Many thanks for your kind and pleasant letter. I have been much interested by "Deep-sea Soundings,", and will return it by this post, or as soon as I have copied a few sentences. (566/1. Specimens of the mud dredged by H.M.S. "Cyclops" were sent to Huxley for examination, who gave a brief account of them in Appendix A of Capt. Dayman's Report, 1858, under the title "Deep-sea Soundings in the North Atlantic.") I think you said that some one was investigating the soundings. I earnestly hope that you will ask the some one to carefully observe whether any considerable number of the calcareous organisms are more or less friable, or corroded, or scaling; so that one might form some crude notion whether the deposition is so rapid that the foraminifera are preserved from decay and thus are forming strata at this profound depth. This is a subject which seems to me to have been much neglected in examining soundings.
Bronn has sent me two copies of his Morphologische Studien uber die Gestaltungsgesetze." (H.G. Bronn, "Morphologische Studien uber die Gestaltungsgesetze der Naturkorper uberhaupt und der organischen insbesondere": Leipzig, 1858.) It looks elementary. If you will write you shall have the copy; if not I will give it to the Linnean Library.
I quite agree with the letter from Lyell that your extinguished theologians lying about the cradle of each new science, etc., etc., is splendid. (566/2. "Darwiniana, Collected Essays," Volume II., page 52.)
LETTER 567. TO T.H. HUXLEY. May 10th {1862 or later}.
I have been in London, which has prevented my writing sooner. I am very sorry to hear that you have been ill: if influenza, I can believe in any degree of prostration of strength; if from over-work, for God's sake do not be rash and foolish. You ask for criticisms; I have none to give, only impressions. I fully agree with your "skimming-of-pot theory," and very well you have put it. With respect {to} contemporaneity I nearly agree with you, and if you will look to the d—d book, 3rd edition, page 349 you will find nearly similar remarks. (567/1. "When the marine forms are spoken of as having changed simultaneously throughout the world, it must not be supposed that this expression relates to the same year, or to the same century, or even that it has a very strict geological sense; for if all the marine animals now living in Europe, and all those that lived in Europe during the Pleistocene period (a very remote period as measured by years, including the whole Glacial epoch), were compared with those now existing in South America or in Australia, the most skilful naturalist would hardly be able to say whether the present or the Pleistocene inhabitants of Europe resembled most closely those of the Southern hemisphere." "Origin," Edition VI., page 298. The passage in Edition III., page 350, is substantially the same.) But at page 22 of your Address, in my opinion you put your ideas too far. (567/2. Anniversary Address to the Geological Society of London ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XVIII., page xl, 1862). As an illustration of the misleading use of the term "contemporaneous" as employed by geologists, Huxley gives the following illustration: "Now suppose that, a million or two of years hence, when Britain has made another dip beneath the sea and has come up again, some geologist applies this doctrine {i.e., the doctrine of the Contemporaneity of the European and of the North American Silurians: proof of contemporaneity is considered to be established by the occurrence of 60 per cent. of species in common}, in comparing the strata laid bare by the upheaval of the bottom, say, of St. George's Channel with what may then remain of the Suffolk Crag. Reasoning in the same way, he will at once decide the Suffolk Crag and the St. George's Channel beds to be contemporaneous; although we happen to know that a vast period...of time...separates the two" (loc. cit., page xlv). This address is republished in the "Collected Essays," Volume VIII.; the above passage is at page 284.) I cannot think that future geologists would rank the Suffolk and St. George's strata as contemporaneous, but as successive sub-stages; they rank N. America and British stages as contemporaneous, notwithstanding a percentage of different species (which they, I presume, would account for by geographical difference) owing to the parallel succession of the forms in both countries. For terrestrial productions I grant that great errors may creep in (567/3. Darwin supposes that terrestrial productions have probably not changed to the same extent as marine organisms. "If the Megatherium, Mylodon...had been brought to Europe from La Plata, without any information in regard to their geological