CHAPTER 1.X.
THE GROWTH OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.'
[The growth of the 'Origin of Species' has been briefly described in my
father's words (above). The letters given in the present and following
chapters will illustrate and amplify the history thus sketched out.
It is clear that in the early part of the voyage of the "Beagle" he did not
feel it inconsistent with his views to express himself in thoroughly
orthodox language as to the genesis of new species. Thus in 1834 he wrote
(MS. Journals, page 468.) at Valparaiso: "I have already found beds of
recent shells yet retaining their colour at an elevation of 1300 feet, and
beneath, the level country is strewn with them. It seems not a very
improbable conjecture that the want of animals may be owing to none having
been created since this country was raised from the sea."
This passage does not occur in the published 'Journal,' the last proof of
which was finished in 1837; and this fact harmonizes with the change we
know to have been proceeding in his views. But in the published 'Journal'
we find passages which show a point of view more in accordance with
orthodox theological natural history than with his later views. Thus, in
speaking of the birds Synallaxis and Scytalopus (1st edition page 353; 2nd
edition page 289), he says: "When finding, as in this case, any animal
which seems to play so insignificant a part in the great scheme of nature,
one is apt to wonder why a distinct species should have been created."
A comparison of the two editions of the 'Journal' is instructive, as giving
some idea of the development of his views on evolution. It does not give
us a true index of the mass of conjecture which was taking shape in his
mind, but it shows us that he felt sure enough of the truth of his belief
to allow a stronger tinge of evolution to appear in the second edition. He
has mentioned in the Autobiography that it was not until he read Malthus
that he got a clear view of the potency of natural selection. This was in
1838--a year after he finished the first edition (it was not published
until 1839), and five years before the second edition was written (1845).
Thus the turning-point in the formation of his theory took place between
the writing of the two editions.
I will first give a few passages which are practically the same in the two
editions, and which are, therefore, chiefly of interest as illustrating his
frame of mind in 1837.
The case of the two species of Molothrus (1st edition page 61; 2nd edition
page 53) must have been one of the earliest instances noticed by him of the
existence of representative species--a phenomenon which we know
('Autobiography,') struck him deeply. The discussion on introduced animals
(1st edition page 139; 2nd edition page 120) shows how much he was
impressed by the complicated interdependence of the inhabitants of a given
area.
An analogous point of view is given in the discussion (1st edition page 98;
2nd edition page 85) of the mistaken belief that large animals require, for
their support, a luxuriant vegetation; the incorrectness of this view is
illustrated by the comparison of the fauna of South Africa and South
America, and the vegetation of the two continents. The interest of the
discussion is that it shows clearly our a priori ignorance of the
conditions of life suitable to any organism.
There is a passage which has been more than once quoted as bearing on the
origin of his views. It is where he discusses the striking difference
between the species of mice on the east and west of the Andes (1st edition
page 399): "Unless we suppose the same species to have been created in two
different countries, we ought not to expect any closer similarity between
the organic beings on the opposite sides of the Andes than on shores
separated by a broad strait of the sea." In the 2nd edition page 327, the
passage is almost verbally identical, and is practically the same.
There are other passages again which are more strongly evolutionary in the
2nd edition, but otherwise are similar to the corresponding passages in the
1st edition. Thus, in describing the blind Tuco-tuco (1st edition page 60;
2nd edition page 52), in the first edition he makes no allusion to what
Lamarck might have thought, nor is the instance used as an example of
modification, as in the edition of 1845.
A striking passage occurs in the 2nd edition (page 173) on the relationship
between the "extinct edentata and the living sloths, ant-eaters, and
armadillos."
"This wonderful relationship in the same continent between the dead and the
living, will, I do not doubt, hereafter throw more light on the appearance
of organic beings on our earth, and their disappearance from it, than any
other class of facts."
This sentence does not occur in the 1st edition, but he was evidently
profoundly struck by the disappearance of the gigantic forerunners of the
present animals. The difference between the discussions in the two
editions is most instructive. In both, our ignorance of the conditions of
life is insisted on, but in the second edition, the discussion is made to
led up to a strong statement of the intensity of the struggle for life.
