WCP1598

[1]

Correction made

Königliches

Zoologisches und Anthropologisch-

Ethnographisches Museum.

Dresden, den 6. Nov 1892

Dear Dr. Wallace,

It is only today I came across a passage in your admirable "Darwinism"¹ (first ed. 1889 p 262) concerning Callophis & which is quite erroneous. The 2 similar snakes are not one poisonous & the other harmless, but both are poisonous, the one very much so, the other less. [3 lines crossed]

I beg you to propose you to alter this passage in a new edition in the following ^{or in a similar} way:

D^r. A. B. Meyer² has also discovered that, "while some species of the genus Callophis (belonging to the same family as the American Elaps, but later separated as Adeniophis) have extraordinary ^very large poison glands within the visceral ^body-cavity [illeg.], other species of the same genus have only the usual small ones [2] in the cheeks; and that one of the latter resembles some of the former with the large glands so closely, that only an exact comparision will discover the difference of colour & marking: Callophis gracilis from Penang, Singapore and Sumatra resembles Adeniophis ^callophis nigrotaeniatus from Sumatra and Callophis malayanus from Penang and Singapore, the two latter having the large glands. A similar kind of resemblance exists between other species with the large glands and less poisonous species, viz. between Callophis philippinus and Hemibungarus calligaster from Luzon and Mindanao and between Callophis birvigatus from Java, C. tetrataenia from Borneo, C. flaviceps from Sumatra on the one hand and Megarophis flaviceps from Java, Borneo and Sumatra on the other. Meyer supposes that perhaps the snakes with the large poisonous glands ^{may be} are or tastes and full of obnoxious to birds ^{and animals feeding upon snakes}, are rejected ^avoided and that in consequence, the less poisonous, but closely [3] similar snakes ^species, the uninviting ones,are likewise spared."

I send by book post a paper on this question which someone will be able to translate to you.

The longer I live the more I appreciate & admire your life work, not only your travels, but even more the vigour your of your philosophy. A short time ago I corresponded with Prof E. du Bois Reymond³ of Berlin, the eminent physiologist, on sexual selection, which he advocated, whereas I am a strong opposer. I share entirely your view, that the "direct evidence for female selection is not "(l.c.p. 295), whereas the named naturalist which to the nonsense of Poulton,⁴ Peckham⁵ & others. The opposer to your opinion of the origin of the ornamental feathers of birds of Paradise (p. 292) & in this respect I am of his advice, it appears to me impossible on physiological reasons that these feathers can have originated in this way.

Hoping that you are in good health | I remain ever yours faithfully | A B Meyer [signature]