Letters to Charles Darwin from Edward Blyth at Calcutta- a Study in the Process of Discovery

"Notes for Mr. Darwin": Letters to Charles Darwin from Edward Blyth at Calcutta- A Study in the Process of Discovery

BARBARA G. BEDDALL

2502 Bronson Road Fairfwld, Connecticut

What think you of Wallace's paper in the Ann. N. Hist? . . . Has it at all unsettled your ideas regarding the persistence of species .... Edward Blyth to Charles Darwin, 8 December 1855 x

Edward Blyth, curator of the museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in Calcutta, had been corresponding with Charles Darwin in England for upwards of a year when he hurriedly wrote out for Darwin a lengthy commentary on a paper that had recently come to his attention. Little did he know that this same paper, "On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduc- tion of New Species," written by his fellow Englishman, Alfred Russel Wallace, and published in September of 1855, marked a milestone not only for Wallace himself, but for Darwin and for Sir Charles Lyell as well. ~ From a series of propositions relating to geological and geographical distributions, Wallace had deduced that "every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species." z Evolution was clearly implied, although Wallace had not yet worked out a mechanism. Both Blyth and Lyell called Darwin's attention to the paper, and it was at this time that Darwin revealed his theory of natural selection to Lyell, who urged him to publish it. But Darwin, reluctant to put out a brief and unsupported

1. Barbara G. Beddall, "Wallace, Darwin, and Edward Blyth: Further Notes on the Development of Evolution Theory," J. Hist. Biol., 5 (1972), 155, 157. The full text of the part of Blyth's letter that refers to Wallace appears on pp. 155-158. 2. Alfred Russel Wallace, "On the Law Which Has Regulated the Intro- duction of New Species," Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. [2], 16 (1855), 184-196. 3. Ibid., p. 186.

Journal of the History of Biology, vol. 6, no. 1 (Spring 1973) pp. 69--95.

69 BARBARA G, BEDDALL statement, instead began serious work on a large volume, itself interrupted two years later by the arrival of a letter from Wal- lace enclosing his own statement, independently arrived at, of the theory of natural selection. The rest is history--the reading of the joint papers of Darwin and Wallace before the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858, followed in No- vember 1859 by the publication of Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Pres- ervation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 4 But many interesting questions remain. Why should it have been Darwin and Wallace who proposed evolution by means of natural selection and not Blyth, a perspicacious naturalist exposed to many similar influences? Darwin had formulated his theory as early as 1838, and Wallace's 1855 paper (and his subsequent letters to Darwin) gave unmistakable evidence of the direction of his thinking. But if Wallace posed a threat to Darwin's priority, Blyth did not. But if not, why not? Perhaps a comparison of Darwin's two correspondents, Blyth and Wal- lace, will shed some light on the process of discovery. Fortunately, a number of Blyth's letters to Darwin are still extant. Although Blyth himself had been in Calcutta since 1841, the correspondence probably began only in the fall of 1854, when Darwin finished his work on barnacles and returned to the species problem. On 9 September of that year, he "finished packing up all my Cirripedes, preparing fossil balanidae, distributing copies of my work, etc., etc., etc .... Began Oct. 1, 1846. On Oct. 1 it will be 8 years since I beganl but then I have lost 1 or 9. years by illness." And on that same day he also "began sorting notes for Species theory." ~ Presumably it was shortly after this that he first wrote Blyth, for the earliest extant Blyth letter, dated 8 January 1855, refers to letters from Darwin written in the preceding November. Al- most all of the early letters from Blyth that Darwin saved fall in the year 1855 or in the first few months of 1856; if Blyth saved any of Darwin's letters, their whereabouts is unknown. Some are actual letters written at the time of mailing, as is the one in which Blyth commented on Wallace's paper;

4. H. Lewis McK.inney, "Alfred Russel Wallace and the Discovery of Natural Selection," 1. Hist. Med., 21 (1966), 350; Leonard G. Wilson, ed., Sir Charles Lyell's Scientific ]eurnals on the Species Question (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), pp. xli-xlix, 59-55, 65-66, 80; Barbara G. Beddall, "Wallace, Darwin, and the Theory of Natural Selection: A Study in the Development of Ideas and Attitudes," 1. Hist. Biol., 1 (1968), 261-39.3. 5. Gavin de Beer, ed., "Darwin's Journal," Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Hist. Ser., 2 (1959), 13; comas added.

70 "Notes for Darwin" others are more or less extended "Memoranda" or "Notes for Mr. Darwin." Darwin arranged them in an order to suit himself and numbered the pages consecutively, but as the arrangement is not chronological, there is some difficulty in determin- ing the dates of various sections, e Many passages that inter- ested Darwin for one reason or another were marked by him. Without the letters from Darwin to Blyth, it is not always possible to determine exactly what Darwin was asking him, or whether, for example, he systematically proposed his Ques- tions about the Breeding of Animals, although he certainly asked some of them. In any case, the range of subjects seems far wider than in the letters Darwin wrote to the poultry breeder W. B. Tegetmeier, with whom he began to correspond soon after, in the summer of 1855, about the breeding of pigeons. 7 Darwin appears to have told Blyth that he was working on "the subject of the races of domestic animals . . . with reference to Ethnology," and a large part of the correspondence is devoted to various domestic animals, their origin, breeds, hybrids, etc. The many references to Blyth in Darwin's Vari- ation of Animals and Plants under Domestication and in his Descent of Man, in particular, were later to attest to the value of Blyth's observations to him. s Beyond these more technical matters, Blyth made many other observations, writing at times as ff the floodgates had burst---delighted, perhaps, to have as knowledgeable a corres- pondent as Darwin. It would seem that some of this, at least, was volunteered. But whether or not this supposition is correct, the Blyth-Darwin correspondence scarcely supports Eiseley's

6. Cambridge University Library (hereafter CUL), Handlist of Darwin Papers at the University Library, Cambridge (Cambridge: University Press, 1960), p. 27. The Blyth letters from Calcutta run from p. 25 to p. 145 of vol. 98 and equal nearly 250 single sheets, written in what Darwin described to Lyeli as "a dreadful handwriting" (Francis Darwin, ed., More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters [New York: Appleton, 1903, I, 155]), and described even by Blyth himself as a "villainous scrawl" (p. 93[b] of the Blyth letters). 7. Charles Darwin, Questions about the Breeding of Animals [1840]: Sherborn Fund Facsimile No. 3, with an Introduction by Sir Gavin de Beer (London: Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1968); Peter 5. Vor~mmer, "Darwin's Questions About the Breeding of Animals (1839)," J. Hist. Biol., 2 (1969), 269-281. The Darwin letters to Tegetmeier, of which 14 were written between August 1855 and December 1856, are in the Library of the New York Botanical Garden. 8. Blyth, in CUL, Darwin Papers, 98 (21 April 1855), 57[b]; Charles Darwin, Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, 2nd ed., rev. (New York: Appleton, 1892); The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, new ed. (New York: Appleton, 1892).

