WCP4390

Letter (WCP4390.4647)

[1]

Parkstone, Dorset.

August 29th. 1892

My dear Poulton

I return your proof. I see nothing to object to in the article. I have not seen the book, but I read Beddard’s article on "Mimicry" in No.1 of "Natural Science", which is excessively weak & full of such fallacies as you expose.

As to panmixia you have quite misunderstood my position. By the "mean" condition, I do not mean the "mean" of during the whole course of development of the organ, as you seem to take it. That would indeed be [2] absurd. I do mean the "mean" of the whole series of individual variations now occurring, — during a period sufficient to contain all or almost all the variations to which the species is now subject. Take for instance such a case as the wings of the swallow, on the full development of which the life of the bird depends. Many individuals no doubt perish for lack of wing-powers, due to deficiency in size or form of wing, or in the muscles which move it. The extreme limits of variation would probably be seen if we could examine every swallow that had reached maturity during the last century. The average of all [3] these would perhaps be 5 or 10 per cent below the average of those that survive to become the parents of the next generation in any year; and what I maintain is, that panmixia alone could not reduce a swallow’s wings below the first average. Any further reduction must be due either to some form of selection, or to "economy of growth" — which is also, fundamentally, a form of selection. So with the eyes of cave animals, panmixia could only cause an imperfection of vision equal to the average of those variations which occurred, say, during a century before the animal entered the cave. It could only produce more effect than this [4]1 if the effects of disuse are hereditary, which is a non-Weismannian doctrine. I think this is also the position that Romanes took.

Yours very truly| Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

P.S. I am very glad you liked my Polit[ical] art[icle] in 19th Century.

A.R.W. [signature]

This is actually the verso of the first sheet of the letter.

Envelope (WCP4390.4648)

Envelope addressed to "E. B. Poulton Esq. F.R.S., Wykeham House, Banbury Road, Oxford", with stamp, postmarked "PARKSTONE B | AU29 | 92"; postmark on back. [Envelope (WCP4390.4648)]

Published letter (WCP4390.6418)

[1] [p. 52]

Parkstone, Dorset

August 29, 1892.

My dear Mr. Poulton1,—As to panmixia you have quite misunderstood my position. By the "mean condition," I [2] [p. 53] do not mean the "mean" during the whole course of development of the organ, as you seem to take it. That would indeed be absurd. I do mean the "mean" of the whole series of individual variations now occurring, during a period sufficient to contain all or almost all the variations to which the species is now subject. Take, for instance, such a case as the wings of the swallow, on the full development of which the life of the bird depends. Many individuals no doubt perish for lack of wing-power, due to deficiency in size or form of wing, or in the muscles which move it. The extreme limits of variation would be seen probably if we examined every swallow that had reached maturity during the last century. The average of all those would perhaps be 5 or 10 per cent. below the average of those that survive to become the parents of the next generation in any year; and what I maintain is, that panmixia alone could not reduce a swallow's wings below this first average. Any further reduction must be due either to some form of selection or to "economy of growth"—which is also, fundamentally, a form of selection. So with the eyes of cave animals, panmixia could only cause an imperfection of vision equal to the average of those variations which occurred, say during a century before the animal entered the cave. It could only produce more effect than this if the effects of disuse are hereditary — which is a non-Weismannian2 doctrine. I think this is also the position that Romanes3 took.—Yours faithfully,

A. R. Wallace

Poulton, Edward Bagnall (1856-1943). British Entomologist.
Weismann, August Friedrich Leopold (1834-1914). German evolutionary biologist and founder of germ plasm theory. His work was influential in disproving the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Romanes, George John (1848-1894). Canadian-born British evolutionary biologist and physiologist.

Please cite as “WCP4390,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on 28 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/wallace/letters/WCP4390