Then follows a comparison between rarity (In the second edition, page 146,
the destruction of Niata cattle by droughts is given as a good example of
our ignorance of the causes of rarity or extinction. The passage does not
occur in the first edition.) and extinction, which introduces the idea that
the preservation and dominance of existing species depend on the degree in
which they are adapted to surrounding conditions. In the first edition, he
is merely "tempted to believe in such simple relations as variation of
climate and food, or introduction of enemies, or the increased number of
other species, as the cause of the succession of races." But finally (1st
edition) he ends the chapter by comparing the extinction of a species to
the exhaustion and disappearance of varieties of fruit-trees: as if he
thought that a mysterious term of life was impressed on each species at its
creation.
The difference of treatment of the Galapagos problem is of some interest.
In the earlier book, the American type of the productions of the islands is
noticed, as is the fact that the different islands possess forms specially
their own, but the importance of the whole problem is not so strongly put
forward. Thus, in the first edition, he merely says:--
"This similarity of type between distant islands and continents, while the
species are distinct, has scarcely been sufficiently noticed. The
circumstance would be explained, according to the views of some authors, by
saying that the creative power had acted according to the same law over a
wide area."--(1st edition page 474.)
This passage is not given in the second edition, and the generalisations on
geographical distribution are much wider and fuller. Thus he asks:--
"Why were their aboriginal inhabitants, associated...in different
proportions both in kind and number from those on the Continent, and
therefore acting on each other in a different manner--why were they created
on American types of organisation?"--(2nd edition page 393.)
The same difference of treatment is shown elsewhere in this chapter. Thus
the gradation in the form of beak presented by the thirteen allied species
of finch is described in the first edition (page 461) without comment.
Whereas in the second edition (page 380) he concludes:--
"One might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this
Archipelago, one species has been taken and modified for different ends."
On the whole it seems to me remarkable that the difference between the two
editions is not greater; it is another proof of the author's caution and
self-restraint in the treatment of his theory. After reading the second
edition of the 'Journal,' we find with a strong sense of surprise how far
developed were his views in 1837. We are enabled to form an opinion on
this point from the note-books in which he wrote down detached thoughts and
queries. I shall quote from the first note-book, completed between July
1837 and February 1838: and this is the more worth doing, as it gives us
an insight into the condition of his thoughts before the reading of
Malthus. The notes are written in his most hurried style, so many words
being omitted, that it is often difficult to arrive at the meaning. With a
few exceptions (indicated by square brackets) (In the extracts from the
note-book ordinary brackets represent my father's parentheses.) I have
printed the extracts as written; the punctuation, however, has been
altered, and a few obvious slips corrected where it seemed necessary. The
extracts are not printed in order, but are roughly classified. (On the
first page of the note-book, is written "Zoonomia"; this seems to refer to
the first few pages in which reproduction by gemmation is discussed, and
where the "Zoonomia" is mentioned. Many pages have been cut out of the
note-book, probably for use in writing the Sketch of 1844, and these would
have no doubt contained the most interesting extracts.)
"Propagation explains why modern animals same type as extinct, which is
law, almost proved."
"We can see why structure is common in certain countries when we can hardly
believe necessary, but if it was necessary to one forefather, the result
would be as it is. Hence antelopes at Cape of Good Hope; marsupials at
Australia."
"Countries longest separated greatest differences--if separated from
immersage, possibly two distinct types, but each having its
representatives--as in Australia."
"Will this apply to whole organic kingdom when our planet first cooled?"
The two following extracts show that he applied the theory of evolution to
the "whole organic kingdom" from plants to man.
"If we choose to let conjecture run wild, then animals, our fellow brethren
in pain, disease, death, suffering and famine--our slaves in the most
laborious works, our companions in our amusements--they may partake [of?]
our origin in one common ancestor--we may be all melted together."
"The different intellects of man and animals not so great as between living
things without thought (plants), and living things with thought (animals)."
The following extracts are again concerned with an a priori view of the
probability of the origin of species by descent ["propagation," he called
it.].
"The tree of life should perhaps be called the coral of life, base of
branches dead; so that passages cannot be seen."
"There never may have been grade between pig and tapir, yet from some
common progenitor. Now if the intermediate ranks had produced infinite
species, probably the series would have been more perfect."
At another place, speaking of intermediate forms he says:--
"Cuvier objects to propagation of species by saying, why have not some
intermediate forms been discovered between Palaeotherium, Megalonyx,
Mastodon, and the species now living? Now according to my view (in S.
America) parent of all Armadilloes might be brother to Megatherium--uncle
now dead."
Speaking elsewhere of intermediate forms, he remarks:--
"Opponents will say--'show them me.' I will answer yes, if you will show
me every step between bulldog and greyhound."
