WCP4064

[1]

Frith Hill, Godalming

August 22nd. 1886

My dear Newton¹

I do not wonder at people failing to understand Romanes'² paper³. When I first read it I was stunned by his portentous verbosity and staggered by his tremendous confidence in the greatness of their discovery, though I felt sure he was to a great extent wrong. Further consideration showed me the exact source of his error and also led me, I think, to a more probable, if not, the true explanation. I therefore sat down [2] to answer him, & when your letter arrived had before me the proofs of my article, which I was just posting, to appear in the next "Fortnightly"⁴ — as it was too long for "Nature"⁵.

I had forgotten Belt's⁶ reference, but in turning to it find I had made a marginal note that it was not quite satisfactory. I quite agree, however, that it really contains all that is valuable in Romanes' paper, & I hope someone will point this out in "Nature."

[3] I do not think Belt's very simple explanation is sufficient, because unless variations in fertility were as common as all other variations the chances are so greatly against them occurring exactly at the right time & with the right individuals. It is this compound nature of the variation that is the difficulty. There must be fertility with the favorable variations — sterility with the unfavorable variations, or the thing will not work. There must therefore be some correlations of fertility with other [4] forms of variability, & this neither Romanes' nor Belt suggest.

I send you herewith my spare proof & shall be glad to hear your opinion & that of F. Darwin⁷ on my suggested explanation.

I forgot whether I told you that I am going on a lecturing tour to America this autumn. Also I have begun a book to be called "Darwin Popularised" — which I hope to complete when I come back, if all turns out well. So see I am returning to "mes premiers amours".

Please return the proof.

Yours very faithfully | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

Prof. A. Newton