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." "I
can 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 "I
could 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. I
submit that the "Savoyard" has unfairly made use of the failure of
certain speculations in order to show that a distinct theory is
untenable.
Let it be granted that Darwin's theory has been foreshadowed by
numerous previous writers. Grant the "Savoyard" his Giordano Bruno,
and give full weight to the barrel-organ in a neighbouring
settlement, I would still ask, has the theory of natural development
of species ever been placed in anything approaching its present clear
and connected form before the appearance of Mr. Darwin's book? Has
it ever received the full attention of the scientific world as a duly
organised theory, one presented in a tangible shape and demanding
investigation, as the conclusion arrived at by a man of known
scientific attainments after years of patient toil?
