Parkstone, Dorset.
Octr. 12th. 1896
My dear Meldola1
I got Weismann’s2 "Germinal Selection" two or three months back & read it very carefully, and on the whole, I admire it very much, and think it does complete the work of ordinary variation & selection. Of course it is a pure hypothesis, & can never perhaps be directly proved, but it seems to me a reasonable one, and it enables us to understand two groups of facts which I have never been able to work out satisfactorily by the old method. These two facts are — [2] (1) the total, or almost total, disappearance of many useless organs, — and
(2) the continuous development of secondary sexual characters beyond any conceivable utility, and apparently, till checked by inutility. It explains both these. Disuse alone, as I & many others have always argued, cannot do theise first, but can only cause regression to the mean, with perhaps some further regression from economy of material.
As to the second, I have always felt the difficulty of accounting for the enormous development of the peacock’s train, the B. of Paradise plumes, the long wattle of the Bell bird [3] the enormous tail-feathers of the Guatemalan Trogon, of some Humming Birds &c. &c. &c…
The beginnings of all these I can explain as recognition marks, & this explains also their distinctive character in allied species, — but it does not explain their growing on & on far beyond what is needful for recognition, and apparently till only limited by absolute hurtfulness. It is a relief to me to have "Germinal Selection" to explain this.
I do not however think it at all necessary to explain adaptations, however complex. Variation is so general and so large, in dominant species, and selection is so tremendously powerful that I believe all needful adaptation [4] may be produced without it. But, if it exists, it would undoubtedly hasten the process of such adaptation and would therefore enable new places in the economy of nature to be more rapidly filled up.
I was thinking of writing a popular exposition of the new theory for "Nature" but have not yet found time or inclination for it. I began reading " G. Selection" with a prejudice against it. That prejudice continued through the first half, but when I came to the idea itself, and after some trouble grasped the meaning & bearing of it, I saw the work it would do and was a convert at once. It really has no relation to Lamarckianism & leaves the non-Heredity of Acquired Characters exactly where it was.
Yours very truly| Alfred R. Wallace [signature]
I will send copy of my Art. as soon as can get it, or proofs.3
Status: Draft transcription [Letter (WCP4536.4843)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
[1] [p. 68]
Parkstone, Dorset. October 12, 1896.
My dear Meldola,—I got Weismann's "Germinal Selection" two or three months back, and read it very carefully, and on the whole I admire it very much, and think it does complete the work of ordinary variation and selection. Of course it is a pure hypothesis, and can never perhaps be directly proved, but it seems to me a reasonable one, and it [2] [p. 69] enables us to understand two groups of facts which I have never been able to work out satisfactorily by the old method. These two facts are: (1) the total, or almost total, disappearance of many useless organs, and (2) the continuous development of secondary sexual characters beyond any conceivable utility, and, apparently, till checked by inutility. It explains both of these. Disuse alone, as I and many others have always argued, cannot do the first, but can only cause regression to the mean, with perhaps some further regression from economy of material.
As to the second, I have always felt the difficulty of accounting for the enormous development of the peacock's train, the bird of paradise plumes, the long wattle of the bell bird, the enormous tail-feathers of the Guatemalan trogon, of some humming-birds, etc. etc. etc. The beginnings of all these I can explain as recognition marks, and this explains also their distinctive character in allied species, but it does not explain their growing on and on far beyond what is needful for recognition, and apparently till limited by absolute hurtfulness. It is a relief to me to have "germinal selection" to explain this.
I do not, however, think it at all necessary to explain adaptions, however complex Variation is so general and so large, in dominant species, and selection is so tremendously powerful, that I believe all needful adaption may be produced without it. But, if it exists, it would undoubtedly hasten the process of such adaptation and would therefore enable new places in the economy of nature to be more rapidly filled up.
I was thinking of writing a popular exposition of the new theory for Nature, but have not yet found time or inclination for it. I began reading "Germinal Selection" with a prejudice against it. That prejudice continued through the first half, but when I came to the idea itself, and after some [3] [p. 70] trouble grasped the meaning and bearing of it, I saw the work it would do and was a convert at once. It really has no relation to Lamarckism, and leaves the non-heredity of acquired characters exactly where it was.—Yours very truly,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
Status: Draft transcription [Published letter (WCP4536.6435)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
Please cite as “WCP4536,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on