Comments on StGJM’s book [Genesis of species (1871)]. Has no personal objection to a word of it, but regrets their views differ so much.
I have read your B quicker than I expect & with greater interestthough of course not with pleasure.f2 As far as Iam personally concerned there is not a word I objected to. You have indeed,considering how eager an opponent you are, treated me withextraordinary courtesy. Your book seemsan admirable summary ofall the objections which have been urged against natural S. & I daresaywill have a powerful influence on many men.— I thinksomething cd be said on my side on many points & I do not seethe force of many of your objections, which no doubt you will alludeto properly; if I had ever thought that I or anyone cdexplain [how] hundreds of structures occur by naturalselection— your facts, & many others in my own portfolios, wd form a[crushing defeat] but Ihave always never thought that cd be done & then only with somedegree of probability in a few rare cases (some given in the origin) inwhich a fair number of gradational steps still exist;—but these seem to mesufficient to redirect the path. I think as you give mywords (at top p. 60) you ought to have given to the end of the sentence,p. 105 which brings my view in harmony with all that I have written aboutso-called unconscious selection.f3 Nor do I think it can be said that I changemy position, considering that I had previously argued against single markedvariationshaving been preserved— When you quote (p.35) no inverted commas mywords about analogous variation, you change by accidentmock into mimic:f4 Mock was a rather badly-chosen word:—for I oughtto have remembered the sense in which mimickry is [now] used, butmimick in that sense was far from my mind [on the contrary] almost shewI was not thinking: (a) But all this signifies very little.— Judgment will ultimately beformed by the interested public on a wide basis— As yet Iby no means [give up the unseen] power of Nat. selection; nor canI see [any probability in a] [5 words illeg] principle of[advancement in regeneration].
I will not trouble you with any remarks on specificparts as I have long observed that when 2 men differ sofundamentally as we do on a multitude of points, arguments only make adivision wider; & that I for one shd be sorry for.— Shortly afterpublication of Origin I remember writing to a Cambridge & as I have often[said] [that] whether natur selection was more or less admitted,signifies little in comparison with the admission of the generalprinciple of evolution & this I am delighted to see you fully hold.—
Wishing you all the highest success which you are worthy in every branchof natural sciences, [excepting] in [attacking] natural seln | I remain | my dear Sir |Yours sincerely | C.D.
Before a new Edit. of your book I wd advise you to consider the Rods of Cortif5
Lastly I do not You ought so repeatedly to ignore when youspeak of Darwin all that I have said on inherited effects ofhabit or use.f6 Nor do I deny the direct & [definite] action ofcondition oflife life yet you repeatedly say that I [admit] only [illeg] NaturalSelection But no controversist ever I suppose did appear fair to hisantagonist So I will say no more— Nor will I No I must not say this,for some of my opponents have & I daresay [most] intended to do so.
I do not believe any other person has taken such pain to showthat the effects of use & disuse are inherited, as I have done.— So againwhen [thus] speaking you ignore my remarks on what I call direct &definite action; [though] you allude further [more] to all thesepoints. I suppose, however, no controverter ever does appear [quite] fairto the man attacked. No