Summary

Additional response, at length, to CL’s criticisms of natural selection. Comments on failure of rodents to develop in Australia. Argues that most species become extinct and do not develop. Discusses variability, especially variability of rudimentary organs. Extinction among ammonites. Survival of Ornithorhynchus. Descent of marsupials and placentals. Emphasises embryological argument for descent of species.

Summary

CD’s observations on preference of Drosera for milk and nitrogenous fluids, and the effect of nitrate of ammonia are interesting. Asks whether CD is satisfied that the effect is not due to density of fluid or to a chemical irritant. His own observations suggest such possibilities.

Summary

Fears that multiple origin of the domestic dog will be extended to mammals or man. Believes, with Hooker, that whatever occurs in domestication is possible in nature.

Summary

Sends address.

Summary

Returns "excellent" MS in which CD favours hybrid origin of domestic dog, which CL believes strengthens case for common progenitor of wild species.

Doubts CD’s authorities for antiquity of dingo.

Variation will raise many points for investigation.

"Leporine" hare–rabbit hybrid should be investigated.

Has re-read passages in Origin that CD suggested.

Annals of Natural History would probably reprint Gray’s review of Origin at their own expense.

CD’s thought that modern reptiles could not develop into existing Mammalia but only into another high form is a "grand notion" compatible with "the infinite capacity of the creative power".

Comments on New Guinea marsupials.

Still thinks that the Australian genera and species are so well fitted for extraordinary droughts that they would get the better of the dingo.

Suggests that once there were more races of man, though from common stock. Competition and then hybridity checked divergence.

Falconer’s views on elephant classification. CL attaches little value to Falconer’s objection that mastodons and elephants do not come in chronologically, as they should in CD’s view.

Summary

Discusses extinction of ammonites.

Discusses August Krohn’s cirripede research and Krohn’s correction of his own work.

Discusses origin of dog in connection with origin of man.

Comments on the guinea-pig in South America.

Notes K. E. von Baer’s view of species.

Mentions difficulty of crossing rabbit and hare.

Agrees with Hooker’s views on variation under cultivation and in nature.

Regrets use of term "natural selection", would now use "Natural Preservation".

Summary

Reports observations on the fertilisation of Goodeniaceae, and particularly Leschenaultia. [See 2992.]

Summary

Cases of monstrosities becoming transmissible.

Comments on passages in Origin on the blindness of the tucu-tucu (Ctenomys) and Mammoth Cave rats.

Summary

It is strange that Agassiz, who is for the "sanctity of species", should favour Pallas’s view of hybrid origin of domestic dog.

CL has not meant to advocate successive creation of types but to question assumption that all mammals descended from single stock. Why should a Triassic reptile or bird not move towards mammalian form because an ancestral marsupial has appeared? Believes recent appearance of rodents and bats in Australia explains their lack of development.

Can CD supply a reference on plant extinction on St Helena?

Believes marsupials better adapted for surviving drought in Australia than higher mammals.

Will not press argument about lack of development of mammalian forms on islands, but CD should note objection.

Does CD’s belief in multiple origin of dogs affect faith in single primates in different regions?

Does time lapse between putative independently descended mammalian forms mean first form will "keep down" later incipient one? Thus Homo sapiens has prevented improvement of other anthropomorphs; bats and rodents on islands would prevent improvement of lower forms into mammalian.

Summary

Replies to WHH’s criticisms of the Origin. Is disappointed that WHH does not understand what CD means by natural selection. CD has said "ad nauseam" that selection can do nothing without previous variability. Natural selection accumulates successive variations in any profitable direction. If CD had to rewrite his book he would use "natural preservation" rather than selection. Defends his necessarily conjectural illustrations. Agrees with what WHH says on the antiquity of the world, but it makes no impression on him. Considers the difficulty of the first modification of the first protozoan. Emphasises that there is nothing in his theory "necessitating in each case progression of acquisition", nor is it the case that "a low form would never conquer a high" in the struggle for life. Attempts to explain what he means by a "dominant" group; dominance is always relative, and he does not believe any one group could be predominant. He has no objections to "sudden jumps"; they would aid him in some cases, but he has found no evidence to make him believe in them and a good deal pointing the other way.