71 BARBARA G. BEDDALL assertions that Darwin owed a still wider and unacknowledged debt to Blyth as a major source of inspiration for his Origin of Species. 9 Blyth had summarized his own thinking for Darwin shortly before writing him about Wallace's paper. Included among his comments were numerous criticisms of Lyell's Principles of Geology; in this he was similar to Wallace, who also dis- agreed with LyeU on many points and indeed was even then falling a notebook with his own extensive criticisms. But the philosophical outlook of the two men could not have been more different, Wallace struggling toward a complete evolutionary theory, Blyth restating his position of many years before. Although Blyth recognized the evolutionary implications of Wallace's paper, he was not an evolutionist himself; indeed, he had failed to grasp some of the most fundamental concepts of evolutionary theory. The interest here lies not in criticizing Blyth, however, but in comparing him with Wallace. The following extracts come from documents written in September and October 1855, quoted here with the kind per- mission of the Syndics of the Cambridge University Library. Some paragraphing has been added, as well as various ex- planatory notes; Darwin's notations, followed by the initials C.D., are enclosed in brackets. The original spelling and punctuation have been retained.

9. Loren C. Eiseley, "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 103 (1959), 94--158. This con- tains reprints of the following papers by Blyth: "An Attempt to classify the "Varieties' of Animals, with Observations on the marked Seasonal and other Changes which naturally take place in various British Species, and which do not constitute Varieties," Mag. Nat. Hist., 8 (1835), 40-53 (pp. 115-122); "Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds, more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement," Mag. Nat. Hist., 9 (1836), 393-409, 504-514 (pp. 122-136); "On the Psychological Distinctions between Man and all other Animals; and the consequent Diversity of Human Influence over the inferior Ranks of Creation, from any mutual and reciprocal Influence exercised among the Latter," Mag. Nat. Hist., 1 [n.s.] (1837), 1-9, 77-85, 131-141 (pp. 136-150). On the basis of these papers Eiseley claimed that "Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, that he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebearer in a phylo- genetic line of descent.., one of the forgotten parents of a great classic" (p. lO3). For some contrary opinions, see Gavin de Beer, ed., "Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species," Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Hist. Set., 2 (1960), 35-37; and Camille Limoges, La Sdleetion Naturelle: l~tude sur la Premidre Constitution d'un Concept (Paris: Presses Universitaixes de France, 1970), pp. 69-70, 74.

72 '~Notes for Darwin"

II I could never perceive that it necessarily follows that species or races of independent origin (so far at least as we can infer this in any case) should differ at alll Edward Blyth to Charles Darwin, 8 October 1855 TM

One of the most fundamental questions in the development of evolutionary theory concerns the geographical distribution of plants and animals. Whether there had been one or more centers of creation had been discussed since the time of Lin- naeus, who had himself believed that all species had originated in one central location from which they had then dispersed, each species being descended from one original pair. To later writers this seemed a physical impossibility; either the space would have been too small to have been occupied by so many different species, or it would have been unsuitable for species adapted to widely differing conditions. There were other difficulties as well. How were the different forms that occurred on different continents to be explained, or the similar forms in distant places? Were there different centers of creation from which the different forms dispersed? Did similar forms simply arise wherever the physical conditions were similar? Some of Blyth's predecessors, James Cowles Prichard and Charles Lyell in particular, had adopted the theory of numerous single centers of creation (the method of "creation" remaining unexplained), and they had discussed in great detail the various methods by which plant and animal species could have been dispersed from such centers, the distance depending on their capabilities and the physical obstacles encountered. 11 Prich- ard's arguments on geographical distribution were, in fact, part of his proof that the races of mankind all belonged to a single species, whose wits and locomotive power accounted for a distribution more widespread than that achieved by any other species. Further proof of the unity of mankind was the ready ability of the different races to interbreed, while the degrees of difference among the races were no greater than those ex- hibited by the different breeds of domestic animals. 10. Blyth, in CUL, Darwin Paper, 98 (8 October 1855), 100[b]. Darwin marked this comment with double lines. 11. James Cowles Prichard, Researches into the Physical History of Mankind, 4th ed. (London: Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper, 1841), I, 13-104. The first edition, an expansion of Prichard's doctoral thesis of 1808, appeared in 1813, the second in 1826, and the third in 1836-37. Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology (London: Murray, 1830-33), II, 66-122; the 12th and last edition of Lyell's Principles was published in 1875.

73 BARBARA G. BEDDALL

Blyth, however, had never been troubled by similarities of forms found in diverse places, and he did not feel obliged to account for their distribution, as LyeU and Prichard did. His scheme, as expressed in his papers of 1835-1837, was a variation of the theory of multiple centers of creation. If similar forms were found in different places, they were ipso facto different species. "It behooves us to be most cautious," he had written, "in assuming the specifical identity of the most similar animals from widely separated localities. Let it be remembered that no reason can be assigned why those originally distinct should not exactly resemble." 12 In fact, similarities indicated no more than that the habits and welfare of the animals concerned were similar. Allied species were not created with reference to each other. Rather, the true relation of a species "[the reason for its existence at all] is solely connected with its indigenous locality," or, as he put it, "to the office each was ordained to fulfil in the uni- versal, or adaptive system," the latter being "the system of relative adaptation between the earth, its productions, and its inhabitants." 13 And now, many years later in his letter to Darwin, Blyth reiterated his view regarding the specific distinctness of such separated forms, leading Darwin to annotate his letter with the remark that "this is a new argument for double creations. ''14 Blyth had explained almost twenty years previously that series of species would occur "because there are grades in localities and modes of life." For Blyth, their relationship was one of resemblance only---"physiological relations are all re- solvable into mere resemblance; because every species is es- sentiaUy distinct and separate from every other species; otherwise it would not be a species, but a variety. The most similar species, therefore, are only allied to each other in consequence of the close resemblance of their general organization," and their general organization was related to their habits. 15 If species could not necessarily be distinguished from one another ("But, surely, it will not be contended that species were created with a view that man should be able to distinguish theml"), how was a species to be defined? The sterility or fertility of hybrids, another common rule of thumb, seemed "but an uncertain guide" to Blyth (as it still did in 1855), and

12. Blyth, in Eiseley (see n. 9), p. 148. 13. Ibid., pp. 129, 124. 14. Darwin, in CUL, Darwin Papers, 98 (8 October 1855), 103[a]. 15. Blyth, in Eiseley (see n. 9), pp. 135, 128.

74 'Motes for Darwin" he had fallen back on an even more tenuous guide, "Beings derived from a separate origin," 16 He had envisioned no change in species, for "every species is equally and wondrously perfect, even to the most trivial minutiae, in reference to the office for which it was designed," although some adaptations were more perfect, or "at least, more obviously remarkable and extraordinary." Nor had he been especially concerned about their creation, merely remark- ing at one point that "there is every reason to infer, that the human species was the last act of creation upon this world, and that it will continue to be so until its removal." His arguments, indeed, were all from the "striking instances of design, which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an om- niscient great First Cause .... The unity of design ... [demonstrably] the workmanship of One omnipotent and all- fore-seeing Providence." 1~ The extinction of species was ordained by their very perfec- tion (as well as by their immutability), when "the particular circumstances under which they were appointed to live no longer [required] their presence." Indeed, if one believed in the permanence of perfectly adapted species, their absolute extinction was a natural and inevitable result of changing conditions, although how their empty places were to be filled remained an open question. Clearly echoing Lyell, whose Principles of Geology he had avidly read, Blyth noted in 1836 that "in the immensity of time important changes are brought about in every locality, by causes ever in operation, to which the faculties of the inferior animals are blind. They must, therefore, perish with their locality . . . [their] exquisite adaptation . . . [disquali- fying] them for maintaining their existence elsewhere." is His physical world, like Lyell's, was a changing one, but the living beings in it were unchanging, their forms maintained by the breeding of the most typical, the most perfectly adapted individuals, the only option in the face of change being death and extinction. In the following letter, Blyth touched on many aspects of geographical distribution, but he obviously did not draw the same conclusions from them that Wallace (or Darwin) had, not even from his series of representative species. It must have

16. Ibid., pp. 135, 134. 17. Ibid., pp. 135, 150, 120, 124. 18. Ibid., pp. 129-130, 143; and see also Beddall, "Wallace, Darwin," pp. 286-287.

