To Asa Gray   1 February [1860]¹

Dated by the reference to the revised American edition of Origin.

See letters from Asa Gray, [10 January 1860] and [17 January 1860], and letter to Asa Gray, 28 January [1860]. CD refers to the suggestion that Gray’s review of Origin ([Gray] 1860a) might be printed as an introduction to an authorised American edition.

The title page of the new edition issued in May 1860 by D. Appleton & Co. reads: ‘A new edition, revised and augmented by the author.’ Since Appleton had electrotyped Origin (see letter from Asa Gray, 23 January 1860, n. 2), CD’s corrections and additions had to be fitted in with as little change to the plates as possible.

See the enclosure and also the letter to Asa Gray, [8 or 9 February 1860].

CD refers to [T. H. Huxley] 1859a. See letter to T. H. Huxley, 1 January [1860].

The enclosure is pasted in the back of Gray’s presentation copy of Origin (Gray Herbarium of Harvard University). The page numbers refer to the second English edition. Although the enclosure may have been sent in the letter to Asa Gray, 28 January [1860], there CD states that he is enclosing only a list of the corrections made in Origin 2d ed. The corrections listed here were first included in the revised American edition of Origin and later incorporated into the third edition of Origin, published in March 1861. Hence, the American edition of Origin was ‘in some respects even ahead of the current English edition’ (Dupree 1959, p. 271).

The reference is to the section in the discussion of the origin of domesticated animals in which the views of Pyotr Simon Pallas are treated. According to the ‘Pallasian doctrine’, domestic animals arose from distinct wild species that were able, after a long period of domestication, to interbreed successfully (Origin, pp. 17–18; see also Natural selection, p. 440). Wishing to show that man had domesticated animals long before the time in which they were depicted on Egyptian monuments, CD cited Leonard Horner’s recent study of the antiquity of man in Egypt (Horner 1858). After Horner’s findings were thrown into doubt ([W. Smith] 1859), CD substituted in the revised American edition of Origin, p. 23, the following passage: After the recent discoveries of flint tools or celts in the superficial deposits of France and England, few geologists will doubt that man, in a sufficiently civilized state to have manufactured weapons, existed at a period extremely remote as measured by years; and we know that at the present day there is hardly any tribe so barbarian as not to have domesticated at least the dog. The passage was slightly altered for the third edition of Origin (Origin 3d ed., p. 18).

Origin US ed., p. 51.

Origin US ed., p. 70.

Origin US ed., p. 71. The change was also made to Origin 3d ed., pp. 76–7.

Origin US ed., p. 90.

Origin US ed., pp. 148–9.

Origin US ed., p. 191.

Origin US ed., pp. 195–9.

Origin US ed., p. 224.

In Origin US ed., p. 252, the following note was added to the description of the denudation of the Weald: I have left the foregoing passages as they stand in the second edition, but I confess that an able and justly severe article, since published in the Saturday Review (Dec. 24th, 1859), shows that I have been rash. I have not sufficiently allowed for the softness of the strata underlying the chalk; the remarks made are more truly applicable to denuded areas composed of hard rocks. Nor have I allowed for the denudation going on on both sides of the ancient Weald-Bay; but the circumstance of the denudation having taken place within a protected bay would prolong the process. It has long been my habit to observe the shape and state of surface of the fragments at the bases of lofty retreating cliffs, and I can find no words too strong to express my conviction of the extreme slowness with which they are worn away and removed. I beg the reader to observe that I have expressly stated that we cannot know at what rate the sea wears away a line of cliff: I assumed the one inch per century in order to gain some crude idea of the lapse of years; but I always supposed that the reader would double or quadruple or increase in any proportion which seemed to him fair the probable rate of denudation per century. But I own that I have been rash and unguarded in the calculation. This discussion was altered in the third English edition of Origin. See Peckham ed. 1959, pp. 483–4.

The passage referred to is actually in Origin 2d ed., p. 304, and in Origin US ed., p. 266.

Origin US ed., p. 294.

Origin US ed., pp. 340–1.

Origin US ed., p. 393.

The statement by Charles Kingsley was actually added to Origin 2d ed., p. 481, and included in Origin US ed., p. 417.