Though, of course, present results as to origin and migrations of genera of mammals will have to be modified owing to new discoveries, I cannot help thinking that much will remain unaffected, because in all geographical and geological discoveries the great outlines are soon reached; the details alone remain to be modified. I also think much of the geological evidence is now so accordant with, and explanatory of, geographical distribution that it is prima facie correct in outline. Nevertheless, such vast masses of new facts will come out in the next few years that I quite dread the labour of incorporating them in a new edition.
Now for a little personal matter. For two years I have made up my mind to leave this place—mainly for two reasons: drought and wind prevent the satisfactory growth of all delicate plants; and I cannot stand being unable to attend evening meetings and being obliged to refuse every invitation in London. But I was obliged to stay till I had got it into decent order to attract a customer. At last it is so, and I am offering it for sale, and as soon as it is disposed of I intend to try the neighbourhood of Dorking, whence there are late trains from Cannon Street and Charing Cross.
I see your post-mark was Dorking, so I suppose you have been staying there. Is it not a lovely country? I hope your health is improved, and when, quite at your [pg 289]leisure, you have waded through my book, I trust you will again let me have a few lines of friendly criticism and advice.—Yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
Down, Beckenham. June 17, 1876.
My dear Wallace,—I have now finished the whole of Vol. I., with the same interest and admiration as before; and I am convinced that my judgment was right and that it is a memorable book, the basis of all future work on the subject. I have nothing particular to say, but perhaps you would like to hear my impressions on two or three points. Nothing has struck me more than the admirable and convincing manner in which you treat Java. To allude to a very trifling point, it is capital about the unadorned head of the Argus pheasant.[103] How plain a thing is, when it is once pointed out! What a wonderful case is that of Celebes! I am glad that you have slightly modified your views with respect to Africa,[104] and this leads me to say that I cannot swallow the so-called continent of Lemuria, i.e. the direct connection of Africa and Ceylon![105] The facts do not seem to me many and strong enough to justify so immense a change of level. Moreover, Mauritius and the other islands appear to me oceanic in character. But do not suppose [pg 290]that I place my judgment on this subject on a level with yours. A wonderfully good paper was published about a year ago on India in the Geological Journal—I think by Blandford.[106] Ramsay agreed with me that it was one of the best published for a long time. The author shows that India has been a continent with enormous fresh-water lakes from the Permian period to the present day. If I remember right he believes in a former connection with South Africa.
I am sure that I read, some 20 to 30 years ago, in a French journal, an account of teeth of mastodon found in Timor; but the statement may have been an error.
With respect to what you say about the colonising of New Zealand, I somewhere have an account of a frog frozen in the ice of a Swiss glacier, and which revived when thawed. I may add that there is an Indian toad which can resist salt water and haunts the seaside. Nothing ever astonished me more than the case of the Galaxias; but it does not seem known whether it may not be a migratory fish like the salmon. It seems to me that you complicate rather too much the successive colonisations with New Zealand. I should prefer believing that the Galaxias was a species, like the Emys of the Sewalik Hills, which has long retained the same form. Your remarks on the insects and flowers of New Zealand have greatly interested me; but aromatic leaves I have always looked at as a protection against their being eaten by insects or other animals; and as insects are there rare, such protection would not be much needed. I have written more than I intended, and I must again say how profoundly your book has interested me.
Now let me turn to a very different subject. I have [pg 291]only just heard of and procured your two articles in the Academy. I thank you most cordially for your generous defence of me against Mr. Mivart. In the "Origin" I did not discuss the derivation of any one species; but that I might not be accused of concealing my opinion I went out of my way and inserted a sentence which seemed to me (and still so seems) to declare plainly my belief. This was quoted in my "Descent of Man." Therefore it is very unjust, not to say dishonest, of Mr. Mivart to accuse me of base fraudulent concealment; I care little about myself; but Mr. Mivart, in an article in the Quarterly Review (which I know was written by him), accused my son George of encouraging profligacy, and this without the least foundation.[107] I can assert this positively, as I laid George's article and the Quarterly Review before Hooker, Huxley and others, and all agreed that the accusation [pg 292]was a deliberate falsification. Huxley wrote to him on the subject and has almost or quite cut him in consequence; and so would Hooker, but he was advised not to do so as President of the Royal Society. Well, he has gained his object in giving me pain, and, good God, to think of the flattering, almost fawning speeches which he has made to me! I wrote, of course, to him to say that I would never speak to him again. I ought, however, to be contented, as he is the one man who has ever, as far as I know, treated me basely.