75 BARBARA G. BEDDALL been soon after sending off his packet of mail that Blyth came upon Wallace's paper with its illuminating law. It is no wonder that he was struck by it, for the law "connects together and renders intelligible a vast number of independent and hitherto unexplained facts" (as Wallace wrote), including the "natural system of arrangement of organic beings, their geographical distribution, their geological sequences, the phaenomena of representative and substituted groups in all their modifica- tions, and the most singular peculiarities of anatomical structure [rudimentary organs]." 19 Wallace explained where Blyth described, the difference in their outlook leading to vastly different results. Blyth began his letter to Darwin with remarks on varieties and ended it with remarks on classification, subjects which will be further discussed in later sections of this paper. 20

Calcutta, Oct. 8th, 1855 My dear Sir, By the mail which leaves this day I have the pleasure to send you a copy of my printed report (just published) on a zool. collection from the Som~di country, and also a lot of M.S. for your consideration. These you will receive through Dr. [Thomas] Horsfield. The said MS. consists, firstly, of 1/2 doz. sheets like this one, devoted to the more immediate subject of your present enquiries, which is treated more elaborately & systematically than before, in consideration of which you must pardon some repetition; & secondly, of 1/2 doz. more such sheets (putting your patience a little to the test, surely,) devoted to a commentary upon the 2d Vol. of Lyell's 'Principles,' with collateral matters that occurred to me. I fancy that I have not yet quite done with Lyell, & may find time to look over his other Vols., & also certain other works, ere the next mail leaves us. With regard to the vexata quaestio of species, & notwithstanding the occasional occurrence of prolific hybrids, we still cannot but admit that, as a very general rule, species do not intermix in wild nature, as varieties of the same species (descendants from a common stock) we have every reason to think would do. Among gregarious animals, however, as especially cattle, the members of the same herd well know each other, &

19. Wallace, "On the Law," p. 196. 90. Blyth, in CUL, Darwin Papers, 98 (8 October 1855), 99[b]-104[a].

76 "Notes for Darwin"

will not readily permit an intruder from another herd to associate with them: this would help to keep varieties distinct; & then we have the fact that the most powerful male keeps other males at a distance, & so monopolizes the propagation; whereby it follows, that whilst the best blood is thus ordinarily transmitted, at the same time any peculiarity would likewise be extensively transmitted; & hence perhaps the origin of certain races, or what I have termed normal as distinguished from abnormal varieties. The influence of the same leading male might well extend over the generation of successions of seasons; 8~ thus per- manently affect the future herd. Meanwhile, the other larger males driven from the herd would mostly combat and destroy each other, or fall a prey to their natural enemies; comparatively few becoming the centers of a new circle of feminine acquaintances. On the other hand, we must remember that, in general, the male distinguished by some marked peculiarity is not the most likely one to become the patriarch of the herdl 21 Next, it may be remarked that of species so nearly affined as to be liable to interbreed (e.g. the humped & humpless cattle), either there are geographical difficulties to be first overcome, or, should such not present themselves, originally distinct races may have fused more or less completely long ago, & so have given origin to what have therefore come to be considered as single species, & especially to some of the more variable of our present supposed species--the Horse for instance. I could never perceive that it necessarily follows that species or races of independent origin (so far at least as we can infer this in any case) should differ at ale In races from the most distant regions, and where we have certainly no reason to suppose that the particular species had passed from one to the other, we have every grade of approximation from the most obvious & universally acknowledged to be distinct, to undistinguishable (if not absolute) similarity. Take the Skua Gull of Australia as compared with that of

21. In 1835 Blyth had written: "In a large herd of cattle, the strongest bull drives from him all the younger and weaker individuals of his own sex, and remains sole master of the herd; so that all the young which axe produced must have had their origin from one which possessed the maxi- mum of power and physical strength; and which, consequently, in the struggle for existence, was the best able to maintain his ground, and defend himself from every enemy." In Eiseley (see n. 9), p. 118. [~.c.~.]

77 BARBARA G. BEDDALL

the north; & this bird has never been seen within the tropics. The great Grebes of Europe & Australia are a more doubtful case, for I have obtained the Podiceps cristatus from the Bengal Soonderben. Or turn to [John] Gould's 'Birds of Aus- tralia.' There you will find the FaIcunculus of the east represented by a corresponding but obviously distinct species in the west; & many more cases of the kind. 22 Then each principal region [of Australia] has its own peculiar black Cockatoos, which Gould figures as distinct; but the white C. galerita is common to all the regions & to N. Guinea, etc., but presents differences of size, etc., in different localities, indicating perhaps a plurality of races actually as distinct apart as the black are but manifesting a still closer approximation. This is even the more likely, as we recognize the same peculiar type in the small Sul- phur-crested C. sulphurina of Timor, & the new C. citrino- cristata (which I have) the precise native region of which is still unknown.2~ We can only weigh probabilities. We cannot but recognise a certain law, by which it appears that different regions (and especially those subordinate to the same zoological or botanical province) present series of species which, though admitted on all hands to be distinct & peculiar, nevertheless represent other species in the corresponding regions; the different provinces of Australia for instance; & the tropical regions E. & W. of the Andes. Here we have even so remarkable a form as RupicoIa represented on both sides of the chain; and numerous corresponding species of Cotinga,

22. All of these birds have discontinuous distributions. The Great Skua (Catharc~a skua) is unusual in having a bipolar distribution, breeding both in the North Atlantic and in the sub-Antarctic regions. The southern form does cross the equator in the Pacific Ocean in the non-breeding season, but it has never been seen in the North Atlantic. The Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps cristatus) occurs discontinuously in the Old World from the British Isles to New Zealand; Sundarbans is the seaward edge of the Ganges delta, facing the Bay of Bengal. The Western Shriketit is sometimes classed with the Eastern Shriketit (Falcunculus frontalus) and sometimes sep- arately as F. leucogaster. [B.¢.B.] 23. There are four species of Black (or Raven) Cockatoos (Calyptorhyn, chus) with red, white, or yellow in their tail feathers, while nine subspecies of the White Cockatoo (Kakatoe galerita) are recognized. The latter is sometimes also called the Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, but the forms by that name mentioned by Blyth are classified by Peters as subspecies of K. sulphurea, K. sulphurea citrino-cristata being found on Sumba and K. sulphurea parvula on Timor and Samao; see James L. Peters, Check-List of Birds of the Wor/d (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937; reprinted 1961, Museum of Comparative Zoology), HI, 173-174. [B.G.B.]

