t86o.] reviews. 143 



without hesitation, that they are * I would also put a note to 



Branchiae, as did John Hunter long " Natural Selection," and show how 



ago. variously it has been misunder- 



* The confounded Wealden Cal- stood. 



culation to be struck out, and a note * A writer in the * Edinburgh 



to be inserted to the effect that I am Philosophical Journal' denies my 



convinced of its inaccuracy from a statement that the Woodpecker 



review in the Saturday Review, and of La Plata never frequents trees, 



from Phillips, as I see in his Table I observed its habits during two 



of Contents that he alludes to it. years, but, what is more to the pur- 



* Mr. Hopkins (' Eraser,' vol. pose, Azara, whose accuracy all ad- 

 , p. ) states — I am quoting mit, is more emphatic than I am in 



only from vague memory — that, " I regard to its never frequenting trees, 



argue in favour of my views from the Mr. A. Murray denies that it ought 



extreme imperfection of the Geo- to be called a woodpecker ; it has 



logical Record," and says this is the two toes in front and two behind, 



first time in the history of Science pointed tail feathers, a long pointed 



he has ever heard of ignorance be- tongue, and the same general form 



ing adduced as an argument. But of body, the same manner of flight, 



I repeatedly admit, in the most em- colouring and voice. It was classed, 



phatic language which I can use, until recently, in the same genus — 



that the imperfect evidence which Picus — with all other woodpeckers. 



Geology offers in regard to transito- but now has been ranked as a dis- 



rial forms is most strongly opposed tinct genus amongst the Picidae. It 



to my views. Surely there is a wide differs from the typical Picus only 



difference in fully admitting an ob- in the beak, not being quite so 



jection, and then in endeavoring to strong, and in the upper mandible 



show that it is not so strong as it at being slightly arched. I think these 



first appears, and in Mr. Hopkins's facts fully justify my statement that 



assertion that I found my argument it is " in all essential parts of its or- 



ou the Objection, ganisation " a Woodpecker.] 



C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley. 



Down, Nov. 22 [i860]. 



My dear Huxley, — For heaven's sake don't write an 

 anti-Darwinian article ; you would do it so confoundedly 

 well. I have sometimes amused myself with thinking how 

 I could best pitch into myself, and I believe I could give two 

 or three good digs ; but I will see you first before I will 



