To Caroline Sarah Wedgwood [after 21 November 1859]1
My dear Caroline
I am astounded that you care as much for my Book as you seem to do. Your doubt and queries are perfectly correct. Lyell was bothered on same point and I have not expressed myself clearly2 By my theory, all dogs, wolves, foxes, jackalls, &c. have descended from some one very ancient species. The passage you allude to refers only to the amount of modification which our domestic dogs have undergone under domestication. I do not believe that the whole amount of difference in domestic dogs has been produced under domestication, but that part of difference is due to their having descended from several wild species. It is a distinct question whether these wild species have descended from one aboriginal stock as I believe has been the case.3 I have been cut up in Athenæum, and under a theological point of view, unfairly.4 The Reviewer takes all my own objections and difficulties (and does not add one) and wholly omits in his Review every argument which I advance in favour: but of this one must not complain as it is the way of Reviewers. I think I shall convert 4 or 5 really good judges and that will content me, as I feel sure that they are too good judges to be deceived, and in course of years others will come round. If 4 or 5 good judges are not converted, then I may be a monomaniac.
Yours affect. | C. D.
If Jos.5 makes any criticisms I should like to hear them.
Astounded she cares for his book [Origin] as much as she seems to.
Comments on variation among domestic dogs; believes domestic dog has descended from several wild species and those species from a single ancient ancestor.
Athenæum review is unfair.
Expects to convert four or five "really good judges".
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 2538,” accessed on 21 January 2017, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2538