78 ~Notes for Darwin"

Tanager, etc. (confining our attention to the bird class for brevity) .24 Among such corresponding species [on each side of the Cordillera, C.D.] there is every grade of approximation until all apparent distinctness is lost; & yet analogy would often indicate that such undistinguishable forms are in reality as distinct as the rest [This is a new argument for double creations; but only applicable to creation not to change of species, C.D.]; & it is likely (I think) that not only such, but some of those corresponding races which are more or less distinguishable, would intermingle & fade were the geographical difficulties to be surmounted. Still the phenomenon of prolific hybrids is exceptional: as remarkably shewn by viz hybrids from GaUus Sonneratii; all the numerous eggs produced from or by the agency of which, with male or female of the domestic fowl, proved invariably abortive.~ Varieties of the same species we pre- sume to be always prolific inter se: but even on this subject, consult [Capt.] Hutton in the 'Calcutta Journal of Nat. His- tory,' description of Capra ogagrus, which I still think is the manifest origin of the domestic Goat. It would even seem that the latter interbreeds with the Swiss Ibex, a far more different species than the ogagrus; & it is said that [illegible name] figures of (or assigned to) the ogagrus, m. & f., with their young, represent these hybrid Ibeces! 26 But sterile individuals of pure species (both male & female) occur not so very unfrequenfly, and merely appear to be more common among hybrids, & among some than other hybrids. How about the Red Deer, which is said to be dying off from sterility both in Ireland and upon Dartmoor? En- quire into this. And do you remember the extraordinary case of occasional migration which occurred among the Red

24. The Andean Cock-of-the-Rock (Rupieola peruviana) is found in the Andes of eastern and western Colombia and Ecuador, the Guianan Cock- of-the-Rock (R. rupicola) further to the east. Compare Blyth's reasoning here with Wallace's lawI [B.C.B.] 25. Cf. his earlier statement: ", . . I myself raised a pair of hybrids from the male Gallus Sonneratii [Sonnerat's Jungle Fowl], and a female common fowl, as like the wild hen bankilJa [Ga~us 9aUus bantti~a, Red Jungle Fowl] as I could find. Very many (more than 100) of these hybrids were hatched, but only one pair attained maturity"; Blyth, in CUL, Darwin Papers, 98 (21 April 1855), 64[a]. [B.C.B] 26. Capra ogagrus is C. hircus aegagrus. C. hircus, the Wild Goat or Pasang, is considered to be the ancestor of the domesticated goat. The Swiss Ibex is C. ibex. [~.G.B.]

79 BARBARA G. BEDDALL

Deer, I think of Sutherlandshire, & of which a very interesting account was given in Chambers's Journal? Reverting to the case of affined species, no end of instances occur to me, in sundry classes, wherein it is not likely that naturalists will ever approximate even to agree- ment. There is the common Tree-frog of Bengal Polypedates leucomysIax, which here does not vary much, yet seems to differ in almost every district from which I have received it,--various parts of S. India, Ceylon, Sylhet, Burma, Ma- lasia, etc.; in every locality there seems to be a peculiarity in the colouring. I doubt not that the Prince of Canino would make many species of it; [Hermann] Schlegel but one; & then again, surrounding this nucleus (of local varieties?), we have many other races closely affined, but more or less satisfactorily distinguishableY Then among shells, many of the large [land] Cyclostomate & [fresh-water] MeIanid of India & neighbouring countries; but, W. W. Clark (as I see in the 'Zoologist' for July last, p. 4750) is carrying the war into the camp of the mere conchologistsI I have only quite recently seen this publication for the first time, and as yet only the Nos. for the current year: but among them I must call your attention to Dr. [Robert] Knox's remarks on species (p. 4791 ). Knox is an original thinker, and amusingly indisposed to hide his light under a bushel; moreover, not a little opinion- ated in some matters, & few have better grounds on which to form opinions. But, I demur to his dogma about gaps (1. 10 from bottom). Pretty much as a tree branches off, & still divides & subdivides & resubdivides, and with almost as much irregularity, so I conceive that the successively subordinate groups of organisms divide off from each other without anastomosing or coalescing; & that accordingly there are no links connecting the twigs of the different branches, which in gardener's phrase are never "inarched," but remain independent of each other save insofar as they alike ramify from one primal stem or type. Thus the principal branches represent classes, & so on. [Dead branches will represent fossils & branches dead & gone those fossil & lost, C.D.] With kindest regards, I remain Yours ever truly, E. Blyth

27. Charles Lucien Bonaparte, prince of Canino and nephew of Napoleon I, was a well-known ornithologist and zoologist. Schlegel was an early proponent of trinomial nomenclature. [B.C.B.]

80 "Notes for Darwin"

P.S. I want to have said a few words about the geographic range of various wading & swimming birds; suggested by the erroneous statement in Lyell (quoted from Bewick) about that of the wild Anser cinereus. A considerable proportion of the waders & swimmers of the Old World have the same range as Anser cinereus; others as the Mallard & Pintail Ducks extend also to America; & the latter is very common in India, while the Mallard here keeps to the vicinity of the Himalaya. Are any save tropical Anatida common to the N. & S. hemispheres? I think not. The Green-shank is common to Britain & Australia, with all the intervening land. D[itt]o Black-tailed Godwit. I do not admit the distinctness of gIottoidis. 2s

HI We should distinguish the varieties of animals into normal and abnormal... Edward Blyth to Charles Darwin [September?] 1855 ~D

Blyth had first worked out a classification of varieties in 1835, when he was not yet twenty-five. One object was to point out "the marked seasonal and other changes which naturally take place in various British species, and which do not constitute varieties." This still left many other "departures from the acknowledged type of a species;' however, and these he attempted to sort out. so First of all, however, it should be understood that for Blyth and his immediate predecessors, Prichard, William Lawrence, and Lyell, a species was permanent and unvarying except within strict limits. According to Prichard, "the meaning at- tached to the term species in natural history is very definite and intelligible. It includes only the following conditions, namely, separate origin and distinctness of race, evinced by the constant transmission of some characteristic peculiarity of organization." al If the origin of such a form is known,

28. Anser einereus = A. anser, the Grey Lag Goose. It is found in the nox~daern hemisphere of the Old World and is not "a general inhabitant of the globe," as Lyell had thought. The Greenshank (Tringa nebularia) breeds from Scotland eastwazd to Kamchatka in the northern hemisphere and winters as far south as Australia and New Zealand. The range of the Black- tailed Godwit (Limosa liraosa) is roughly similar. [B.Q.B.] 29. Blyth, in CUL, Darwin Papers, 98 ([Sept.?] 1855), 26[a]. 30. Blyth, in Eiseley (see n. 9), pp. 115-122. 31. Prichaxd, Researches, I, 105.