position, no one would have suspected that they had co-existed with sea shells all still living" ("Origin," Edition VI., page 298).); but I should require strong evidence before believing that, in countries at all well-known, so-called Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous strata could be contemporaneous. You seem to me on the third point, viz., on non-advancement of organisation, to have made a very strong case. I have not knowledge or presumption enough to criticise what you say. I have said what I could at page 363 of "Origin." It seems to me that the whole case may be looked at from several points of view. I can add only one miserable little special case of advancement in cirripedes. The suspicion crosses me that if you endeavoured your best you would say more on the other side. Do you know well Bronn in his last Entwickelung (or some such word) on this subject? it seemed to me very well done. (567/4. Probably "Untersuchungen uber die Entwickelungsgesetze der organischen Welt wahrend der Bildungszeit unserer Erdoberflache," Stuttgart, 1858. Translated by W.S. Dallas in the "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume IV., page 81.) I hope before you publish again you will read him again, to consider the case as if you were a judge in a court of appeal; it is a very important subject. I can say nothing against your side, but I have an "inner consciousness" (a highly philosophical style of arguing!) that something could be said against you; for I cannot help hoping that you are not quite as right as you seem to be. Finally, I cannot tell why, but when I finished your Address I felt convinced that many would infer that you were dead against change of species, but I clearly saw that you were not. I am not very well, so good-night, and excuse this horrid letter.
LETTER 568. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 30th {1866}.
I have heard from Sulivan (who, poor fellow, gives a very bad account of his own health) about the fossils (568/1. In a letter to Huxley (June 4th, 1866) Darwin wrote: "Admiral Sulivan several years ago discovered an astonishingly rich accumulation of fossil bones not far from the Straits {of Magellan}...During many years it has seemed to me extremely desirable that these should be collected; and here is an excellent opportunity.")... The place is Gallegos, on the S. coast of Patagonia. Sulivan says that in the course of two or three days all the boats in the ship could be filled twice over; but to get good specimens out of the hardish rock two or three weeks would be requisite. It would be a grand haul for Palaeontology. I have been thinking over your lecture. (568/2. A lecture on "Insular Floras" given at the British Association meeting at Nottingham, August 27th, 1866, published in the "Gard. Chron." 1867.) Will it not be possible to give enlarged drawings of some leading forms of trees? You will, of course, have a large map, and George tells me that he saw at Sir H. James', at Southampton, a map of the world on a new principle, as seen from within, so that almost 4/5ths of the globe was shown at once on a large scale. Would it not be worth while to borrow one of these from Sir H. James as a curiosity to hang up?
Remember you are to come here before Nottingham. I have almost finished the last number of H. Spencer, and am astonished at its prodigality of original thought. But the reflection constantly recurred to me that each suggestion, to be of real value to science, would require years of work. It is also very unsatisfactory, the impossibility of conjecturing where direct action of external circumstances begins and ends—as he candidly owns in discussing the production of woody tissue in the trunks of trees on the one hand, and on the other in spines and the shells of nuts. I shall like to hear what you think of this number when we meet.
LETTER 569. TO A. GAUDRY. Down, November 17th, 1868.
On my return home after a short absence I found your note of Nov. 9th, and your magnificent work on the fossil animals of Attica. (569/1. The "Geologie de l'Attique," 2 volumes 4to, 1862-7, is the only work of Gaudry's of this date in Mr. Darwin's library.) I assure you that I feel very grateful for your generosity, and for the honour which you have thus conferred on me. I know well, from what I have already read of extracts, that I shall find your work a perfect mine of wealth. One long passage which Sir C. Lyell quotes from you in the 10th and last edition of the "Principles of Geology" is one of the most striking which I have ever read on the affiliation of species. (569/2. The quotation in Lyell's "Principles," Edition X., Volume II., page 484, is from M. Gaudry's "Animaux Fossiles de Pikermi," 1866, page 34:—