I must say one word more in justification (for I feel sure that your tendency will be to despise me and my crotchets), that all my notions about HOW species change are derived from long continued study of the works of (and converse with) agriculturists and horticulturists; and I believe I see my way pretty clearly on the means used by nature to change her species and ADAPT them to the wondrous and exquisitely beautiful contingencies to which every living being is exposed...
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, July 30th 1856.
My dear Hooker, Your letter is of MUCH value to me. I was not able to get a definite answer from Lyell (On the continental extensions of Forbes and others.), as you will see in the enclosed letters, though I inferred that he thought nothing of my arguments. Had it not been for this correspondence, I should have written sadly too strongly. You may rely on it I shall put my doubts moderately. There never was such a predicament as mine: here you continental extensionists would remove enormous difficulties opposed to me, and yet I cannot honestly admit the doctrine, and must therefore say so. Icannot get over the fact that not a fragment of secondary or palaeozoic rock has been found on any island above 500 or 600 miles from a mainland.
You rather misunderstand me when you think I doubt the POSSIBILITY of subsidence of 20,000 or 30,000 feet; it is only probability, considering such evidence as we have independently of distribution. I have not yet worked out in full detail the distribution of mammalia, both IDENTICAL and allied, with respect to the ONE ELEMENT OF DEPTH OF THE SEA; but as far as I have gone, the results are to me surprisingly accordant with my very most troublesome belief in not such great geographical changes as you believe;and in mammalia we certainly know more of MEANS of distribution than in any other class. Nothing is so vexatious to me, as so constantly finding myself drawing different conclusions from better judges than myself, from the same facts.
I fancy I have lately removed many (not geographical) great difficulties opposed to my notions, but God knows it may be all hallucination.
Please return Lyell's letters.
What a capital letter of Lyell's that to you is, and what a wonderful man he is. I differ from him greatly in thinking that those who believe that species are NOT fixed will multiply specific names: I know in my own case my most frequent source of doubt was whether others would not think this or that was a God-created Barnacle, and surely deserved a name. Otherwise Ishould only have thought whether the amount of difference and permanence was sufficient to justify a name: I am, also, surprised at his thinking it immaterial whether species are absolute or not: whenever it is proved that all species are produced by generation, by laws of change, what good evidence we shall have of the gaps in formations. And what a science Natural History will be, when we are in our graves, when all the laws of change are thought one of the most important parts of Natural History.
I cannot conceive why Lyell thinks such notions as mine or of 'Vestiges,' will invalidate specific centres. But I must not run on and take up your time. My MS. will not, I fear, be copied before you go abroad. With hearty thanks.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--After giving much condensed, my argument versus continental extensions, I shall append some such sentence, as that two better judges than myself have considered these arguments, and attach no weight to them.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, August 5th [1856].
...I quite agree about Lyell's letters to me, which, though to me interesting, have afforded me no new light. Your letters, under the GEOLOGICAL point of view, have been more valuable to me. You cannot imagine how earnestly I wish I could swallow continental extension, but Icannot; the more I think (and I cannot get the subject out of my head), the more difficult I find it. If there were only some half-dozen cases, Ishould not feel the least difficulty; but the generality of the facts of all islands (except one or two) having a considerable part of their productions in common with one or more mainlands utterly staggers me. What a wonderful case of the Epacridae! It is most vexatious, also humiliating, to me that I cannot follow and subscribe to the way in which you strikingly put your view of the case. I look at your facts (about Eucalyptus, etc.)as DAMNING against continental extension, and if you like also damning against migration, or at least of ENORMOUS difficulty. I see the ground of our difference (in a letter I must put myself on an equality in arguing)lies, in my opinion, that scarcely anything is known of means of distribution. I quite agree with A. De Candolle's (and I dare say your)opinion that it is poor work putting together the merely POSSIBLE means of distribution; but I see no other way in which the subject can be attacked, for I think that A. De Candolle's argument, that no plants have been introduced into England except by man's agency, [is] of no weight. Icannot but think that the theory of continental extension does do some little harm as stopping investigation of the means of dispersal, which, whether NEGATIVE or positive, seems to me of value; when negatived, then every one who believes in single centres will have to admit continental extensions.
...I see from your remarks that you do not understand my notions (whether or no worth anything) about modification; I attribute very little to the direct action of climate, etc. I suppose, in regard to specific centres, we are at cross purposes; I should call the kitchen garden in which the red cabbage was produced, or the farm in which Bakewell made the Shorthorn cattle, the specific centre of these SPECIES! And surely this is centralisation enough!
I thank you most sincerely for all your assistance; and whether or no my book may be wretched, you have done your best to make it less wretched.