81 BARBARA G. BEDDALL it is a permanent variety; if not, it is a species. (Blyth, as we have seen, did not even consider distinctness a necessary condition and simply relied on "a separate origin.") Lawrence spoke of the "fixed eternal form [that] belongs to each animal," which is "continued by generation . . . all the animals belonging to one of these forms [constituting what] zoologists call a species. This resemblance must not be understood in a rigorous sense; for every being has its individual characters of size, figure, colour, proportions. [Nature] has made it a fundamental law, that no two of her productions shall be exactly alike." Lyell had concluded "that species have a real existence in nature; and that each was endowed, at the time of its creation, with the attributes and organization by which it is now distinguished," including a limited capacity to vary, which variation, however, took place within a very short period of time. a2 But a main point of Prichard's and Lawrence's books should not be forgotten: both attempted to show that all the races of mankind belonged to a single species. As Prichard remarked in 1836, "Since the first edition of this work [in 1813] . . . many treatises have been published on the same subject. In all of these, as far as they are known to me--with the exception of Mr. Lawrence's well-known Lectures, in which the able author has maintained, with great extent of research, the unity of species in all human races--an opposite doctrine has been upheld .... Even Cuvier has admitted this conclusion . . ." as But if one argued for the unity of mankind, how were the great differences among the races of mankind to be accounted for, when so little variation was to be observed in wild species? The analogy with the equally varied breeds of domestic animals showed that under certain circumstances a great deal of variation was possible, and thus that the variation in the races of mankind, within the bounds of a species, was also possible. It was such variation within the limits of species that Blyth was trying to classify. In his original formulation, Blyth had grouped varieties into four rather unequal categories: (1) simple or slight individual

32, William Lawrence, Lectures on Comparative Anatomy, Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man, 9th ed. (London: Bohn, 1843), pp. 66--67; the first edition was published in 1819. Lye]l, Principles, 9th ed. (1853), p. 611. As he later wrote: "In former editions of this work from 1832 to 1853 I did not venture to differ from the opinion of Linnaeus, that each species had remained from its origin such as we now see it, being variable, but only within certain fixed limits"; 12th ed. (1875), II, 269. 33. Prichard, Researches, I, vii.

82 "Notes for Darwin" variations, usually soon lost in a state of nature, but leading to breeds under the agency of man; (2) acquired variations, which were not inheritable; (3) breeds, derived from simple variations; and (4) true varieties, monstrosities that by man's agency could also become breeds. 84 In his letter to Darwin, he reduced the number of categories to two, and a combining of the schemes leads to the following tabulation: 1. Normal varieties (simple or slight individual variations), which may lead to: a. local races or permanent varieties (natural), or b. breeds (artificial) 2. Abnormal varieties (true varieties, monstrosities, defor- mities), which may lead to: a. breeds (artificial), which have no true prototype in wild nature

How local races were to be classified was a problem. As Blyth had already mentioned, the prince of Canino would call them separate species, Schlegel would lump them together under one species. The difficulties could be obviated, according to Blyth, by the assumption of their independent origin, although "in fact ff we argue for independent origin (or creation) of each race, we are necessitated to admit that aboriginally distinct races do not necessarily differ at all." 35 How such races (elsewhere defined as descended from the same stock) could be aboriginally distinct is not clear. Local races could be formed, as Blyth had pointed out in his letter, by the leading male of a gregarious species, who could pass on his own peculiarities. But Blyth still felt, as he had many years earlier, that it would more likely be the typical than the peculiar male which would succeed in dominating the herd. Like Blyth, Wallace had also read Prichard, Lawrence, and Lyell, and he had been struck almost at the beginning of his career in natural history by the problem of species and varieties. His first efforts to define them left something to be de- sired, however. Drawing on ideas expressed by Prichard and

34. Blyth, in Eiseley (see n. 9), pp. 115-119. Although Darwin seems to have read this paper, his only comment was in reference to the tailless cat; see Gavin de Beer et al., eds., "Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species, Part VI," Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Hist. Ser., 3 (1967), 136. That Darwin had read Blyth's papers, as Eiseley surmised, is now, with the pub- lieation of his Notebooks, readily ascertainable. 35. Blyth, in CUL, Darwin Papers, 98 (21 April 1855), 63[b]-64[a].

83 BARBARA G. BEDDALL

Lawrence, he wrote in an early letter to his friend Henry Walter Bates in 1845 that he considered species to be charac- terized by permanent inheritable differences, while varieties were produced by external causes whose effects were not inheritable. 36 This led him into inconsistencies that he apparently did not recognize. In the face of Prichard's and Lawrence's arguments for the unity of mankind, Wallace decided that albinos (classified by Blyth as a simple variation) and Negroes were both separate species, overlooking not only the fact that there is no albino race (or species) of man, but also the even more important fact that the races of mankind all readily interbreed. He had as yet no scheme into which his ideas fitted, and therefore did not follow them to their logical conclusions. How, for instance, could an isolated individual such as an albino be said to constitute a species? Were all breeds of dogs or cattle also to be called species? What was the relationship between varieties and species? This was a central problem, and Wallace continued to mull over it. Many years later, and shortly before he wrote out his brief "Note on the Theory of Permanent and Geographical Varieties," he read Blyth's paper on varieties and noted his four categories; at that time he differed from Blyth in thinking that acquired variations could be propagated. The most important suggestion in Wallace's "Note" was that species were not specially created, but that like varieties they had a natural origin. But it was Leopold von Buch, not Blyth, who had pointed out that "varieties . . . not being crossed by other varieties • . . become at length permanent & distinct species," as Wal- lace had also recorded in his Notebook (and as Darwin had in his)Y In spite of arguments to the contrary, Blyth's influence on this latter point would seem to have been minimal, as This problem was of little interest to those arguing from

36. H. Lewis McKinney, "Wallace's Earliest Observations on Evolution: 28 December 1845," Isis, 60 (1969), 370-373, which gives the full original text o~ the letter; see also Kentwood D. Wells, "Six William Lawrence (1783-1867): A Study of Pre-Darwinian Ideas on Heredity and Variation," ]. Hist. Biol., 4 (1971), 339-344, 360. Neither McKinney nor Wells comments on Wallace's inconsistencies, believing instead that calling permanent varieties species meant that there was no "species barrier" for Wallace. 37. Alfred Russel Wallace, "'Note on the Theory of Permanent and Geographical Varieties," Zoologist, 16 (1858), 5887-5888; Wallace, "Note- book, 1855-1859," MS, Linnean Society of London, pp. 62-63 (Blyth), p. 90 (yon Buch); see Beddall, "Wallace, Darwin," p. 287. Darwin also zead Blyth (see n. 34) and von Buch on varieties, but only yon Buch drew corn-

84 "Notes for Darwin" design, however, and Blyth had long ago rejected the suggestion that "a large proportion of what are considered species have descended from a common parentage," maintaining that this was precluded by "those constant and unvariable distinctions which are found to obtain . . . the unbending perma- nency of the distinguishing characteristics of all wild animals." His 'localizing principle" could indeed lead to "breeding in and in," by which individual peculiarities would be transmitted. But this would mean a gradation of adaptations not seen to exist, and, even ff they did, interbreeding would cause the aberrant forms to disappear; witness the European Jay, which "is the same in Italy as in Sweden," and obviously unaffected by climate or locality. 89 In the following "Notes for Mr. Darwin," Blyth also discussed Lyelrs theory on the rapid development of marked varieties (which he thought unproved), the origin of various domestic animals, variableness in wild species, and his reasons for considering the humped and humpless cattle separate species.4O

Notes for Mr. Darwin [December 1855, C.D.] The 2d Vol. of Lyelrs ~Principles' not being conveniently at hand, & requiring a hot drive to go & fetch it, I avail myself of a quiet Sunday morning to attempt a sort of summary or recapitulation of much that I have before treated on; giving the results of subsequent meditation, & placing in juxtaposition, perhaps, facts & considerations which may conduce to further generalizations & additional suggestions. Firstly, then, it seems to be a favorite notion that the more marked varieties of animals (& of plants) have not been very gradually produced, but that a short time sufficed to attain the limits of variation, & those distinctions which have ever since been perpetuated. There are no recorded facts, however, relative to the orig- ination of a marked variety, to bear out this theory or rather hypothesis; and sufficient time has surely elapsed since the

ments from him on this point; see De Beer, ed., "Darwin's Notebooks," [Part I], pp. 60-61. 38. Wells, "Sir William Lawrence," pp. 344-346. 39. Blyth, in Eiseley (see n. 9), pp. 147, 148. 40. Blyth, in CUL, Darwin Papers, 98 ([Sept.?] 1855), 25[b]--34[b], the "Notes" run through p. 37[a].

