Chapter III: Part III: (Continued) (2)

_Parkstone, Dorset. November 28, 1889._

My dear Mr. Poulton,--I have much pleasure in sending you Cope's book[19] (with the review of "Darwinism"), which I hope you will keep as long as you like, till you have mastered all its obscurities of style and eccentricities of argument. I think you will find a good deal in it to criticise, and it will be well for you to know what the leader of the Neo-Lamarckians regards as the foundation-stones of his theory. I greatly enjoyed my visit to Oxford, and only regretted that I could not leave more time for personal talk with yourself, for I am so deplorably ignorant of modern physiology that I am delighted to get intelligible explanations of its bearings on the subjects that most interest me in science. I quite see all its importance in investigations of the mechanism of colours, but there is so much still unknown that it will be very hard to convince me that there is no other possible explanation of the peacock's feather than the "continued preference by the females" for the most beautiful males, in _this one point_, "during a long line of descent"--as Darwin says! I expect, however, great light from your new book....--Believe me yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

SIR FRANCIS GALTON TO A.R. WALLACE

_42 Rutland Gate, S.W. May 24, 1890._

Dear Mr. Wallace,--I send the paper with pleasure, and am glad that you will read it, and I hope then see more clearly than the abstract could show the grounds of my argument.

These finger-marks are most remarkable things. Of course I have made out much more about them since writing that memoir. Indeed I have another paper on them next Thursday at the Royal Society, but that only refers to ways of cataloguing them, either for criminal administration, or what I am more interested in, viz. racial and hereditary inquiry.

What I have done in this way is not ready for publication, but I may mention (privately, please) that these persistent marks, which seem fully developed in the sixth month of foetal life, and appear under the reservations and in the evidence published in the memoir to be practically _quite_ unchanged during life, are _not_ correlated with any ordinary characteristic that I can discover. They are the same in the lowest idiots as in ordinary persons. (I took the impressions of some 80 of these, so idiotic that they mostly could not speak, or even stand, at the great Darenth Asylum, Dartford.) They are the same in clod-hoppers as in the upper classes, and _yet_ they are as hereditary as other qualities, I think. Their tendency to symmetrical distribution on the two hands is _marked_, and symmetry _is_ a form of kinship. My argument is that sexual selection can have had nothing to do with the patterns, neither can any other form of selection due to vigour, wits, and so forth, because they are not correlated with them. They just go their own gait, uninfluenced by anything that we can find or reasonably believe in, of a _naturally selective influence_, in the plain meaning of the phrase.--Very sincerely yours,

FRANCIS GALTON.

* * * * *

TO THEO. D.A. COCKERELL

_Parkstone, Dorset. March 10, 1891._

Dear Mr. Cockerell,-- ... Your theory to account for the influence of a first male on progeny by a second seems very probable--and in fact if, as I suppose, spermatozoa often enter ova without producing complete fertilisation, it must be so. _That_ would be easily experimented on, with fowls, dogs, etc., but I do not remember the fact having been observed except with horses. It ought to be common, when females have young by successive males.--Yours faithfully,

A.R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

The next letter relates to a controversy with Romanes concerning Herbert Spencer's argument about Co-adaptation which Romanes had urged in support of Neo-Lamarckism as opposed to Natural Selection. Prof. Meldola endeavoured to show that the difficulties raised by Spencer and supported by Romanes had no real weight because the possibility of so-called "co-adaptations" being developed _successively_ in the order of evolution had not been reckoned with. There was no real divergence between Wallace and Prof. Meldola on this matter when they subsequently discussed it. The correspondence is in _Nature_, xliii. 557, and subsequently. _See also_ "Darwin and After Darwin," by Romanes, 1895, ii. 68.

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Parkstone, Dorset, April 25, 1891._

My dear Meldola,--You have now put your foot in it! Romanes _agrees_ with you! Henceforth he will claim you as a disciple, converted by his arguments!

There was one admission in your letter I was very sorry to see, because it cannot be strictly true, and is besides open to much misrepresentation. I mean the admission that Romanes pounces upon in his second paragraph. Of course, the number of individuals in a species being finite, the chance of four coincident variations occurring in any one individual--each such variation being separately very common--cannot be anything like "infinity to one." Why, then, do you concede it most fully?--the result being that Romanes takes you to concede that it is infinity to one against the coincident variations occurring in "_any individuals_." Surely, with the facts of coincident independent variation we now possess, the occurrence of three, four, or five, coincident variations cannot be otherwise than frequent. As a fact, more than half the whole population of most species seems to vary to a perceptible and measurable, and therefore sufficient, amount in scores of ways. Take a species with a million pairs of individuals--half of these vary sufficiently, either + or -, in the four acquired characters A, B, C, D: what will be the proportion of individuals that vary + in these four characters according to the law of averages? Will it not be about 1 in 64? If so it is ample--in many cases--for Natural Selection to work on, because in many cases less than 1/64 of offspring survives.

