Search: 1860-1869::1860::02 in date 
letter in document-type 
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections in repository 
Sorted by:

Showing 15 of 5 items

From:
François Jules Pictet de la Rive
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
19 Feb 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/5: 110–11)
Summary:

Believes Origin makes science "young, clear, elevated" but does not have the facts to prove that cumulated slight modifications could ever produce different families from common ancestors. [See 2709.]

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Andrew Crombie Ramsay
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
21 Feb 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/5: 112–16)
Summary:

ACR has for years had a belief in mutability and transmutation of species, prompted by disputes over the nature of species and varieties, and the existence of representative species in space and in the geological record. Could not accept a Creator employing small miracles to make species differ just a little between formations. Has maintained that one would not expect to find fine gradations between forms in the fossil record, but only representatives of very populous forms. [See 2711.]

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Herbert Spencer
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
22 Feb 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/5: 107–9)
Summary:

CD has caused a great change in HS’s views, in showing how a great proportion of adaptation should be explained by natural selection not direct adaptation to changing conditions. HS had remarked on the survival of the best individuals as a cause of improvement in man, but he "& every one" overlooked selection of spontaneous variation. Believes so many kinds of indirect evidence must add up to a conclusive demonstration of the doctrine.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Joseph Beete Jukes
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
27 Feb 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/5: 125–7)
Summary:

Believes in the "perfect indefiniteness & frequently the vast length of the interval" between consecutive geological formations. Thus has little respect for arguments against CD based on the absence of transitional forms in the geological record. States that species found through series of beds do vary: some Silurian species have many synonyms which are really varieties of greatly differing ages. CD’s theory accounts for the progressive inprovement, multiplication and increase in complexity that can be seen, but which may often be only relative.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
Date:
15 and 16 Feb 1860
Source of text:
American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.198); The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/B1/ Lyell Temp Box 3.1 Folder_6)
Summary:

Auguste Bravard’s discoveries magnificent.

Bravard has sent pamphlets [Observaciones geológicas (1857) and Monografia de los terrenos marinos terciarios (1858)] with strange doctrine that Pampean deposit is subaerial.

Review of Origin by Wollaston [Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 3d ser. 5 (1860): 132–43] clever and misinterprets CD only in a few places.

Wallace’s MS ["Zoological geography of the Malay Archipelago", J. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 4 (1860): 172–84] admirably good.

Henslow "will go very little way with us". "He, also, shudders at the eye!"

Baden Powell says CD’s statement about eye is conclusive.

Leonard Jenyns cannot go as far as CD, yet cannot give good reason.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project