WCP4444

[1]

Old Orchard,

Broadstone,

Wimborne.

Feb^y 25^th. 1909

My dear Poulton

I have just heard from my friend Miss Pascoe that you have been to her house in Paddington, & have found a fair remnant of insects &c. that will be useful to you. I suppose they were all Beetles, unless there were a few drawers of Lepidoptera & other orders which I seem to remember as illustrations of very fine or [2] remarkable types. I know he had some of these, as well as of small mammals, birds reptiles & marine invertebrates all beautiful specimens — but I suppose you would not want these.

My "World of Life" article will be out next week, but though it occupies 24 pages of the "Fortnightly" every part of it is really so condensed, so more a sketch — that I am thinking of making a book of it, so as to develop the argument fully. What I consider the new part [3] of my argument, is, that the mere immensity of the scale of nature — the vast numbers of individuals in all dominant species — is, and always has been an essential factor of evolution, and absolutely necessariyily for the continuity of life, & thus for the ultimate development of the higher organisms, & of ourselves.

From this point of view, I can I think answer all the objections of those who talk about the waste of life — the cruelty of nature, the uselessness of so [4]¹ many of the lower forms of animals & plants — &c. &c. But all that will require space. You will see it has been greatly altered from the Lecture, & I have had to limit myself to 3 diagrams. Almost the only part in which I could dwell much on this factor of "immensity" is the section headed — "A Common Objection Answered" (pp.433-35), in the last two par[agraph]s of which I think I sufficiently smash up "Mutationism" and "Mendelism" as having anything to do with Evolution.

Bye-the-bye, did you read the "Times" article on the "Darwinian Centenary" — no doubt written by Bather, and full of his usual [5] insinuations & sneers, and "damning with faint praise". I have only seen the excellent summary of it in "Public Opinion" of the 19^th. After praising up De Vries and the "later naturalists", who he says "are impressed with the uselessness of the animate beginnings of a new structure" — he concludes that "the Darwinian hypothesis is losing its hold upon mens minds"! Has nobody answered him? I should think the "Times" would give a column to a reply.

I also want to call your attention to a passage in [6] "Nature" of Feb[ruar]y 11^th. at p.435 col[umn].I being an account of an American article by Mr. C. F. Cook on "Evolution", supported by Dr. A. G. Bell — both agreeing apparently, that Nat[ural] Selection so far as it goes "prevents evolution" — & concluding — "We must look to other agencies for the causes of Evolution."

That, again, appearing in "Nature", will be seized upon in support of our opponents.

But I cannot go into controversy. It is as much as I shall be able to do if I finish my [7] proposed Book.

Yours very truly| Alfred R. Wallace [signature]