Here we see that the case of domestic animals was already present in his
mind as bearing on the production of natural species. The disappearance of
intermediate forms naturally leads up to the subject of extinction, with
which the next extract begins.
"It is a wonderful fact, horse, elephant, and mastodon, dying out about
same time in such different quarters.
"Will Mr. Lyell say that some [same?] circumstance killed it over a tract
from Spain to South America?--(Never).
"They die, without they change, like golden pippins; it is a GENERATION OF
SPECIES like generation OF INDIVIDUALS.
"Why does individual die? To perpetuate certain peculiarities (therefore
adaptation), and obliterate accidental varieties, and to accommodate itself
to change (for, of course, change, even in varieties, is accommodation).
Now this argument applies to species.
"If individual cannot propagate he has no issue--so with species.
"If SPECIES generate other SPECIES, their race is not utterly cut off:--
like golden pippins, if produced by seed, go on--otherwise all die.
"The fossil horse generated, in South Africa, zebra--and continued--
perished in America.
"All animals of same species are bound together just like buds of plants,
which die at one time, though produced either sooner or later. Prove
animals like plants--trace gradation between associated and non-associated
animals--and the story will be complete."
Here we have the view already alluded to of a term of life impressed on a
species.
But in the following note we get extinction connected with unfavourable
variation, and thus a hint is given of natural selection:
"With respect to extinction, we can easily see that [a] variety of [the]
ostrich (Petise), may not be well adapted, and thus perish out; or, on the
other hand, like Orpheus [a Galapagos bird], being favourable, many might
be produced. This requires [the] principle that the permanent variations
produced by confined breeding and changing circumstances are continued and
produced according to the adaptation of such circumstance, and therefore
that death of species is a consequence (contrary to what would appear from
America) of non-adaptation of circumstances."
The first part of the next extract has a similar bearing. The end of the
passage is of much interest, as showing that he had at this early date
visions of the far-reaching character of the theory of evolution:--
"With belief of transmutation and geographical grouping, we are lead to
endeavour to discover CAUSES of change; the manner of adaptation (wish of
parents??), instinct and structure becomes full of speculation and lines of
observation. View of generation being condensation (I imagine him to mean
that each generation is "condensed" to a small number of the best organized
individuals.) test of highest organisation intelligible...My theory would
give zest to recent and fossil comparative anatomy; it would lead to the
study of instincts, heredity, and mind-heredity, whole [of] metaphysics.
"It would lead to closest examination of hybridity and generation, causes
of change in order to know what we have come from and to what we tend--to
what circumstances favour crossing and what prevents it--this, and direct
examination of direct passages of structure in species, might lead to laws
of change, which would then be [the] main object of study, to guide our
speculations."
The following two extracts have a similar interest; the second is
especially interesting, as it contains the germ of concluding sentence of
the 'Origin of Species': ('Origin of Species' (1st edition), page 490:--
"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this
planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so
simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have
been, and are being evolved.")--
"Before the attraction of gravity discovered it might have been said it was
as great a difficulty to account for the movement of all [planets] by one
law, as to account for each separate one; so to say that all mammalia were
born from one stock, and since distributed by such means as we can
recognise, may be thought to explain nothing.
"Astronomers might formerly have said that God fore-ordered each planet to
move in its particular destiny. In the same manner God orders each animal
created with certain forms in certain countries, but how much more simple
and sublime [a] power--let attraction act according to certain law, such
are inevitable consequences--let animals be created, then by the fixed laws
of generation, such will be their successors.
"Let the powers of transportal be such, and so will be the forms of one
country to another--let geological changes go at such a rate, so will be
the number and distribution of the species!!"
The three next extracts are of miscellaneous interest:--
"When one sees nipple on man's breast, one does not say some use, but sex
not having been determined--so with useless wings under elytra of beetles--
born from beetles with wings, and modified--if simple creation merely,
would have been born without them."
"In a decreasing population at any one moment fewer closely related (few
species of genera); ultimately few genera (for otherwise the relationship
would converge sooner), and lastly, perhaps, some one single one. Will not
this account for the odd genera with few species which stand between great
groups, which we are bound to consider the increasing ones?"
The last extract which I shall quote gives the germ of his theory of the
relation between alpine plants in various parts of the world, in the
publication of which he was forestalled by E. Forbes (see volume i. page
72). He says, in the 1837 note-book, that alpine plants, "formerly
descended lower, therefore [they are] species of lower genera altered, or
northern plants."
