skip to content
Home

Darwin Correspondence Project

To Gerard Krefft   17 July 1872

Down, | Beckenham, Kent.

July 17. 1872

Dear Sir

I am much obliged for yr note & the newspaper together with yr excellent illustrations.1

I have read the article with great interest. It would be presumptuous on my part, from want of knowledge, to express any decided opinion with respect to yr conclusion. Nevertheless, it seems to me scarcely possible to read all yr statements & reasonings & doubt that you are correct. Your conclusion also agrees with that of Prof. Flower & others. It is lamentable that Prof. Owen shd shew so little consideration for the judgment of other naturalists, & shd adhere in so bigotted a manner to whatever he has said.2

This is a great evil, as it makes one doubtful on other points about which he has written. The Cuvierian principle may evidently be extended much too far:3 Toxodon is a good instance of this, as no one I believe has ventured to surmise from the skull, whether it was an aquatic or terrestrial animal.4

I am extremely obliged for yr kind offer of assistance; & should I ever want (which is not the case at present) information or specimens from Australia, I will apply to you.

I am the more obliged for yr kindness as, if you will allow me to say so, I have long respected your able & indefatigable labours in the cause of natural science.

Pray believe me | dear Sir | yours very faithfully | Ch. Darwin

Footnotes

2
CD refers to Krefft’s review of Richard Owen’s work on Thylacoleo carnifex. See letter from Gerard Krefft, 15 May 1872 and n. 1. For William Henry Flower’s view of T. carnifex, see Flower 1868.
3
Owen had stated that he was following Georges Cuvier’s principle that the first task in the study of a fossil animal was to explore the form of the molars to determine whether the animal was a carnivore or herbivore (Owen 1870, p. 228). His argument against Krefft 1866 and Flower 1868, however, was based on function not structure. Owen did not claim that the dentition of Thylacoleo carnifex resembled that of carnivores, but that the incisors in T. carnifex evidently had a laniary (tearing) function; he then compared the wear patterns in functionally similar teeth.
4
Owen had described the cranium of the Toxodon collected by CD during the Beagle voyage; from the position of its nasal openings he had deduced that it was aquatic (see Fossil Mammalia, pp. 17, 21–3).

Bibliography

Flower, William Henry. 1868. On the affinities and probable habits of the extinct Australian marsupial, Thylacoleo carnifex, Owen. [Read 8 April 1868.] Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 24: 307–19.

Fossil Mammalia: Pt 1 of The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle … during the years 1831 to 1836. By Richard Owen. Edited and superintended by Charles Darwin. London: Smith, Elder and Co. 1839–43.

Krefft, Gerard. 1866. On the dentition of Thylacoleo carnifex (Ow.). Annals and Magazine of Natural History 3d ser. 18: 148–9.

Owen, Richard. 1870. On the fossil mammals of Australia.– Part IV. Dentition and mandible of Thylacoleo carnifex, with remarks on the arguments for its herbivority. [Read 17 November 1870.] Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 161 (1871): 213–66.

Summary

Thanks for JLGK’s article [see 8331].

CD thinks it a pity that Owen shows so little consideration for the judgment of other naturalists.

Letter details

Letter no.
DCP-LETT-8416
From
Charles Robert Darwin
To
Johann Louis Gerard (Gerard) Krefft
Sent from
Down
Source of text
Mitchell Library, Sydney (MLMSS 5828)
Physical description
LS(A) 4pp

Please cite as

Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 8416,” accessed on 20 April 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-8416.xml

Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 20

letter

Darwin Correspondence Project
darwin@lib.cam.ac.uk

© University of Cambridge 2022

Copyright declaration

Privacy policy

Website by Surface Impression

 

Study at Cambridge

About the University

Research at Cambridge