On Romanes' view of the impossibility of Natural Selection doing anything alone, because the required coincident variations do not occur, the occurrence of a "strong man" or a racehorse that beats all others easily must be impossible, since in each of these cases there must be scores of coincident favourable variations.

Given sufficient variation, I believe divergent modification of a species in two lines could easily occur, even if free intercrossing occurred, because, the numbers varying being a large proportion of the whole, the numbers which bred like with like would he sufficient to carry on the two lines of divergence, those that intercrossed and produced less perfectly adapted offspring being eliminated. Of course some amount of segregate breeding does always occur, as Darwin always maintained, but, as he also maintained, it is not absolutely essential to evolution. Romanes argues as if "free intercrossing" meant that none would pair like with like! I hope you will have another slap at him, and withdraw or explain that unlucky "infinity to one," which is Romanes' sheet-anchor.--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. June 16, 1892._

My dear Mr. Poulton,--Many thanks for sending me Weismann's additional Essays,[20] which I look forward to reading with much pleasure. I have, however, read the first, and am much disappointed with it. It seems to me the _weakest and most inconclusive_ thing he has yet written. At p. 17 he states his theory as to degeneration of eyes, and again, on p. 18, of anthers and filaments; but in both cases he fails to _prove_ it, and apparently does not see that his panmixia, or "cessation of selection," cannot possibly produce _continuous_ degeneration culminating in the total or almost total disappearance of an organ. Romanes and others have pointed out this weakness in his theory, but he does not notice it, and goes on calmly throughout the essay to _assume_ that mere panmixia must cause progressive degeneration to an unlimited extent; whereas all it can do is to effect a reduction to the average of the total population on which selection has been previously worked. He says "individuals with weak eyes would not be eliminated," but omits to notice that individuals with strong eyes would also "not be eliminated," and as there is no reason alleged why variations in _all directions_ should not occur as before, the free intercrossing would tend to keep up a mean condition only a little below that which was kept up by selection. It is clear that some form of selection must always co-operate in degeneration, such as economy of growth, which he hardly notices except as a possible but not a necessary factor, or actual injuriousness. It appears to me that what is wanted is to take a number of typical cases, and in each of them show how Natural Selection comes in to carry on the degeneration begun by panmixia. Weismann's treatment of the subject is merely begging the question.--Yours faithfully,

A.R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. August 29, 1892._

My dear Mr. Poulton,--As to panmixia you have quite misunderstood my position. By the "mean condition," I do not mean the "mean" during the whole course of development of the organ, as you seem to take it. That would indeed be absurd. I do mean the "mean" of the whole series of individual variations now occurring, during a period sufficient to contain all or almost all the variations to which the species is _now_ subject. Take, for instance, such a case as the wings of the swallow, on the full development of which the life of the bird depends. Many individuals no doubt perish for lack of wing-power, due to deficiency in size or form of wing, or in the muscles which move it. The extreme limits of variation would be seen probably if we examined every swallow that had reached maturity during the last century. The average of all those would perhaps be 5 or 10 per cent. below the average of those that survive to become the parents of the next generation in any year; and what I maintain is, that panmixia alone could not reduce a swallow's wings below this first average. Any further reduction must be due either to some form of selection or to "economy of growth"--which is also, fundamentally, a form of selection. So with the eyes of cave animals, panmixia could only cause an imperfection of vision equal to the average of those variations which occurred, say, during a century before the animal entered the cave. It could only produce more effect than this if the effects of disuse are hereditary--which is a non-Weismannian doctrine. I think this is also the position that Romanes took.--Yours faithfully,

A.R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO MR. J.W. MARSHALL

_Parkstone, Dorset. September 23, 1892._

My dear Marshall,--I am glad you enjoyed Mr. Hudson's book. His observations are inimitable--and his theories and suggestions, if not always the best, at least show thought on what he has observed.

I was most pleased with his demonstration as to the supposed instincts of young birds and lambs, showing clearly that the former at all events are not due to inherited experience, as Darwin thought. The whole book, too, is pervaded by such a true love of nature and such a perception of its marvels and mysteries as to be unique in my experience. The modern scientific morphologists seem so wholly occupied in tracing out the mechanism of organisms that they hardly seem to appreciate the overwhelming marvel of the powers of life, which result in such infinitely varied structures and such strange habits and so-called instincts. The older I grow the more marvellous seem to me the mere variety of form and habit in plants and animals, and the unerring certitude with which from a minute germ the whole complex organism is built up, true to the type of its kind in all the infinitude of details! It is this which gives such a charm to the watching of plants growing, and of kittens so rapidly developing their senses and habitudes!...--Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. February 1, 1893._

My dear Poulton,--Thanks for the separate copy of your great paper on colours of larva, pupa, etc.[21] I have read your conclusions and looked over some of the experiments, and think you have now pretty well settled that question.

