73 
A few years later Darwin had done with his systematic monograph, 
and soon became entirely absorbed in the work which was to cul- 
minate in 1859 in the Oriyin of Species. These enquiries led him to 
believe that too exclusive attention to systematic work injures the 
reasoning faculties and the powers of generalising. Thus, he wrote 
to Sir Joseph Hooker, on September 25th, 1853, shortly before the 
appearance of the last Cirripede volumes: ‘‘ How few generalisers 
there are among systematists; I really suspect there is something 
absolutely opposed to each other and hostile in the two frames of mind 
required for systematising and reasoning on large collections of facts ”’ 
(loc. cit., ii., 39, 40). Again, he wrote to A. R. Wallace, on 
December 22nd, 1857: ‘‘I am a firm believer that without speculation 
there is no good and original observation. . . . So few naturalists 
care for anything beyond the mere description of species”’ (loc. cit., 
ii., 108). Ina letter to Sir Joseph Hooker on November 21st, 1859, 
he emphasises the value of generalisation: “It is an old and firm 
conviction of mine that the naturalists who accumulate facts and 
make partial generalisations are the real benefactors of science. Those 
who merely accumulate facts I cannot very much respect” (loc. cit., 
ii., 225). The same ideas are conveyed in a letter to H. W. Bates on 
December 3rd, 1861, referring to his paper on ‘“ Mimicry”’ in the 
Trans. Linn. Soc.: ‘*1 can understand that your reception at the 
British Museum would damp you; they are a very good set of men, 
but not the sort to appreciate your work. In fact, I have long thought 
that too much systematic work [and] description somehow blunts the 
faculties. The general public appreciates a good dose of reasoning, or 
generalisation, with new and curious remarks on habits, final causes, 
&c., far more than do the regular naturalists ’’ (loc. cit., 11., 379). 
He wrote again on November 20th, 1862, after reading the paper on 
‘‘Mimicry ’’: ‘ Your paper is too good to be largely appreciated by 
the mob of naturalists without souls, but rely on it that it will have 
lasting value, and I cordially congratulate you on your first great 
work ”’ (loc. cit., 11., 893). Although the earlier reflections on systematic 
work came out of his study of the Cirripedes, the later were at any rate 
partially due to his experience of the students of insects. He seems, 
indeed, to have a somewhat poor opinion of entomological work, 
perhaps due to his experience with his own collections made on the 
‘«‘ Beagle.’ At any rate, he wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker on September 
Qnd, 1860: *. . . . If you get tothe top of Lebanon ... . 
you ought to collect any beetles under stones there ; but the Ento- 
mologists are such slow coaches. I dare say no result could be made 
outof them. [They] have never worked the Alpines of Britain”? (loc. cit., 
ii.,837). ‘ [They] ” inthe last sentence is substituted for words of mock 
abuse, with no doubt a basis of truth intended to be expressed beneath 
the jest. Darwin evidently considered that the entomologists, as a 
whole, would be among the most uncompromising opponents of his 
views on evolution and natural selection. ‘Thus he wrote to Sir 
Charles Lyell on March 17th, 1863, arguing that evolution would 
ultimately prevail: ‘‘ But this result, I begin to see, will take two or 
three lifetimes. The entomologists are enough to keep the subject 
back for half a century ”’ (loc. cit., ii1., 17). Such remarks in letters are, 
of course, not intended to be criticised as deliberate expressions of 
mature opinion, and there can be little doubt that in this case much 
