362 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



must self-fertilize, it may not be amiss to 

 introduce testimony. An entomologist now 

 at my side, who has passed four summers 

 among these mountains, and made frequent 

 visits to the Alpine regions, informs me 

 that ' he has always found insects of all 

 orders quite abundant in the Rocky 

 Mountains ' " (Silliman's Journal, 1876, pp. 

 39V, 398). The route which I have de- 

 scribed can hardly be called the " Alpine " 

 region, unless it be in so far as it relates to 

 Pike's Peak, which, however, I did not join 

 my companions in ascending, having chosen 

 in preference to explore alone what was 

 then an unknown canon, and which I named 

 after my good friend Dr. Engelmann, whose 

 name it still bears. There is nothing in 

 my paper, as referred to by Prof. Asa Gray, 

 to warrant the statement that I was confin- 

 ing myself to "Alpine" regions. Indeed, 

 the " suggestion," so far as it relates to the 

 paucity of insects, should refer to the " en- 

 tomologists who accompanied me," and not 

 to myself. All I claim is that the " ento- 

 mologists " found no insects, while I found 

 colored flowers seeding abundantly. 



In view of the testimony of the ento- 

 mologist at Dr. Asa Gray's side, that insects 

 of all orders are quite abundant in the 

 Rocky Mountains, I should be glad to have, 

 through The Popular Science Monthly, a 

 list of the Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera 

 that are abundant enough, in the particular 

 part of the Rocky Mountain region covered 

 by my experience, to probably act as cross- 

 fertilizers of flowers, noting those which 

 may perhaps be introduced since 1S71, as 

 it is well known that, with the introduction 

 of agriculture and horticulture, insects often 

 follow. 



I do not suppose that, in the large num- 

 ber of observations I have placed on rec- 

 ord, there will not be now and then one 

 fouud " imperfect." Not one of us who 

 are working in this field but, with all our 

 care, must expect such annoyances. As 

 the relation of insects to plants in the 

 flora of Colorado is an important one, and 

 I never heard the view I have taken of it 

 questioned except as now stated, I think it 

 important to science to know exactly how 

 far my statement is imperfect, if imperfect 

 at all. Thomas Meehan. 



Germantown, Pa., November 2T, 1876. 



THOMAS CAELYLE AND THE DAEWINS. 

 To the Editor of the Popular Science Monthly. 



There are floating in the American 

 press some ill-natured remarks of the oc- 

 togenarian, Carlyle, that merit a little atten- 

 tion. The remarks reported are as follows : 

 " I have known three generations of the 

 Darwins grandfather, father, and son : 

 atheists all. ... I saw the naturalist not 

 many months ago ; I told him that I had 

 read his ' Origin of Species ' and other 

 books ; that he had by no means satisfied 

 me that men were descended from monkeys, 

 but had gone far toward persuading me 

 that he and his so-called scientific brethren 

 had brought the present generation of Eng- 

 lishmen very Dear to monkeys. A good sort 

 of a man is this Darwin, and well-meaning, 

 but with very little intellect." 



Remark 1. If a "very little intellect" 

 can change the present generation of Eng- 

 lishmen to monkeys, what are those Eng- 

 lishmen made of? 



Remark 2. Carlyle has known the three 

 generations of .the Darwins, beginning with 

 the grandfather. Erasmus Darwin, the 

 grandfather, died in 1802, about six or seven 

 years after Carlyle was born ! Is it exact- 

 ly the right thing for the old gentleman to 

 say he knew him ? 



Remark 3. " They are atheists all." Now, 

 two years before Mr. Carlyle was born, to 

 wit, 1794, the grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, 

 published the great work of his life, " The 

 Zoonomia, or Laws of Organic Life," and on 

 the first page he says : " The great Creator 

 of all things has infinitely diversified the 

 works of his hands, but has, at the same 

 time, stamped a certain similitude on the 

 features of Nature, that demonstrates to us 

 that the ivhole is one family of one parent." 

 And, on page 77, he says expressly : "I do 

 not wish to dispute about words, and am 

 ready to allow . . . and to believe that the 

 ultimate cause of all motion is immaterial, 

 that is, God." Mr. Carlyle may be a well- 

 meaning man, but his knowledge of that 

 grandfather, although at the ripe age of 

 six years, must have been rather imperfect. 

 But the charge of atheism includes the 

 naturalist, Charles Darwin. The candid 

 readers of Charles Darwin's works know 

 better. Many people, on reading the books 

 of Genesis and Job, grow skeptical ; but no 



