ch. x.] 18431858. 187 



copied (in 200 pages) of my conclusions ; and if I thought 

 at some future time that you would think it worth reading, 

 I should, of course, be most thankful to have the criticism 

 of so competent a critic. Excuse this very long and egotis- 

 tical and ill-written letter, which by your remarks you have 

 led me into. 



C. D. to J. D. Hooker. Down [1849-50 ?] 



.... How painfully (to me) true is your remark, that 

 no one has hardly a right to examine the question of species 

 who has not minutely described many. I was, however, 

 pleased to hear from Owen (who is vehemently opposed to 

 any mutability in species), that he thought it was a very 

 fair subject, and that there was a mass of facts to be brought 

 to bear on the question, not hitherto collected. My only 

 comfort is (as I mean to attempt the subject), that I have 

 dabbled in several branches of Natural History, and seen 

 good specific men work out my species, and know some- 

 thing of geology (an indispensable union) ; and though I 

 shall get more kicks than half -pennies, I will, life serving, 

 attempt my work. Lamarck is the only exception, that I 

 can think of, of an accurate describer of species at least in 

 the Invertebrate Kingdom, who has disbelieved in perma- 

 nent species, but he in his absurd though clever work has 

 done the subject harm, as has Mr. Vestiges, and, as (some 

 future loose naturalist attempting the same speculations will 

 perhaps say) has Mr. D. . . . 



C. D. to J. D. Hooker. September 25th [1853]. 



In my own Cirripedial work (by the way, thank you for 

 the dose of soft solder ; it does one or at least me a great 

 deal of good) in my own work I have not felt conscious that 

 disbelieving in the mere permanence of species has made 

 much difference one way or the other ; in some few cases 

 (if publishing avowedly on the doctrine of non-permanence), 

 I should not have affixed names, and in some few cases 

 should have affixed names to remarkable varieties. Cer- 

 tainly I have felt it humiliating, discussing and doubting, 

 and examining over and over again, when in my own mind 

 the only doubt has been whether the form varied to-day or 

 yesterday (not to put too fine a point on it, as Snagsby * 



* In Bleak House. 