85 BARBARA G. BEDDALL

introduction of Old World animals into the New, & vice versa, to have furnished, in all probability, at least one or two illustrations. Instead of which, we have instances of acquired habits becoming hereditary instincts, as with the Peccary-hunting Dogs in S. America, & in Australia the Kan- garoo Dogs. Prichard's notion of the "Creole fowls" I think that I have sufficiently demolished.* (*By the way, what do you know of the races of fowls so numerous among the Niger tribes of Africa? All probably introduced originally through Egypt l But has no peculiar race originated in all Africa? ) As for the "Otter Sheep," they nicely illustrate a malforma- tion or deformity, which has become congenital; & this through direct human interference, by careful selection of parents l Such a race may, in like manner, have originated anywhere, & cannot therefore be ascribed to any peculiarity of the American climate. It is analogous to the Turnspit Dog (which has often been casually produced); & we have the still more curious instance, among birds, of the "Penguin Ducks" common in the Philippines. 41 Such cases, however, are suggestive of the origin of abnormal varieties generally; which I incline to ascribe to direct interference on the part of man, & his immediate & intentional superintendence of the propagation of animals descended from a casual mon- strosityl E.g. Turn-crested Canaries and Lob-eared Rabbits probably within the past century; & floral varieties without number. We should distinguish the varieties of animals into normal and abnormal; the former exemplified by the European races of cattle, sheep, etc., which retain the normal con- formation of other and wild animals, or present aberrations of merely trivial import, such as might even characterize a wild species. The races of mankind fall under this division; while the "Porcupine family" & 6-digital folk present the other, & certain Hottentot peculiarities tend in the same direction. Suppose we were to select from the Bojesman race, & continue the propagation from the choicest specimens only, for a few generationsl Could the result be doubted?

41. "In some few instances new breeds have suddenly originated; thus, in 1791, a ram-lamb was born in Massachusetts, having short crooked legs and a long back, like a turnspit dog. From this one lamb the otter or ancon semi-monstrous breed was raised...'" (Darwin, Variation, I, 104). The Penguin Duck is a domesticated duck, "the most remarkable of all the breeds" (ibid., I, 296), which stands nearly erect like a penguin. [B.G.~a.]

86 '~Notes for Darwin"

Any more than with mere albinos, etc., etc.? 42 Have you seen Knox's curious volume on the races of mankind? 4s I think that the designation breed should be restricted to those certified races which have been intentionally produced by the admixture of normal varieties, for the special attain- ment of calculated results; & which artificial races require much skilful management to preserve in their integrity, by an occasional infusion of fresh blood from the normal races from which they had descended. Mr. So & so's particular breed of Sheep, for instance, etc., etc. By abnormal varieties, as distinguished from normal, I mean such as we have no reason to believe had any prototypes in wild nature: as fat-rumped & fat-tailed Sheep, polycerate d[itt]o & Goats, hornless d[itt]o [&] Bovine cattle (individuals only of which do sometimes, though very rarely, occur wild, --as the Empress Josephine's hornless Springbok----Gazella enchori, & the American animal designated Ixalus probatori by Ogilby);--long and pendent-eared goats, the silky-coated Angora dog & cat & Rabbit, solidungular or "Double-footed" Swine, & Spaniels, Poodles, etc, among dogs (& the marked races of dogs seem to be diminishing rather than increasing in number, witness the bloodhound, Maltese dog, etc.)-- Among birds, the fancy Pigeons & the very numerous abnormal races of poultry,--as silky, frizzled, rumpless, 5-toed, feather-legged, crested, double & multiple-combed & even coarse legged (so different from their wild congeners). Geese & Ducks with downy topknots may be added; & the singular varieties of Cyprinus auratus [goldfish] & C. macrop- thalmus. Also the Cutch race of horses. [This is followed by a lengthy and detailed discussion of abnormal varieties of fowls, pendent-eared and curly-tailed animals, and sheep, here omitted.] I now return to generalities. The varieties of domestic animals may be conveniently distributed into 1, those of which we know the origin,m2, those of which the origin (from existing wild types) is prob- able ,--and 3, those of which the origin is unknown. With the exception of the Knobbed Goose and the domestic collared Turtle-dove, I think all domestic birds will come under the first category (though is the aboriginal wild

42. The "Porcupine family" was an English family whose bodies were covered by "'hard dark-coloured excresences of a horny nature"; see Lawrence, Lectures, p. 306. [B.G.B.] 43. Robert Knox, The Races of Men (Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard, 1850); see Wells, "Sir William Lawrence," pp. 333-334. [B.G.B]

87 BARBARA G. BEDDALL

Cygnus olor, or Mute Swan, particularly well known?). To me the evidence is satisfactory as regards the Fowl, Turkey, Peafowl, Guinea-fowl, European Goose, Duck, Musk d[itt]o [Duck], Pigeon & Canary (although I have never seen the Wild Canary). 44 [This is followed by a lengthy discussion of the origin of fowls, here omitted.] A most curious & quite unparalleled case of variableness of colouring in a wild animal occurs in the well known instance of the Ruff (PhiIomachus pugnax), at least the males during the breeding season among which it is a phenomenon to find two alike; & at other seasons they are not all quite similar, for the pale-ruffed may still be distinguished from the dark-ruffed (even when they have not the ruff), & many of the former have a pure white neck; & they differ also in the colouring of the legs at all seasons. Have the (alleged) varieties of Ursus arctos [Brown Bear] been sufficiently studied? As the Cinnamon Bear, Collared, etc. Some are probably distinct. Most extraordinary differences in size occur among some birds, even in the same flock... Streaked & spotted animals often differ considerably in the markings of the two sides of their body... So also with tiger-moths (Arctia), & various shells... The same want of regularity in the markings while the general character of them is retained, is observable in the leaves & petals, etc., of plants .... The species or varieties of the Rein Deer want looking to... Are the humped camels & tropical cattle species or nor- real or abnormal varieties? Are they merely analogous to the fat-rumped sheep or otherwise? . . . The permanence of every essential character in all the races of [camels], & the inconsiderable differences among those races . . . tend to indicate that they have not been materially altered by domestication, or the various races would scarcely shew so great an amount of uniformity. About the humped cattle, naturalists are still at logger- heads, & persist in continuing so; many seeming to regard them as about equally abnormal and artificial with the fat- tailed Sheep. Now I maintain (as you know) that they are as good & distinct a species as the Knobbed Goose, which

44. For general information on the domestication of birds, see A. Lands- borough Thomson, ed., A New Dictionary of Birds (London: Nelson, 1964), pp. 215--9,18. [B.G.B]

88 'Motes for Darwin"

is somewhat of an analogue among birds; & that neither of these has been essentially modified by domestication . . . & where have the humpless races displayed so much as a tend- ency to assume any one of the following marked peculiarities of the humped cattle? The shorter body & abrupt droop towards the tail, peculiarly neat limbs, narrow pointed ears, large full expressive eye, dewlap coming from the chin, nor- real direction of the horns, & the grunting voice, (so very different from the bellowing of the bull & lowing of the ox & cow of the other),--also the indifference to the fiercest sun, & their never entering the water . . . What more can be required to characterize it as a peculiar species? Why the advocates of the opposite opinion can adduce only the prolificacy of the hybrids, which with me does not outweigh every other consideration ....

