WCP1970

[1]¹

To C.Darwin.) Rose Hill, Dorking. Jul, 23rd.1876

My dear Darwin I should have replied sooner to your last kind and interesting letters, but they reached me in the midst of my packing previous to removal here, & I have only just now got my books & papers in a get-at-able state.

And first, many thanks for your close observation in detecting the two absurd mistakes in the tabular headings.

As to the former greater distinction of the North & South American faunas I think I am right. The Edentata² being proved (as I hold) to have been mere temporary migrants into North America in the Post-Pliocene³ epoch, form no part of its Tertiary fauna. Yet in South America they were so enormously developed in the Pliocene epoch that we know, if there is any such thing as Evolution &c., that strange ancestral forms must have preceeded them in Miocene⁴ times.

Mastodon on the other hand, represented by one or two sp. only, appears to have been a late immigrant into S. America from the North.

The immense development of Ungulates⁵ (in varied families, genera, & species,) in North America during the whole Tertiary Epoch⁶ is however the great feature, which assimilates it to Europe & contrasts it with S. America. True Camels, hosts of hog-like animals, true Rhinoceroses, & hosts of ancestral Horses, all bring N. America much nearer to the Old World than it is now. Even the horse, represented in all S. America by Equus only, was probably a temporary immigrant from the N.

As to extending too far the principle (yours) of the necessity of comparatively large areas for the development of varied faunas, I may have done so, but I think not. There is I think every probability that most islands &c. where a varied fauna now exists have been once more extensive, — e.g. N. Zealand, Madagascar. — Where there is no such evidence (e.g. Galapagos ) the fauna is very restricted.

Lastly as to want of references, I confess the justice of your criticism,. But I am dreadfully unsystematic. It is my first large work involving much of the labour of others. I began with the intention of writing a comparatively short sketch, — enlarged it, and added to it, bit by bit; remodled [sic] the tables, the headings, & almost everything else, more than once, & got my materials into such confusion [2]⁷

(;TO C.Darwin. July 23, 1876)

that it is a wonder it has not turned out far more crooked & confused than it is. I no doubt ought to have given references; b but in many cases I found the information so small & scattered, & so much had to be combined & condensed from conflicting authorities, that I hardly knew how to refer to them or where to leave off. Had I referred to all authors consulted for every fact, I should have greatly increased the bulk of the book, — while a large portion of t the references would be valueless in a few years owing to later & better authorities. My experience of referring to references has generally been most unsatisfactory. One finds, nine times out of ten, the fact is stated, and nothing more; or a reference to some third work not at hand!

I wish I could get into the habit of giving Chapter & verse for every fact & extract, but I am too lazy & generally in a hurry, having to consult books against time when in London for a day.

However I will try do something to mend this matter sh[oul]d I have to prepare another edition.

I return you Fuel's⁸ (Fael's ?) letter. It does not advance the question much, neither do I think it likely that even the complete observation he thinks necessary would be of much use; — because it m may well be that the ova or larvae or images of the beetles are not carried systematically by the ants, but only occasionally owing to some exceptional circumstances. This might produce a great effect in distribution yet be so rare as never to come under observation.

Several of your remarks in previous letters I shall carefully cons consider. I know that, compared with be extent of the subject, my book is in many parts crude & ill-considered; — but I thought & still think, it better to make some generalizations wherever possible, as I am not at all afraid of having to alter my views in many points of detail. I was so overwhelmed with zoological details, that I never went through the Geological Soc. Journal⁹ as I ought to have done, & as I mean to do before writing more on the subject.

With best wishes Believe me Yours very faithfully | Alfred R. Wallace.

[1]¹

To C.Darwin.) Rose Hill, Dorking. Jul, 23rd.1876

My dear Darwin I should have replied sooner to your last kind and interesting letters, but they reached me in the midst of my packing previous to removal here, & I have only just now got my books & papers in a get-at-able state.

And first, many thanks for your close observation in detecting the two absurd mistakes in the tabular headings.

As to the former greater distinction of the North & South American faunas I think I am right. The Edentata² being proved (as I hold) to have been mere temporary migrants into North America in the Post-Pliocene³ epoch, form no part of its Tertiary fauna. Yet in South America they were so enormously developed in the Pliocene epoch that we know, if there is any such thing as Evolution &c., that strange ancestral forms must have preceeded them in Miocene⁴ times.

Mastodon on the other hand, represented by one or two sp. only, appears to have been a late immigrant into S. America from the North.

The immense development of Ungulates⁵ (in varied families, genera, & species,) in North America during the whole Tertiary Epoch⁶ is however the great feature, which assimilates it to Europe & contrasts it with S. America. True Camels, hosts of hog-like animals, true Rhinoceroses, & hosts of ancestral Horses, all bring N. America much nearer to the old world than it is now. Even the horse, represented in all S. America by equus only, was probably a temporary immigrant from the N.

As to extending too far the principle (yours) of the necessity of comparatively large areas for the development of varied faunas, I may have done so, but I think not. There is I think every probability that most islands &c. where a varied fauna now exists have been once more extensive, — e.g. N. Zealand, Madagascar. — Where there is no such evidence (e.g. Galapagos) the fauna is very restricted.

