WCP1767

[1]¹

3, High Wycombe, Hastings

Feb[ruar]^y 2nd. 1889

Dear Mr. Geddes

Your letter was forwarded to me here, where I am staying a few days. I should be much pleased to see your views fully set forth in a book, but it is very difficult to advise as to the form of publication.

I wish to tell you first, that in a chapter of my book on "Darwinism" now half printed (or rather half set up) I have noticed your views so far as [2] I understand them, along with those of other writers who have endeavoured to improve at "Darwinism", and have set forth my objections and criticisms, some of which will I dare say seem to you to show great misapprehension of your views. I admit your general principles and the general laws of growth due to them, but I wager that they are so completely overpowered and transformed by the action of natural selection that most of your detailed illustration of their effects is erroneous. The lines of the foundation of the [3] structure of plants & animals may be in part — perhaps in great part — due to your principles, but they cease to produce any visible effect in the superstructure, ^{(except in some cases)} because every detail of that superstructure is subject to the law of variation and survival of the fittest, & has been subject to it at every step of the development of every species. I have endeavoured to prove this in one or two illustrative cases.

Now, if I am right, — & I feel sure at all events that there is much to be said for my views — it seems to me that your danger will be the application of your [4] theory to cases where it can be shown that it does not & cannot apply, & this will throw discredit on your whole work. My advice therefore would be that you should bring out a small volume only at first, carefully explaining your main principles & illustrating them by what you think the best & soundest examples, — & only indicating the general character of other & less convincing applications of the theory. Your main foundation principles I think [5] are sound & will, probably, be admitted, — but if you have followed the recent discussions between Romanes and others the question of "useless specific characters" you will see that you will encounter a very powerful opposition in your attempt to [one word illegible crossed out] minimise the action of nat[ural] selection to the extent that you did in your Linn[ean] Soc[iety] paper. I think when my book is out you will see that the character of the objections that will be made [6] by Darwinians to your application of your views, & if you want your principles to receive the consideration they deserve it will certainly be wise not to bother[?] them with a load of disputable detailed applications.

I thank you for the articles you refer to, which I no doubt I shall find on my return home.

I should think a ^s6/-¹ or ^s7/6^d volume would be best, giving [7] sufficient illustrations to make your principles & their chief application intelligible to the public as well as to naturalists. I feel sure your danger will be the making theoretical applications of your theory to points which are, or will be thought to be, thoroughly well explained by other principles, & that will cause your whole book to be neglected. If you keep yourself as much as possible to the explanation of points which [8] are difficulties for the theory of natural selection, or beyond its sphere, you will be read & followed. If you attempt to usurp its place, the Duke of Argyll will uphold you as finally smashing Darwinism, while naturalists will be apt to ignore what is sound in your views.

Believe me | Yours faithfully | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

P.S. Gulick’s elaborate paper, which caused the rejection of yours I think, — I consider a perfect mare’s nest!! Romanes — do! do!!¹

Prof[essor]. P. Geddes.