When we turn to the Sketch of his theory, written in 1844 (still therefore
before the second edition of the 'Journal' was completed), we find an
enormous advance made on the note-book of 1837. The Sketch is an fact a
surprisingly complete presentation of the argument afterwards familiar to
us in the 'Origin of Species.' There is some obscurity as to the date of
the short Sketch which formed the basis of the 1844 Essay. We know from
his own words (volume i., page 68), that it was in June 1842 that he first
wrote out a short sketch of his views. (This version I cannot find, and it
was probably destroyed, like so much of his MS., after it had been enlarged
and re-copied in 1844.) This statement is given with so much circumstance
that it is almost impossible to suppose that it contains an error of date.
It agrees also with the following extract from his Diary.
1842. May 18th. Went to Maer.
"June 15th to Shrewsbury, and on 18th to Capel Curig. During my stay at
Maer and Shrewsbury (five years after commencement) wrote pencil-sketch of
species theory."
Again in the introduction to the 'Origin,' page 1, he writes, "after an
interval of five years' work" [from 1837, i.e. in 1842], "I allowed myself
to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes."
Nevertheless in the letter signed by Sir C. Lyell and Sir J.D. Hooker,
which serves as an introduction to the joint paper of Messrs. C. Darwin and
A. Wallace on the 'Tendency of Species to form Varieties,' ('Linn. Soc.
Journal,' 1858, page 45.) the essay of 1844 (extracts from which form part
of the paper) is said to have been "sketched in 1839, and copied in 1844."
This statement is obviously made on the authority of a note written in my
father's hand across the Table of Contents of the 1844 Essay. It is to the
following effect: "This was sketched in 1839, and copied out in full, as
here written and read by you in 1844." I conclude that this note was added
in 1858, when the MS. was sent to Sir J.D. Hooker (see Letter of June 29,
1858, page 476). There is also some further evidence on this side of the
question. Writing to Mr. Wallace (January 25, 1859) my father says:--
"Every one whom I have seen has thought your paper very well written and
interesting. It puts my extracts (written in 1839, now just twenty years
ago!), which I must say in apology were never for an instant intended for
publication; into the shade." The statement that the earliest sketch was
written in 1839 has been frequently made in biographical notices of my
father, no doubt on the authority of the 'Linnean Journal,' but it must, I
think, be considered as erroneous. The error may possibly have arisen in
this way. In writing on the Table of Contents of the 1844 MS. that it was
sketched in 1839, I think my father may have intended to imply that the
framework of the theory was clearly thought out by him at that date. In
the Autobiography he speaks of the time, "about 1839, when the theory was
clearly conceived," meaning, no doubt, the end of 1838 and beginning of
1839, when the reading of Malthus had given him the key to the idea of
natural selection. But this explanation does not apply to the letter to
Mr. Wallace; and with regard to the passage (My father certainly saw the
proofs of the paper, for he added a foot-note apologising for the style of
the extracts, on the ground that the "work was never intended for
publication.") in the 'Linnean Journal' it is difficult to understand how
it should have been allowed to remain as it now stands, conveying, as it
clearly does, the impression that 1839 was the date of his earliest written
sketch.
The sketch of 1844 is written in a clerk's hand, in two hundred and thirty-
one pages folio, blank leaves being alternated with the MS. with a view to
amplification. The text has been revised and corrected, criticisms being
pencilled by himself on the margin. It is divided into two parts: I. "On
the variation of Organic Beings under Domestication and in their Natural
State." II. "On the Evidence favourable and opposed to the view that
Species are naturally formed races descended from common Stocks." The
first part contains the main argument of the 'Origin of Species.' It is
founded, as is the argument of that work, on the study of domestic animals,
and both the Sketch and the 'Origin' open with a chapter on variation under
domestication and on artificial selection. This is followed, in both
essays, by discussions on variation under nature, on natural selection, and
on the struggle for life. Here, any close resemblance between the two
essays with regard to arrangement ceases. Chapter III. of the Sketch,
which concludes the first part, treats of the variations which occur in the
instincts and habits of animals, and thus corresponds to some extent with
Chapter VII. of the 'Origin' (1st edition). It thus forms a complement to
the chapters which deal with variation in structure. It seems to have been
placed thus early in the Essay to prevent the hasty rejection of the whole
theory by a reader to whom the idea of natural selection acting on
instincts might seem impossible. This is the more probable, as the Chapter
on Instinct in the 'Origin' is specially mentioned (Introduction, page 5)
as one of the "most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory."
