Parkstone, Dorset.
Jany. 8th. 1897
My dear Meldola
The passage to which you refer in the "Origin" (top of p.6) shows Darwin’s firm belief in the "heredity of acquired variations", and also in the importance of definite variations — that is "sports" — though elsewhere he almost gives these up in favour of indefinite varations; and this last is now the view of all Darwinians, & even of many Lamarckians. I therefore always now assume this as admitted.
Weismann’s view as to "possible variations" and "impossible variations" [2] on p.1. of Germinal Selection is misleading, because it can only refer to "sports" or to "cumulative results", not to "individual variations" such as the material nat[ural] select[ion] acts on. Variation, as I understand it, can only be a slight modification in the offspring of that which exists in the parent. The question whether pigs could possibly develop wings is absurd, & altogether beside the question, which is, solely, so far as direct evidence goes, as to the means by which the change from one species to another closely allied species has been brought [3] about. Those who want to begin by discussing the causes of change from a dog to a seal, or from a cow to a whale one not worth arguing with, as they evidently do not comprehend the a.b.c. of the theory.
Darwin’s ineradicable acceptance of the theory of heredity of the effects of climate, use & disuse, food &c on the individual lead to much obscurity & fallacy in his arguments, here & there.
Yours very sincerely| Alfred R. Wallace [signature]
Status: Draft transcription [Letter (WCP4538.4845)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
[1] [p. 70]
Parkstone, Dorset.
January 6, 1897.
My dear Meldola1,—The passage to which you refer in the "Origin" (top of p.6) shows Darwin's2 firm belief in the "heredity of acquired variations," and also in the importance of definite variations, that is, "sports," though elsewhere he almost gives these up in favour of indefinite variations; and this last is now the view of all Darwinians, and even of many Lamarckians. I therefore always now assume this as admitted. Weismann's3 view as to "possible variations" and "impossible variations" on p. 1 of "Germinal Selection" is misleading, because it can only refer to "sports" or to "cumulative results," not to "individual variations" such as are the material Natural Selection acts on. Variation, as I understand it, can only be a slight modification in the offspring of that which exists in the parent. The question whether pigs could possibly develop wings is absurd, and altogether beside the question, which is, solely, so far as direct evidence goes, as to the means by which the change from one species [2] [p. 71] to another closely allied species has been brought about. Those who want to begin by discussing the causes of change from a dog to a seal, or from a cow to a whale, are not worth arguing with, as they evidently do not comprehend the A, B, C of the theory.
Darwin's eradicable acceptance of the theory of heredity of the effects of climate, use and disuse, food, etc., on the individual led to much obscurity and fallacy in his arguments, here and there.—Yours very sincerely,
Alfred R. Wallace
Status: Draft transcription [Published letter (WCP4538.6436)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
Please cite as “WCP4538,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on 29 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/wallace/letters/WCP4538