I am reading through the new volume of the Life of Darwin, and am struck with the curious example his own case affords of non-heredity of acquired variations. He expresses his constant dread--one of the troubles of his life--that his children would inherit his bad health. It seems pretty clear, from what F. Darwin says in the new edition, that Darwin's constant nervous stomach irritation was caused by his five years sea-sickness. It was thoroughly established before, and in the early years of, his marriage, and, on his own theory his children ought all to have inherited it. Have they? You know perhaps better than I do, whether any of the family show any symptoms of that particular form of illness--and if not it is a fine case!--Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

Wallace was formally admitted to the Royal Society in June, 1893. The postscript of the following letter refers to his cordial reception by the Fellows.

TO PROF. MELDOLA

_Parkstone, Dorset. June 10, 1893._

My dear Meldola,--As we had no time to "discourse" on Thursday, I will say a few words on the individual adaptability question. We have to deal with facts, and facts certainly show that, in many groups, there is a great amount of adaptable change produced in the individual by external conditions, and that that change is not inherited. I do not see that this places Natural Selection in any subordinate position, because this individual adaptability is evidently advantageous to many species, and may itself have been produced or increased by Natural Selection. When a species is subject to great changes of conditions, either locally or at uncertain times, it may be a decided advantage to it to become individually adapted to that change while retaining the power to revert instantly to its original form when the normal conditions return. But whenever the changed conditions are permanent, or are such that individual adaptation cannot meet the requirements, then Natural Selection rapidly brings about a permanent adaptation which is inherited. In plants these two forms of adaptation are well marked and easily tested, and we shall soon have a large body of evidence upon it. In the higher animals I imagine that individual adaptation is small in amount, as indicated by the fact that even slight varieties often breed true.

In Lepidoptera we have the two forms of colour-adaptability clearly shown. Many species are, in all their stages, permanently adapted to their environment. Others have a certain power of individual adaptation, as of the pupæ to their surroundings. If this last adaptation were strictly inherited it would be positively injurious, since the progeny would thereby lose the power of individual adaptability, and thus we should have light pupæ on dark surroundings, and vice versa. Each kind of adaptation has its own sphere, and it is essential that the one should be non-inheritable, the other heritable. The whole thing seems to me quite harmonious and "as it should be."

Thiselton-Dyer tells me that H. Spencer is dreadfully disturbed on the question. He fears that acquired characters may not be inherited, in which case the foundation of his whole philosophy is undermined!--Yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

P.S.--I am afraid you are partly responsible for that kindly meant but too personal manifestation which disturbed the solemnity of the Royal Society meeting on Thursday!...

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. September 25, 1893._

My dear Poulton,--I suppose you were not at Nottingham and did not get the letter, paper, and photographs I sent you there, but to be opened by the Secretary of Section D in case you were not there. It was about a wonderful and perfectly authenticated case of a woman who dressed the arm of a gamekeeper after amputation, and six or seven months afterwards had a child born without the forearm on the right side, exactly corresponding in _form_ and _length_ of stump to that of the man. Photographs of the man, and of the boy seven or eight years old, were taken _by the physician of the hospital_ where the man's arm was cut off, and they show a most striking correspondence. These, with my short paper, appear to have produced an effect, for a committee of Section D has been appointed to collect evidence on this and other matters....--Yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF. POULTON

_Parkstone, Dorset. November 17, 1893._

My dear Poulton,--The letter I wrote to you at Nottingham was returned to me here (after a month), so I did not think it worth while to send it to you again, though it did contain my congratulations on your appointment,[22] which I now repeat. As you have not seen the paper I sent to the British Association, I will just say that I should not have noticed the subject publicly but, after a friend had given me the photographs (sent with my paper), I came across the following statement in the new edition of Chambers' Encyclopædia, art. Deformities (by Prof. A. Hare): "In an increasing proportion of cases which are carefully investigated, it appears that maternal impressions, the result of shock or unpleasant experiences, may have a considerable influence in producing deformities in the offspring." In consequence of this I sent the case which had been furnished me, and which is certainly about as well attested and conclusive as anything can be. The facts are these:

A gamekeeper had his right forearm amputated at the North Devon Infirmary. He left before it was healed, thinking his wife could dress it, but as she was too nervous, a neighbour, a young recently married woman, a farmer's wife, still living, came and dressed it every day till it healed. About six months after she had a child born _without right hand and forearm_, the stump exactly corresponding in length to that of the gamekeeper. Dr. Richard Budd, M.D., F.R.C.P.,[23] of Barnstaple, the physician to the infirmary, when the boy was five or six years old, himself took a photograph of the boy and the gamekeeper side by side, showing the wonderful correspondence of the two arms. I have these facts _direct from Dr. Budd_, who was personally cognisant of the whole circumstances. A few years after, in November, 1876, Dr. Budd gave an account of the case and exhibited the photographs to a large meeting at the College of Physicians, and I have no doubt it is _one_ of the cases referred to in the article I have quoted, though Dr. Budd thinks it has never been published. It will be at once admitted that this is not a chance coincidence, and that all theoretical difficulties must give way to such facts as this, ... Of course it by no means follows that similar causes should in all cases produce similar effects, since the idiosyncrasy of the mother is no doubt an important factor; but where the combined coincidences are so numerous as in this case--_place, time, person_ and exact correspondence of _resulting deformity_--some causal relation must exist.--Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.