WCP1696

[1]¹

73 Harley St^r. [London] W.

21. December 1868

My dear Sir

I find on referring to the last edition of the "Principles"² that I entirely omitted the passage ^{cited by Owen &} given ^{by me} at p. 599. 9^th. edⁿ. and in all previous editions about the Simia Carpolegus [sic]. For this very reason the Professor³ observing that I wished to suppress it, has taken the opportunity of revising it. He knew well from what I have said at p. 266 and p. 274 last edition, that I was desirous of doing justice to Lamarck⁴, and that I had distinctly stated that I had [2] erred in not more fully appreciating his merit. He Owen might, if he pleased, have pointed out the inconsistency of my former opinions and those which I now hold, but it was quite dishonest to drag such a passage into the light, without alluding to my discontinuance of such carpings.

What Darwin⁵ says of Owen is at p. 17 of his historical Sketch, prefixed to the 4^th. ed. of the "Origin"⁶. [sic] It is exceedingly good, and I remember when I first read it, I looked up the original passages, and wrote to Darwin saying that if any thing, he had understated the case against Owen. The audacity of the latter is truly astounding to those who being in social [3] intercourse with him knew the line which he took, and how for some years, he allowed himself to be complimented as a defender of the faith because he was opposed to any theory which would prove the alliance, or kinship of man with the lower animals. The suddenness of his conversion when he saw that ^{natural selection &} the "Origin of Species" were beginning to take, was unmistakeable. He must not forget that Darwin's Papers and yours on "Natural Selection" published by the Linnean Society⁷, preceded the "Origin", and also your Paper on "Species"⁸ in 1855.

No one can doubt that if these matters had been left entirely to Owen, the opinion of the public at large in regard to Species [4] would have remained ^{here as} more stationary than as it has done in the Lecture-rooms of almost all the leading Teachers in Paris. It is Owen's consciousness that he has had so little influence on the progress of opinion here which nettles him.

The question is whether something like Lamarck's monads, the advantages of which I have alluded to at p. 275, can be embraced, as Owen would I suppose advocate, without destroying almost all the benefit to Geology of your Theory and Darwin[']s over that of the Special Creation of Species⁹. It is well to look carefully at Lewes's¹⁰ arguments in the June number of the Fortnightly Review,¹¹ 1868 in order to see how difficult it is to draw the line between Creative Fiats and Evolution, when once we [5] grant that simple cells are always coming into existence, or if not cells, microscopic lumps of jelly, which ^{and that these} are destined to be developed into certain distinct orders, or classes.

He naturally concludes that not only some of these microscopic germs are to become plants, others animals, some vertebrate, others invertebrate, but that among the vertebrata [—] see p. 616 [—] that fish are not developed into the reptile, the reptile into the bird, and the bird into the mammal. I confess, I do not attach much importance to the one who talks of polarities [—] p. 623, [and] compares the ramification of nerves to crystals p.p. 75, 76. 77. 80, but still, the extent to which he is able to argue against Darwin's grand Theory of Kinship see p. 78 part 3 [and?] p[.] 75 [6] disturbs me. His initial diversity and Creation on distinct foundations, and the extent to which analogous structures, instincts &c may be due to similar laws of change, or of similar conditions instead of ancestral community, or kinship, see p. 78, makes me feel that if we have no means of drawing th the line, or knowing where to stop, it is difficult to avail ourselves of Natural Selection in Geology. ["]Orders and Classes["], says Lewes, p. 79 ["]have no nearer link of relationship than community of organic substance and their common history".¹² If you can manage to show how such a theory may be consistent with my argument in my chapter on "Insular Faunas and Floras", I [7] shall be very glad.

Of course our knowledge must stop somewhere, and we cannot expect to be able to divine ^{define all} such things mysteries. But when one is making a free confession of our inability, it is well to try if one can set some limits to one['] s conjectures.[?] where the monotremata[,] marsupialia and placental mammalia derived from one initial starting point [unidentified symbol or deletion]. As

As I am engaged for some months in the reading for a chapter on the origin of Mountain chains I shall put off the investing [of] £3 or £4 in Owen[']s 3 volumes¹³ and try not to think too much of a subject with which I am not concerned in writing a new, or 7^th. ed. and recast of my "Elements"¹⁴.

<Charles Lyell>¹⁵