35o 



THE ' ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' 



[i860. 



to defend it. I would show no sort of anger. I enclose a 

 mere rough specimen, done without any care or accuracy 

 done from memory alone to be torn up, just to show the 

 sort of thing that has occurred to me. Will yon do me the 

 great kindness to consider this well ? 



It seems to me it would have a good effect, and give some 

 confidence to the reader. It would [be] a horrid bore going 

 through all the reviews. 



Yours affectionately, 



C. Darwin. 



[Here follow samples of foot-notes, the references to volume 

 and page being left blank. It will be seen that in some cases 

 he seems to have forgotten that he was writing foot-notes, and 

 to have continued as if writing to Lyell : 



* Dr. Bree (p. ) asserts that 

 I explain the structure of the cells 

 of the Hive Bee by " the exploded 

 doctrine of pressure." But I do 

 not say one word which directly or 

 indirectly can be interpreted into 

 any reference to pressure. 



* The ' Edinburgh ' Reviewer 

 (vol. , p. ) quotes my work as 

 saying that the "dorsal vertebrae 

 of pigeons vary in number, and 

 disputes the fact." I nowhere even 

 allude to the dorsal vertebrae, only 

 to the sacral and caudal vertebras. 



* The ' Edinburgh ' Reviewer 

 throws a doubt on these organs 

 being the Branchiae of Cirripedes. 

 But Professor Owen in 1854 admits, 

 without hesitation, that they are 

 Branchiae, as did John Hunter long 

 ago. 



* The confounded Wealden Cal- 

 culation to be struck out, and a 

 note to be inserted to the effect 

 that I am convinced of its inac- 

 curacy from a review in the 



Saturday Review, and from 

 Phillips, as I see in his Table of 

 Contents that he alludes to it. 



* Mr. Hopkins (' Fraser,' vol. , 

 p. ) states I am quoting only 

 from vague memory that, "I argue 

 in favour of my views from the 

 extreme imperfection of the Geo- 

 logical Record," and says this is 

 the first time in the History of 

 Science he has ever heard of igno- 

 rance being adduced as an argu- 

 ment. But I repeatedly admit, in 

 the most emphatic language which 

 I can use, that the imperfect evi- 

 dence which Geology offers in re- 

 gard to transitorial forms is most 

 strongly opposed to my views. 

 Surely there is a wide difference in 

 fully admitting an objection, and 

 then in endeavouring to show that 

 it is not so strong as it at first ap- 

 pears, and in Mr. Hopkins's asser- 

 tion that I found my argument on 

 the Objection. 



* I would also put a note to 