IV • . . in the struggle for existence, hybrids & varieties generally must be expected to give way before the pure types... Edward Blyth to Charles Darwin, [September?] 1855 ~

Nowhere does the difference between Blyth and Wallace stand out more sharply than in their criticisms of Lyell. Wal- lace's Notebook of 1855-1859 clearly attests Lyelrs importance to him as both antagonist and springboard. Questioning so many of Lyelrs conclusions about the geological and geographical distribution of animals as he did, he was led to refine and clarify his own thinking.46 Blyth, on the other hand, objected not to Lyell's conclusions, which he considered to be "legitimately deduced from his premises," but to details of the underlying data, and his remarks were limited almost entirely to correc- tions of such details. Blyth, in other words, accepted Lyell's "system" (except for his single centers of "creation"), while Wallace was creating a new one. It is of special interest that Blyth's criticisms of Lyell relate to the second volume of the first edition of his Principles of Geology, for that volume began with Lyelrs lengthy discussion and refutation of Lamarck's theory of the transmutation of species. Blyth dismissed this evolutionary scheme in a few words: "The Lamarckian theory may be passed by." Neverthe-

45. Blyth, in CUL, Darwin Papers, 98 ([Sept.?] 1855), 45[a]. 46. BeddaU, "Wallace, Darwin," pp. 271-287.

89 BARBARA G. BEDDALL less, he had come around to accepting a bit of Lamarck. His original opinion on the instincts of animals had been that "these were from the first imprinted on their constitution, and may, therefore, be legitimately esteemed as forming part of the specific character." In a footnote to this statement, he remarked that "the reader will observe that the doctrine here contro- verted is but an application of the exploded hypothesis of M. Lamarck." 47 Yet, at the beginning of the "Notes for Mr. Dar- win" previously cited, he noted "instances of acquired habits becoming hereditary instincts." Lamarck had thought that genera and species were artificial categories existing solely because of the gaps in our knowledge. If all forms past and present were to be discovered, the lines of demarcation would be obliterated. "Let me repeat," Lamarck had written, "that the richer our collections grow, the more proofs do we find that everything is more or less merged into everything else, that noticeable differences disappear, and that nature usually leaves us nothing but minute, nay puerile, details on which to found our distinctions." 48 But Lyell argued for the real existence of species and genera in nature, and Blyth agreed with him. As already pointed out, Blyth considered species constant and immutable, "perfectly unconnected and distinct from each other" however difficult they might be to distinguish, their relationships based on mere resemblance. He now repeated that he did not "believe in connecting links from one group to another," from one typical plan to another. How startling, then, was Wallace's suggestion that, if his law "be true, it follows that the natural series of affinities will also represent the order in which the several species came into existence, each one having had for its immediate antitype a closely allied species existing at the time of its origin." 49 From this it would follow that the "natural system of classification" was based on descent from common ancestors, and that Blyth's "mere resemblance" had a deeper meaning than simply organization on the same typical plan. It would be an actual blood relationship, whose connecting links extended backward in time. Blyth had equated man and Providence in the keeping up

47. Blyth, in Eiseley (see n. 9), p. 141. 48. Jean Baptiste Lamarck, Zoological Philosophy: An Exposition with Regard to the Natural History of Animals, tr. Hugh Elliot (London: Mac- miUan, 1914; reprinted, New York: Hafner, 1963), p. 37. 49. Wallace, "On the Law," p. 186.

90 "Notes for Darwin" of breeds and of the typical forms of species. Breeds dearly required man's active intervention to maintain them, and wild species similarly required the aid of Providence. But to Blyth this was a relatively straightforward matter. "The original form of a species is unquestionably better adapted to its natural habits," he had written in 1835, "than any modification of that form," and it is consequently better able to leave offspring, thus ensuring the continuance of this original form. 5° His opinion had not changed in the intervening years, and he remarked again to Darwin on the superiority of pure types over varieties and hybrids. The following excerpts are taken from Blyth's "commentary on the 2d Vol. of Lyell's `principles,'" preceded by the last page of his "Notes for Mr. Darwin," in which he expressed his general opinion of Lyell's work. 51 I have been dipping into LyeU's second volume, & find that I shall have not a little to say. Some 18 years have passed since I studied the "Principles'; but I did so with intense interest, & carefully read the whole work twice over; and I doubt if any salient fact has escaped my memory. From that time to the present I have felt that revision was necessary. Of course I have the utmost respect for Sir C. Lyell; & his arguments are no doubt sound in the main. His conclusions are legitimately deduced from his premises; but the latter, or his assumed data (on the authority of others duly quoted), are erroneous in very many instances; & I shall have to devote a long letter to their rectification, so far as my knowledge of the facts enables me to controvert the published statements. In this somewhat ungracious task I don't wish to appear prominently; but truth is what we seek, & the establishment of it is the more important in proportion to the high scientific rank of the authority su- presuss to call in question. $ * * $

Notes on Lyell, Vol. 2, Edit. 1832 The Lamarckian theory may be passed by. But at p. 15, I may remark that the Orang-utans, which have no Iiga- mentum teres to bring the head of the thigh-bone to its socket (in which they differ from all other Quadrumana),

50. B1yth, in Eiseley (see n. 9), p. 118. 51. Blyth, in CUL, Darwin Papers, 98 ([Sept.?] 1855), 37[a]-45[a]; the section on Lyell runs from p. 37[b] to p. 50[b].

91 BARBARA G. BEDDALL

are thereby utterly incapacitated from standing up on their lower extremities... p. 19. Distinctive types of genera, i.e. of natural groups of various degrees of comprehensiveness. I fully believe in this; & am prepared to argue the matter in detail. In other words, I do not believe in connecting links from one group to another. Take the Parrots for instance: here we have the subordinate groups of Cockatoos, Lories, etc., etc.; but in what instance does a Parrot tend to grade towards any other type of the bird class. Take the diurnal & nocturnal birds of prey l In what instance does the skeleton or the alimentary canal tend to grade from one subtype to the other? Man constitutes a distinct genus; the Chimpanzees another; & the Orangs a third; & the Gibbons a fourth: & all of these have characters in common (man not included) which are found in no other Quadrumana. The appendix vermi- form to the cocum for instance: then we have two more distinct series of Old World Quadrumana, those with simple stomachs, etc., as the Baboons, Guenons, etc.,--& those with sacculated stomachs, etc. as Presbytis (vel [or] Semno- pithecus) & Colobus. There is no intergrading; any more than between the Catarhyni [Old World monkeys] & Platy- rhyni [New World monkeys], the one essential distinction of all the last being the possession of a third false molar. Then come the Lemurs, again distinct: & so on. It is only very superficially that any may seem to inter- grade; and all such apparent cases (in my opinion) will admit of satisfactory explanation without resorting to the theory of links. Observe the distinctness of each order of insects, each from all the rest; but it is needless to pursue this fertile topic further just now... p. 59.. I believe it is a general rule, that when nearly affined varieties interbreed, a pointer & setter for instance, the offspring are not generally intermediate, but pointers or setters, some of each; & each may throw out the other in the next or subsequent generations, without a second inter- mixture: but when the parent varieties are more distinct, as the Negro & European, an intermediate offspring is generally produced. Now the offspring of a blonde & brunette among Europeans are generally either blondes or brunettes, some of each; & perhalXs we have a peculiar manifestation of the pairing instinct among mankind, in the mutual prefer- ence so often evinced by blondes & brunettes, & short and tall, either wayl* (*The mixed offspring of the European and Hindu seems to be always intermediate.)