Moreover the chapter in the Sketch ends with a discussion, "whether any
particular corporeal structures...are so wonderful as to justify the
rejection prima facie of our theory." Under this heading comes the
discussion of the eye, which in the 'Origin' finds its place in Chapter VI.
under "Difficulties of the Theory." The second part seems to have been
planned in accordance with his favourite point of view with regard to his
theory. This is briefly given in a letter to Dr. Asa Gray, November 11th,
1859: "I cannot possibly believe that a false theory would explain so many
classes of facts, as I think it certainly does explain. On these grounds I
drop my anchor, and believe that the difficulties will slowly disappear."
On this principle, having stated the theory in the first part, he proceeds
to show to what extent various wide series of facts can be explained by its
means.
Thus the second part of the Sketch corresponds roughly to the nine
concluding Chapters of the First Edition of the 'Origin.' But we must
exclude Chapter VII. ('Origin') on Instinct, which forms a chapter in the
first part of the Sketch, and Chapter VIII. ('Origin') on Hybridism, a
subject treated in the Sketch with 'Variation under Nature' in the first
part.
The following list of the chapters of the second part of the Sketch will
illustrate their correspondence with the final chapters of the 'Origin.'
Chapter I. "On the kind of intermediateness necessary, and the number of
such intermediate forms." This includes a geological discussion, and
corresponds to parts of Chapters VI. and IX. of the 'Origin.'
Chapter II. "The gradual appearance and disappearance of organic beings."
Corresponds to Chapter X. of the 'Origin.'
Chapter III. "Geographical Distribution." Corresponds to Chapters XI. and
XII. of the 'Origin.'
Chapter IV. "Affinities and Classification of Organic beings."
Chapter V. "Unity of Type," Morphology, Embryology.
Chapter VI. Rudimentary Organs.
These three chapters correspond to Chapter XII. of the 'Origin.'
Chapter VII. Recapitulation and Conclusion. The final sentence of the
Sketch, which we saw in its first rough form in the Note Book of 1837,
closely resembles the final sentence of the 'Origin,' much of it being
identical. The 'Origin' is not divided into two "Parts," but we see traces
of such a division having been present in the writer's mind, in this
resemblance between the second part of the Sketch and the final chapters of
the 'Origin.' That he should speak ('Origin,' Introduction, page 5.) of
the chapters on transition, on instinct, on hybridism, and on the
geological record, as forming a group, may be due to the division of his
early MS. into two parts.
Mr. Huxley, who was good enough to read the Sketch at my request, while
remarking that the "main lines of argument," and the illustrations employed
are the same, points out that in the 1844 Essay, "much more weight is
attached to the influence of external conditions in producing variation,
and to the inheritance of acquired habits than in the Origin.'"
It is extremely interesting to find in the Sketch the first mention of
principles familiar to us in the 'Origin of Species.' Foremost among these
may be mentioned the principle of Sexual Selection, which is clearly
enunciated. The important form of selection known as "unconscious," is
also given. Here also occurs a statement of the law that peculiarities
tend to appear in the offspring at an age corresponding to that at which
they occurred in the parent.
Professor Newton, who was so kind as to look through the 1844 Sketch, tells
me that my father's remarks on the migration of birds, incidentally given
in more than one passage, show that he had anticipated the views of some
later writers.
With regard to the general style of the Sketch, it is not to be expected
that it should have all the characteristics of the 'Origin,' and we do not,
in fact, find that balance and control, that concentration and grasp, which
are so striking in the work of 1859.
In the Autobiography (page 68, volume 1) my father has stated what seemed
to him the chief flaw of the 1844 Sketch; he had overlooked "one problem of
great importance," the problem of the divergence of character. This point
is discussed in the 'Origin of Species,' but, as it may not be familiar to
all readers, I will give a short account of the difficulty and its
solution. The author begins by stating that varieties differ from each
other less than species, and then goes on: "Nevertheless, according to my
view, varieties are species in process of formation...How then does the
lesser difference between varieties become augmented into the greater
difference between species?" ('Origin,' 1st edition, page 111.) He shows
how an analogous divergence takes place under domestication where an
originally uniform stock of horses has been split up into race-horses,
dray-horses, etc., and then goes on to explain how the same principle
applies to natural species. "From the simple circumstance that the more
diversified the descendants from any one species become in structure,
constitution, and habits, by so much will they be better enabled to seize
on many and widely diversified places in the polity of nature, and so be
enabled to increase in numbers."
