Ɛpsilon

To C. G. Semper   [after 6 December 1878]1

You are perfectly willing for you use my letters in any way you think fit & I am heartily glad you are going to take up the subject whether or not you oppose the conclusion at which I have arrived.—2

I sh like to add a sentence or two to what I remarked about the [extreme caution], as it seems to me, necessary before we say that some [structure] is morphologic (to [use] Nageli [paper]

We ought surely to bear in mind the indirect consequence of some change or [alt] which is beneficial. For instance the case malformation [locules] of the [Placenta] (which Nägeli admits as a morpholog feat)3

Wonderfully you write with Machine4

Saporta & Neumayr.

Huxley [illeg].—5 | I utterly disbelieve in innate tendency to vary & [illeg] ([illeg]) quite independently of conditions, & then [agree] in the [next] [illeg] that every variation whether wholly inherited or not [illeg] is [due] to external conditions.—6

ADraft

1
The date is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from C. G. Semper, 6 December 1878.
2
See letter from C. G. Semper, 6 December 1878 and n. 2. After this passage, CD crossed out a section of text which reads: Excert | Far from valueless— when I wrote the Origin I cd find no evidence, & pray remember how much has been altered since then | In my Variation of An & Plants I gave one case & now could give very many more— My observations of plants have *led me to believe [above del ‘convinced’] me that astonishingly small differences are effective & a year ago I began to set to work to prove this experimentally, but I had too much other work in hand & too old & not strong enough The case referred to has not been identified; Variation was published in 1868, nine years after the first edition of Origin.
3
Carl Wilhelm von Nägeli had distinguished what he called purely morphological features from physiological features, claiming that only the latter were subject to natural selection, while changes in the former could be accounted for by his ‘perfectibility principle’ (Vervollkommnungsprincip; Nägeli 1865, pp. 27–30). The type of placentation is often used as a character to differentiate flowering plant families, so was considered a ‘purely morphological’ feature by Nägeli. In response to Nägeli 1865, CD gave examples of variation in placentation and number of ovaries in plants of the same species in Origin 5th ed., pp. 155–6.
4
Semper’s letter of 6 December 1878 was typewritten.
6
CD had responded to Nägeli’s critique in Origin 5th ed., p. 151 (see also Correspondence vol. 14, letter to C. W. von Nägeli, 12 June [1866], and letter to J. V. Carus, 21 November 1866).

Manuscript Alterations and Comments

2.1 I sh like] after del ‘Excert | Far from valueless— when I wrote the Origin I cd find no evidence, & pray remember how much has been altered since then | In my Variation of An & Plants I gave one case & now could give very many more— My observations of plants have *led me to believe [above del ‘convinced’] me that astonishingly small differences are effective & a year ago I began to set to work to prove this experimentally, but I had too much other work in hand & too old & not strong enough
2.1 a sentence] ‘a’ after del illeg
5.1 Saporta & Neumayr.] added ink
6.1 & [illeg] ([illeg])] interl
6.2 then] after del 4 words illeg

Please cite as “DCP-LETT-11777,” in Ɛpsilon: The Charles Darwin Collection accessed on 5 June 2025, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/dcp-data/letters/DCP-LETT-11777