
birth to the new form In the two countries.
It obviously does not follow from this
letter that Darwin believed mankind TO
have descended from q single pair. In a
letter addressed to G. Bentham and dated
Nov rs, 1869. he distinctly says: Il dispute
or even generally. descended from q single
pair OF parents. The whole body OF in
dividuals. I believe. become altered to-
Rether-nke all domestic breeds. which are
changed through Unconscious selection
by man.
On April .. 1880. Prof. Huxley lectured at
the Royal Institution on The Coming OF Age
Of the Origin of Species Writing to Oar
win about the lecture Huxley says: -Ihope
you do not imagine, because had nothing
to say about Natural Selection that I am
at all weak Of faith on that article. But the
first thing seems to me TO be to drive the
fact OF evolution into peoples heads. When
that is onoe safe. the rest will come easy
Darwin's answer is dated about . month
later Il saw your motive for not alluding
to Natural Selection and quite agreed in
my mind in its wisdom. But, At the same
time, II occurred TO me that you might be
giving 1t up. and that, any how, you
could not allude to it without various
'provisos' too long to give In lecture.
'NIthink continuously on some half dozen
structures, Of which We can at present see
r ID thok
is Of quite subordinate importance.
On the other hand, when I reflect on the
structures. especially in plants.
which, twenty years ago, would have been
called simply morphologica' and useless.
and which are ncv known TO be highly
important, l can persuade myself that
every structure may have been developed
through Natural Selection. II is really
curious how many out Of a list OF structures
which Bronn enumerated AZ not possibly
due to Natural Selection, because Of no
functional importance, can now be shown
to be highly important. Lobed leaves was
I believe, Que case, and only two or three
days ago Frank fDarwinl showed me how
they ao. In q manner quite sufficiently i'm
portant to account for the lobng Of any
large leaf. am particularly delighted at
what you ray about domestic dogs. jackals
and wolves, because. from mere indirect
evidence, arrived in Varieties Of Domestic
Animals at exactly the same conclusion
with respect to tho domestic dogs OF E,i-
rope and North America--the conclusion,
that domestic dogs descend from
more than one wild species. See how i'm
portant In another way this conclusion is
for no one can doubt that large and small
dogs are perfectly fertile together, and
produce fertile mongrels; and how we'll
this supports tho Pallasian doctrine that
eliminates the sterility, al
most universal between forms slowly de-
veloped in state OF nature?"
While tho great achievement Of Darwin's
life was the demonstration that species
are not independently created by the fat
of . higher power. he by no means regarded
the Cosmos as 4 foruitous product. In
letter to Lord Farrer, dated Aug. 2S. 1881,
he says: III we consider the whole uni
verse, the mind refuses to look at 1t as the
outcome OF chance-that h, without design
or purpose. The whole question, how
ever, seems to me insoluble, for I cannot
nut much or any faith In the so-called in
tuitione Of the human mind, which have
been developed, as ! cannot doubt from
such a mind as animals possess; and. what
would their convictions or intuitions be
IA olp to- hat ,s,ith