The principle is exemplified by the fact that if on one plot of ground a
single variety of wheat be sown, and on to another a mixture of varieties,
in the latter case the produce is greater. More individuals have been able
to exist because they were not all of the same variety. An organism
becomes more perfect and more fitted to survive when by division of labour
the different functions of life are performed by different organs. In the
same way a species becomes more efficient and more able to survive when
different sections of the species become differentiated so as to fill
different stations.
In reading the Sketch of 1844, I have found it difficult to recognise the
absence of any definite statement of the principle of divergence as a flaw
in the Essay. Descent with modification implies divergence, and we become
so habituated to a belief in descent, and therefore in divergence, that we
do not notice the absence of proof that divergence is in itself an
advantage. As shown in the Autobiography, my father in 1876 found it
hardly credible that he should have overlooked the problem and its
solution.
The following letter will be more in place here than its chronological
position, since it shows what was my father's feeling as to the value of
the Sketch at the time of its completion.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. DARWIN.
Down, July 5, 1844.
I have just finished my sketch of my species theory. If, as I believe, my
theory in time be accepted even by one competent judge, it will be a
considerable step in science.
I therefore write this in case of my sudden death, as my most solemn and
last request, which I am sure you will consider the same as if legally
entered in my will, that you will devote 400 pounds to its publication, and
further, will yourself, or through Hensleigh (Mr. H. Wedgwood.), take
trouble in promoting it. I wish that my sketch be given to some competent
person, with this sum to induce him to take trouble in its improvement and
enlargement. I give to him all my books on Natural History, which are
either scored or have references at the end to the pages, begging him
carefully to look over and consider such passages as actually bearing, or
by possibility bearing, on this subject. I wish you to make a list of all
such books as some temptation to an editor. I also request that you will
hand over [to] him all those scraps roughly divided in eight or ten brown
paper portfolios. The scraps, with copied quotations from various works,
are those which may aid my editor. I also request that you, or some
amanuensis, will aid in deciphering any of the scraps which the editor may
think possibly of use. I leave to the editor's judgment whether to
interpolate these facts in the text, or as notes, or under appendices. As
the looking over the references and scraps will be a long labour, and as
the CORRECTING and enlarging and altering my sketch will also take
considerable time, I leave this sum of 400 pounds as some remuneration, and
any profits from the work. I consider that for this the editor is bound to
get the sketch published either at a publisher's or his own risk. Many of
the scrap in the portfolios contains mere rude suggestions and early views,
now useless, and many of the facts will probably turn out as having no
bearing on my theory.
With respect to editors, Mr. Lyell would be the best if he would undertake
it; I believe he would find the work pleasant, and he would learn some
facts new to him. As the editor must be a geologist as well as a
naturalist, the next best editor would be Professor Forbes of London. The
next best (and quite best in many respects) would be Professor Henslow.
Dr. Hooker would be VERY good. The next, Mr. Strickland. (After Mr.
Strickland's name comes the following sentence, which has been erased but
remained legible. "Professor Owen would be very good; but I presume he
would not undertake such a work." If none of these would undertake it, I
would request you to consult with Mr. Lyell, or some other capable man for
some editor, a geologist and naturalist. Should one other hundred pounds
make the difference of procuring a good editor, request earnestly that you
will raise 500 pounds.
My remaining collections in Natural History may be given to any one or any
museum where it would be accepted...
[The following note seems to have formed part of the original letter, but
may have been of later date:
"Lyell, especially with the aid of Hooker (and of any good zoological aid),
would be best of all. Without an editor will pledge himself to give up
time to it, it would be of no use paying such a sum.
"If there should be any difficulty in getting an editor who would go
thoroughly into the subject, and think of the bearing of the passages
marked in the books and copied out of scraps of paper, then let my sketch
be published as it is, stating that it was done several years ago (The
words "several years ago and," seem to have been added at a later date.)
and from memory without consulting any works, and with no intention of
publication in its present form."
The idea that the Sketch of 1844 might remain, in the event of his death,
as the only record of his work, seems to have been long in his mind, for in
August 1854, when he had finished with the Cirripedes, and was thinking of
beginning his "species work," he added on the back of the above letter,
"Hooker by far best man to edit my species volume. August 1854."]