Lastly as to want of references, I confess the justice of your criticism,. But I am dreadfully unsystematic. It is my first large work involving much of the labour of others. I began with the intention of writing a comparatively short sketch, — enlarged it, and added to it, bit by bit; remodled [sic] the tables, the headings, & almost everything else, more than once, & got my materials into such confusion [2]⁷

(;TO C.Darwin. July 23, 1876)

that it is a wonder it has not turned out far more crooked & confused than it is. I no doubt ought to have given references; b but in many cases I found the information so small & scattered, & so much had to be combined & condensed from conflicting authorities, that I hardly knew how to refer to them or where to leave off. Had I referred to all authors consulted for every fact, I should have greatly increased the bulk of the book, — while a large portion of t the references would be valueless in a few years owing to later & better authorities. My experience of referring to references has generally been most unsatisfactory. One finds, nine times out of ten, the fact is stated, and nothing more; Or a reference to some third work not at hand!

I wish I could get into the habit of giving Chapter & verse for every fact & extract, but I am too lazy & generally in a hurry, having to consult books against time when in London for a day.

However I will try do something to mend this matter sh[oul]d I have to prepare another edition.

I return you Fuel's⁸ (Fael's ?) letter. It does not advance the question much, neither do I think it likely that even the complete observation he thinks necessary would be of much use; — because it m may well be that the ova or larvae or images of the beetles are not carried systematically by the ants, but only occasionally owing to some exceptional circumstances. This might produce a great effect in distribution yet be so rare as never to come under observation.

Several of your remarks in previous letters I shall carefully cons consider. I know that, compared with be extent of the subject, my book is in many parts crude & ill-considered; — but I thought & still think, it better to make some generalizations wherever possible, as I am not at all afraid of having to alter my views in many points of detail. I am so overwhelmed with zoological details, that I never went through the Geological Soc. Journal⁹ as I ought to have done, & as I mean to do before writing more on the subject.

With best wishes Believe me Yours very faithfully | Alfred R. Wallace.

[1] [p. 294]

Rose Hill, Dorking. July 23, 1876

My dear Darwin, — I should have replied sooner to your last kind and interesting letters, but they reached me in the midst of my packing previous to removal here, and I have only just now got my books and papers in a get-at-able state.

And first, many thanks for your close observation in detecting the two absurd mistakes in the tabular headings.

As to the former greater distinction of the North and South American faunas, I think I am right. The Edentata, being proved (as I hold) to have been mere temporary migrants into North America in the post-Pliocene epoch, form no part of its Tertiary fauna. Yet in South America they were so enormously developed in the Pliocene epoch that we know, if there is any such thing as Evolution, etc., that strange ancestral forms must have preceded them in Miocene times.

Mastodon, on the other hand, represented by one or two species only, appears to have been a late immigrant into South America from the North.

The immense development of Ungulates (in varied [2] [p. 295] families, genera, and species) in North America during the whole Tertiary epoch is, however, the great feature, which assimilates it to Europe and contrasts it with South America. True camels, hosts of hog-like animals, true rhinoceroses, and hosts of ancestral horses, all bring North America much nearer to the Old World than it is now. Even the horse, represented in all South America by Equus only, was probably a temporary immigrant from the North.

As to extending too far the principle (yours) of the necessity of comparatively large areas for the development of varied faunas, I may have done so, but I think not. There is, I think, every probability that most islands, etc., where a varied fauna now exists have been once more extensive, e.g. New Zealand, Madagascar. Where there is no such evidence (e.g. Galapagos), the fauna is very restricted.

Lastly as to want of references; I confess the justice of your criticism. But I am dreadfully unsystematic. It is my first large work involving much of the labour of others, I began with the intention of writing a comparatively short sketch, enlarged it, and added to it, bit by bit; remodelled the tables, the headings, and almost everything else, more than once, and got my materials into such confusion that it is a wonder it has not turned out far more crooked and confused than it is. I, no doubt, ought to have given references; but in many cases I found the information so small and scattered, and so much had to be combined and condensed from conflicting authorities, that I hardly knew how to refer to them or where to leave off. Had I referred to all authors consulted for every fact, I should have greatly increased the bulk of the book, while a large portion of the references would be valueless in a few years owing to later and better authorities. My experience of referring to references has generally been most unsatisfactory. One finds, [3] nine times out of ten, the fact is stated, and nothing more; or a reference to some third work not at hand!

I wish I could get into the habit of giving chapter and verse for every fact and extract, but I am too lazy and generally in a hurry, having to consult books against time when in London for a day.

However, I will try and do something to mend this matter should I have to prepare another edition.

I return you Forel's¹ letter. It does not advance the question much, neither do I think it likely that even the complete observation he thinks necessary would be of much use; because it may well be that the ova or larvae or imagos of the beetles are not carried systematically by the ants, but only occasionally owing to some exceptional circumstances. This might produce a great effect in distribution, yet be so rare as never to come under observation.

Several of your remarks in previous letters I shall carefully consider. I know that, compared with the extent of the subject, my book is in many parts crude and ill-considered; but I thought, and still think, it better to make some generalisations wherever possible, as I am not at all afraid of having to alter my views in many points of detail. I was so overwhelmed with zoological details that I never went through the Geological Society's Journal as I ought to have done, and as I mean to do before writing more on the subject.

With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully, | Alfred R. Wallace.