184 GROWTH OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, [ch. x. 



could bear any way on what are species. I have read heaps 

 of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased 

 collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I 

 am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started 

 with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) 

 immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense 

 of a " tendency to progression," " adaptations from the slow 

 willing of animals," &c. ! But the conclusions I am led to 

 are not widely different from his; though the means of 

 change are wholly so. I think I have found out (here's 

 presumption !) the simple way by which species become ex- 

 quisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan, and 

 think to yourself, " on what a man have I been wasting my 

 time and writing to." I should, five years ago, have thought 

 so. . . . 



And again (1844) : 



"In my most sanguine moments, all I expect, is that I 

 shall be able to show even to sound Naturalists, that there 

 are two sides to the question of the immutability of species 

 that facts can be viewed and grouped under the notion of 

 allied species having descended from common stocks. With 

 respect to books on this subject, I do not know of any sys- 

 tematical ones, except Lamarck's which is veritable rubbish : 

 but there are plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, &c, on the view of 

 the immutability. Agassiz lately has brought the strongest 

 argument in favour of immutability. Isidor G-. St. Hilaire 

 has written some good Essays, tending towards the muta- 

 bility-side, in the Suites a Buff on, entitled Zoolog. Generate. 

 Is it not strange that the author of such a book as the Ani- 

 maux sans Vertebres should have written that insects, which 

 never see their eggs, should will (and plants, their seeds) to 

 be of particular forms, so as to become attached to particu- 

 lar objects. The other common (specially Germanic) notion 

 is hardly less absurd, viz. that climate, food, &c, should 

 make a Pediculus formed to climb hair, or a wood-pecker 

 to climb trees. I believe all these absurd views arise from 

 no one having, as far as I know, approached the subject on 

 the side of variation under domestication, and having stud- 

 ied all that is known about domestication." 



" I hate arguments from results, but on my views of de- 

 scent, really Natural History becomes a sublimely grand re- 

 sult-giving subject (now you may quiz me for so foolish an 

 escape of mouth). . . ." 



