And nail), but as a proof that there is sufficient to be said
on Darwin's side to demand more respectful attention than your last
writer has thought it worth while to give it. A theory which the
British Association is discussing with great care in England is not
to be set down by off-hand nicknames in Canterbury.
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." "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:
