Parkstone, Dorset.
Feby. 13th. 1891
Dear Mr. Cockerell1
Thanks for the notes2 on Coleoptera by Mr. Fowler.3 He has written to me, apparently in ignorance of what I had written in 1st Ed. of "Island Life",4 & under the impression that I am going to commit myself to the statement that all these beells [beetles] are peculiar to Britain! It is quite amusing how he and others think it necessary to warn me & to give me their decided opinion that none are peculiar! So I have written to him to thank [2] him and to explain. I shall be glad of the notes from the Catalogue of European Beetles, and will make out the list myself with what notes & remarks I think necessary, & then perhaps may ask Mr. Fowler to look at the proof. Janson’s5 remark is suggestive. Note about Loddigesia very useful.
I have had a long and very badly written letter from Galton5 criticising some of my suggested experiments — but I think mistakenly. I shall write to him again with some explanations & then I do not [3] see that I can do more.
I suggested some experiments something like yours, & many others. I do not quite agree with you that if acquired characters are inherited they would might only be so very rarely — If inherited (to be of any use in the theory of evolution, & that is the whole question) they ought to be inherited as frequently as other characters are inherited, that is, I presume, in about half the offspring. If only one in 100 exhibited the character how could you possibly say it was not a normal variation in that individual? Only by the very [4] frequent inheritance could you prove that there was any inheritance at all! I think you will see this. But it is too elaborate a question to discuss in letters.
Yours very faithfully | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]
Status: Draft transcription [Letter (WCP4218.4283)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
[1] [p. 875]
I suggested some experiments something like yours, and many others. I do not quite agree with you that if the acquired characters are inherited, they might only be so very rarely. If inherited (to be of any use in the theory of evolution, and that is the whole question) they ought to be inherited as frequently as other characters are inherited, that is, I presume, in about half the offspring. If only one in 100 exhibited the character how could you possibly say it was not a normal variation in that individual? Only by the very frequent inheritance could you prove that there was any inheritance at all! I think you will see this. But it is too elaborate, a question to discuss in letters.
Status: Draft transcription [Published letter (WCP4218.6902)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
Please cite as “WCP4218,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on