Frith Hill, Godalming.
August 28th. 1886
My dear Meldola
I have just read your reply to Romanes in Nature, and so far as your view goes I agree, but it does not go far enough. Prof[essor] Newton has called my attention to a passage in Belt’s "Nicaragua" pp.207, 208 — in which he puts forth very clearly exactly your view. I find I had noted the explanation as insufficient, & I hear that in Darwin’s copy, there is "No! No!" against it. It seems however to me to summarise all that of the slightest value in Romanes wordy paper. I have [2] asked Newton (to whom I had lent it) to forward to you at Birmingham — a proof of my paper in "Fortnightly", and I shall be much obliged if you will read it carefully, &, if you can, "hold a brief" for me at the B[ritish] Ass[ociation] in this matter.
You will see that a considerable part of my paper is devoted to a demonstration of the fallacy of that part of "Romanes" which declares species to be distinguished by generally by useless characters, & also that "simultaneous variations" do not usually occur.
On the question of "sterility" — wh[ich] as you well observe is the core of the question, I think I show that it could [3] not work in the way Romanes puts it. The objection to Belt’s & your view is, also, that it would not work without the "sterility variation" was correlated with the "useful variation". You assume, I think, this correlation, when you speak of two of your varieties, B & K, being less fertile with the parent form. Without correlation they could not be so, only some few of them. Romanes always speaks of his physiological variations as being independent, "primary" — in which case, as I show, they could hardly ever survive. At the end of my paper I show a correlation, which is probably general & sufficient.
[4]1 In criticising Romanes however at the B[ritish] Ass[ociation] I want to call your special attention to a point I have hardly made clear enough in my paper. Romanes always speaks of the "Phys[iological] var[iation]" as if it were like any other simple var[iation] & could as easily (he says more easily) be increased. Whereas it is really complex, requiring a remarkable correlation between different sets of individuals which he never recognises. To illustrate what I mean let me suppose a case. Let there occur in a species three individual phys[iological] var[iations] A. B. & C. each being infertile with the bulk of the species but quite fertile with some small part of it. Let A for example be
[5]2 fertile with X. Y. & Z. Now I maintain it to be in the highest degree improbable that B, — a quite distinct individual with distinct parents originating in a distinct locality & perhaps with a very different constitution, merely because it also is sterile with the bulk of the species, should be fertile with the very same individuals X. Y. Z. that A is fertile with: It seems to me to be at least 100 to 1 that it will be fertile with some other quite distinct set of individuals. And so with C. & any other similar var[iation]. I express this by saying that each has its "sexual complements" — and that the [6] complements of the one are almost sure not to be the complements of the other. Hence it follows that A. B. C. though differing in the same character of general infertility with the bulk of the species will really be 3 distinct varieties physiologically, and can in no way unite to form a single physiological variety[.] — This enormous difficulty Romanes apparently never sees, but argues as if all individuals that are infertile with the bulk of the species must be or usually are [7] fertile with the same set of individuals or with each other! This I call a monstrous assumption for which not a particle of evidence exists. Taking this in conjunction with my argument from the severity of the struggle for existence and the extreme improbability of the respective "sexual complements" coming together at the right time, & I think Romanes’ ponderous paper is disposed of.
I wrote my paper however [8]3 quite as much to expose the great presumption & ignorance of Romanes in declaring that Nat[ural] Select[ion] is not a theory of the origin of Species, — as it is calculated to do much harm. See for instance the way the Duke of Argyll jumped at it like a trout at a fly!
Romanes poses as the successor of Darwin. This sh[oul]d be stopped before the press & the public finally adopt him as such, & for this reason I wrote my paper.
Yours very faithfully| Alfred R. Wallace [signature]
Status: Draft transcription [Letter (WCP4496.4804)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
[1] [p. 36]
Frith Hill, Godalming
August 28, 1886
My dear Meldola,—I have just read your reply to Romanes1 in Nature, and so far as your view goes I agree, but it does not go far enough. Professor Newton2 has called my attention to a passage in Belt's3 "Nicaragua," pp. 207-8, in which he puts forth very clearly exactly your view. I find I had noted the explanation as insufficient, and I hear that in Darwin's copy there is "No! No!" against it. It seems, however, to me to summarise all that is of the slightest value in Romanes' wordy paper. I have asked Newton (to whom I had lent it) to forward to you at Birmingham a proof of my paper in the Fortnightly, and I shall me much obliged [2] [p. 37] if you will read it carefully, and, if you can, "hold a brief" for me at the British Association in this matter. You will see that a considerable part of my paper is devoted to a demonstration of the fallacy of that part of "Romanes" which declares species to be distinguished generally by useless characters, and also that "simultaneous variations" do not usually occur.
On the question of sterility, which, as you well observe, is the core of the question, I think I show that it could not work in the way Romanes puts it. The objection to Belt's and your view is, also, that it would not work unless the "sterility variation" was correlated with the "useful variation." You assume, I think, this correlation, when you speak of two of your varieties, B. and K., being less fertile with the parent form. Without correlation they could not be so, only some few of them. Romanes always speaks of his physiological variations as being independent, "primary," in which case, as I show, they could hardly ever survive. At the end of my paper I show a correlation which is probably general and sufficient.
In criticising Romanes, however, at the British Association, I want to call your special attention to a point I have hardly made clear enough in my paper. Romanes always speaks of the "physiological variety" as if it were like any other simple variety, and could as easily (he says more easily) be increased. Whereas it is really complex, requiring a remarkable correlation between different sets of individuals which he never recognises. To illustrate what I mean, let me suppose a case. Let there occur in a species three individual physiological varieties—A, B and C— each being infertile with the bulk of the species, but quite fertile with some small [part of it. Let A, for example, be fertile with X, Y and Z. Now I maintain it to be in the highest degree improbable that B, a quite distinct individual with distinct [3] [p. 38] parents originating in a distinct locality, and perhaps with a very different constitution, merely because it also is sterile with the bulk of the species, should be fertile with the very same individuals, X, Y and Z, that A is fertile with. It seems to me to be at least 100 to 1 that it will be fertile with some other quite distinct set of individuals. And so with C, and any other similar variety. I express this by saying that each has its "sexual complements," and that the complements of the one are almost sure not to be the complements of the other. Hence it follows that A, B, C though differing in the same character of general infertility with the bulk of the species, will really be three distinct varieties physiologically, and can in no way unite to form a single physiological variety. This enormous difficulty Romanes apparently never sees, but argues as if all individuals that are infertile with the bulk of the species must be or usually are fertile with the same set of individuals or with each other. This I call a monstrous assumption, for which not a particle of evidence exists. Take this in conjunction with my argument from the severity of the struggle for existence and the extreme improbability of the respective "sexual complements" coming together at the right time, and I think Romanes' ponderous paper is disposed of.
I wrote my paper, however, quite as much to expose the great presumption and ignorance of Romanes in declaring that Natural Selection is not a theory of the origin of species—as it is calculated to do much harm. See, for instance, the way the Duke of Argyll4 jumped at it like a trout at a fly!—Yours very faithfully,
Alfred R. Wallace
Status: Draft transcription [Published letter (WCP4496.6399)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
Please cite as “WCP4496,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on 11 May 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/wallace/letters/WCP4496