From:
George Robert Waterhouse
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[Feb 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 47: 152
Summary:
It is not true that all the fossil cave bears are of the same species.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Philip Lutley Sclater
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[3? Feb 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 205.3: 289
Summary:
Lists land birds of Galapagos and discusses their distribution on mainland of S. America.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Philip Lutley Sclater
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
11 Feb 1860
Source of text:
DAR 205.3: 290, DAR 205.7: 143
Summary:
Informs CD that Sylvicola aureola may be a distinct species but is a close ally of S. aestiva of N. and S. America and perhaps only a "climatic variety".
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[13–14 Feb 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 205.3: 283, DAR 205.9: 395
Summary:
Discusses phases of climate.
Describes fossil mammals discovered by Auguste Bravard in South America.
Has had argument with Bishop of Oxford [Samuel Wilberforce] about CD’s book [Origin].
Discusses review in Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Guesses that T. V. Wollaston is the author.
Discusses evidence of shells on Madeira.
Comments on paper by Wallace ["On the zoological geography of the Malay Archipelago", J. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 4 (1860): 172–84].
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
George Henry Kendrick Thwaites
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[14 Feb 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 205.4: 100
Summary:
Questions how natural selection can explain why some cells remain simple and others are modified into highly complex structures.
Reports on the spread in Ceylon of a recently introduced plant.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
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:
Asa Gray
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
20 Feb 1860
Source of text:
Gray Herbarium of Harvard University (37)
Summary:
Arrangements for the American edition of Origin.
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:
James Lamont, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[23 Feb 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 47: 150–1
Summary:
Believes the British and Norwegian species of red grouse are merely strongly marked varieties of the same species.
Writes of the effect of importing a few brace of a wilder breed of grouse into Argyleshire and of their change in territory since 1846.
His explanation of game becoming "wilder": he thinks it is due to a difference in their enemies – man replacing hawks leads to flight replacing cowering.
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:
Francis Boott
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
29 Feb 1860
Source of text:
DAR 98 (ser. 2): 27–8
Summary:
Returns paper by Asa Gray [? "Review of Darwin’s theory", Am. J. Sci. 2d ser. 29 (1860): 153–84].
Greatly admires Origin.
Can follow effects of natural selection in Carex, but when CD brings millions of years into play, he is like Church which demands faith. FB cannot believe in divinity of Christ, resurrection, or miracles.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