92 "Notes for Darwin"

The Wolf case cited by Lyell in p. 51 should therefore bear out my idea of the affinity of the Wolf & Dog; as a case I before mentioned to you equally does in the case of the dog & Jackal.raThe humped & humpless cattle produce constantly an intermediate offspring. Ditto Horse & Ass; & Knobbed & common Geese. Some years ago there was an animal in the Z. Gardens which was daily worked in harness together with a white Syrian or Egyptian Ass, in whose blood 3 species were mixed upl viz Ass, Zebra, & Queggal The cases cited from Prichard in p. 52 are exceptions de- cidedly. p. 53. I remember being shewn in England a hybrid Cal- ceolaria, the parents of which were a herbaceous & a half shrubby species from different regions, & very unlike, which I was assured produced prolific seed (unassisted) as freely as either parent speciesl If you could find up Mr. Bruce, then gardener to Boyd Miller Esq (who I think is since dead), of Merton, Surry, he who is a clever & well informed Scotch gardener, & worthy of all credit, could probably still furnish the exact details & give you the names of the species. Still, we must remember, 1, the beautiful & minute adaptation of every species (animal or vegetable) to its indige- neous haunts; and 2, that notwithstanding, that special adaptation, what a very small proportion of the germs (eggs or seeds) produced, even by these normal races ever come to maturity; & therefore that in the struggle for existence, hybrids & varieties generally must be expected to give way before the pure types,--an old argument which there is no occasion for me to enlarge upon...

My idea of propagation almost infers, what we call improvement. Charles Darwin, 1837 as

I begin to feel rather dissatisfied with a mere local collection; little is to be learnt by it. I should like to take some one family to study thoroughly, principally with a view to the theory of the origin of species. By that means I am strongly of opinion that some definite results might be arrived at. Alfred Russel Wallace to Henry Walter Bates, early 1848~'

52. De Beer, ed., "Darwin's Notebooks/' [Part I], p. 65. 53. James Marchant, Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper, 1916), p. 74.

93 BARBARA G. BEDDALL

If Blyth accepted Lyell's system more or less intact, Darwin and Wallace did not. Deeply impressed as they were with Lyell's "attempt to explain the former changes of the earth's surface, by reference to causes now in operation," they both looked beyond Lyell for explanations of the changes that had occurred in the animate world. But solutions are not automatically arrived at, and it is not enough simply to be present at the right time. To discover, one must first seek, and for this one needs a questioning mind, a quality possessed in good measure by both Darwin and Wallace. Almost from the beginning each had set himself problems and searched for answers. "There must be some law," Darwin wrote on 27 August 1838, "that whatever organization an animal has, it tends to multiply & improve on it." A month later he read Thomas Malthus's Essay on the Principle of Population, and he had his answer: the positive checks to population increase. "The final cause of all this wedging, must be to sort out proper structure, & adapt it to changes.--to do that for form, which Malthus shows is the final effect (by means however of voli- tion) of this populousness on the energy of man. One may say there is a force like a hundred thousand wedges trying[to] force every kind of adapted structure into the gaps in the oeconomy of nature, or rather forming gaps by thrusting out weaker ones." 54 But the theory of natural selection was not an isolated idea, and it did not stand alone. It was, rather, an integral part of a constellation of interlocking ideas. A perusal of Darwin's notebooks leaves one impressed with his multifaeeted approach, with the extraordinary scope of his reading, and with his end- less questionings and musings. 55 He was working out a coherent system that embraced creation, adaptation, change, and extinction, and it is the coherence and comprehensiveness of this scheme which command assent, however much one may quibble about details.

54. De Beer et al., eds., "Darwin's Notebooks," Part HI, p. 134; Part VI, p. 163; see also Sandra Herbert, "Darwin, Malthus, and Selection," 1. Hist. Biol., 4 (1971), 209-217. 55. Gavin de Beer, ed., "Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species. Parts I-IV," Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Hist. Set., 2 (1960), 23-183; Gavin de Beer and M. J. Rowlands, eds. [Part V], ibid., 2 (1961), 185-200; Gavin de Beer, M. J. Rowlands, and B. M. Skramovsky, eds., 'Tart VI. Pages Excised by Darwin," ibid., 3 (1967), 129-176. See also Limoges, La S~lection Naturelle, and Ernst Maw, "The Nature of the Darwinian Revolution: Acceptance of Evolution by Natural Selection Required the Rejection of Many Previously Held Concepts," Science, 176 (1972), 981-989.

94 "Notes for Darwin"

Wallace's quest, as intensive as Darwin's had been, was not ended until 1858, but his 1855 paper showed that he too was developing a full-fledged system, a system into which the theory of natural selection was to fit nicely when he finally worked it out. It is not surprising that his thinking should coincide with Darwin's at many points, for it was these very points that had to be accounted for--geographical and geological distributions, classification, varieties, rudimentary organs. Wallace and Dar- win did not always agree on the details, but they did agree on the overall scheme. They were successful revolutionaries. Blyth, on the other hand, was not a revolutionary, but an astute observer within a system whose basic premises he accepted. Where Darwin was looking for some mechanism of improvement, Blyth was trying to explain stability; where Wal- lace was struggling with problems of distribution, Blyth did not even recognize their existence. Varieties for Blyth were deviations from the perfect and perfectly adapted type, not the stepping stones to new species. Creation, adaptation, extinction-none of these were problems for Blyth, who looked on them as given conditions of life. His talents lay in other directions, particularly in descriptive natural history, and here indeed he did make many valuable contributions. If Darwin or Wallace saw special meaning in what Blyth wrote, as some have claimed, it was more than Blyth himself saw, and the credit, ff credit there is, should go to Darwin or Wallace. 5e It would seem, rather, that when Blyth asked Darwin ff Wallace's paper "at all unsettled your ideas regarding the persistence of species," he was asking the question as much of himself as he was of Darwin, aroused at last by Wallace's '~lucid collation of facts & phenomena." 5T

Acknowledgment I would like to thank Dr. Frederic L. Holmes for a most helpful conversation during the preliminary stages of this paper.

56. See Eiseley, "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth"; Wells, "Sir William Lawrence"; Loren C. Eiseley, "'Darwin, Coleridge, and the Theory of Un- conscious Creation," Daedalus, 94 (1965), 588-602; H. Lewis McKi,~ney, "Edward Blyth,'" Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York: Scribner's, 1970), II, 205-207. 57. See note 1.