Sir/

In re-reading your great work on the descent of man, I have just come to what appears to me a slight error of statement; at page 234 Vol I ed 1871, you say—“The spreading of man to regions widely separated by the sea, no doubt preceded any considerable amount of divergence of character in the several races; for otherwise we should sometimes meet with the same race in distinct continents; and this is never the case”.¹

It seems to me that you here do not take into account the effect of an intrusive race, displacing and separating into fragments another race which has been settled on a continuous area. The existence of a supposed pre-Aryan people in the West of Europe, the isolated remains of which still exist in the Basques and Lapps etc:, is an illustrative case.²

Also might there not be found widely separated portions of one people, the result of the migration of a part of them after having been long united? It seems to me that the causes for such a separation must have acted with equal strength after a race had been long settled, and had developed a distinct character, as in that earlier time which “preceded any considerable amount of divergence of character in the several races”.

This objection, even should you consider it a valid one, is perhaps not worth making, as it hardly affects the argument with which the disputed point is connected, my only excuse for venturing to state it is in the hope of possibly removing even a verbal error from a work which has yet so much to do in moulding the profoundest beliefs of our time

Allow me to subscribe myself | Your most sincere admirer | James Houston

To | Charles Darwin Esq.