My dear Lyell

I send by this Post, Asa Gray which seems to me very good, with the stamp of originality on it.¹ Also Bronn’s out Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie.² The united intellect of my family has vainly tried to make it out.—   I never tried such confoundedly hard German: nor does it seem worth the labour.—   He sticks to Priestley’s green matter & seems to think that till it can be shown how life arises, it is no good showing how the forms of life arise.³ This seems to me about as logical (comparing very great things with little) as to say it was no use in Newton showing laws of attraction of gravity & consequent movements of the Planets, because he could not show what the attration of Gravity is.—

The expression “wahl der lebensweise” makes me doubt whether B. understands what I mean by natural selection,—as I have told him.—⁴ He says (if I understand him) that you ought to be on same side with me.—⁵

Ever yours affec^ly | C. Darwin

P.S. | Sunday afternoon | I have kept back this to thank you for your letter with much news received this morning.⁶ My conscience is uneasy at the time you waste in amusing & interesting me.—   I was very curious to hear about Phillips.—⁷ The Review in Annals is, as I was convinced, by Wollaston; for I have had very cordial letter from him this morning.⁸

I send by this Post an attack in G. Chroni. by Harvey (a first-rate Botanist as you probably know).⁹ It seems to me rather strange: he assumes the permanence of monsters, whereas monsters are generally sterile & not often inheritable. But grant his case it comes that I have been too cautious in not admitting great & sudden variations. Here again comes in the mischief of my Abstract: in fuller M.S. I have discussed parallel case of a normal fish like a monstrous Gold-fish: I end my discussion by doubting, because all cases of monstrosities which resemble normal structures, which I could find were not in allied groups.—¹⁰

Trees like Aspicarpa with flowers of two kinds, (in the Origin) led me also to speculate on same subject;¹¹ but I could find only one doubtfully analogous case of species having flowers like the degraded or monstrous flowers.— Harvey does not see that if only a few (as he supposes) of the seedlings inherited his monstrosity natural selection would be necessary to select & preserve them.— You had better return G. Chron. &c &c to my Brother’s.—

The case of Begonia in itself is very curious: I am tempted to answer the notice, but I will refrain for there w^d be no end to answers.

With respect to your objection of multitude of still living simple forms, I have not discussed it anywhere in the Origin, though I have often thought it over.— What you say about “progress being only occasional & retrogression not uncommon” I agree to; only that in animal kingdom I greatly doubt about retrogression being common.—   I have always put it to myself what advantage can we see in an infusory animal, or an intestinal worm—or coral-polyps—or earth-worm being highly developed? If no advantage, they would not become highly developed,— not but what all these animals have very complex structures (except infusoria) & they may well be higher than the animals which occupied similar places in the economy of nature before the Silurian Epoch.—   There is a blind snake, with appearance & in some respects (Perhaps falsely appearing so) habits of worm, but this blind snake does not tend, as far as we can see, to replace & drive out worms. I think I must in any future Edit. discuss a few more such points— & will introduce this & H. C. Watson’s objection about infinite number of species—& the general rise in organisation.¹² But there is a directly opposite objection to yours, which is very difficult to answer, viz how at first start of life, when there were only simplest organisms, how did any complication of organisation profit them? I can only answer that we have not facts enough to guide any speculation on the subject.—

With respect to Lepidosiren Ganoid Fishes, perhaps Ornithorhynchus I suspect, as stated in Origin, that they have been preserved from inhabiting F. Water & isolated parts of world, in which there has been less competition & less rapid progress in Nat. Selection, owing to the fewness of individuals which can inhabit small areas. &c &c—& where there are few individuals, variation almost must be slower.—¹³

There are several allusions to this notion in the Origin— as under Amblyopsis the blind cave fish. & under Heer about Madeira plants resembling fossil & extinct plants of Europe.—¹⁴

With hearty thanks for all your kindness—

Yours affect^y | C. Darwin