60 THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES/ [1860. 



thing. Unless, indeed, expression of countenance can be 

 included, and on that subject I have collected a good many 

 facts, and speculated, but I do not suppose I shall ever 

 publish, but it is an uncommonly curious subject. By the 

 way, I sent off a lot of questions the day before yesterday 

 to Tierra del Fuego on expression ! I suspect (for I have 

 never read it) that Spencer's ' Psychology ' has a bearing on 

 Psychology as we should look at it. By all means read the 

 Preface, in about 20 pages, of Hensleigh Wedgwood's new 

 Dictionary on the first origin of Language ; Erasmus would 

 lend it. I agree about Carpenter, a very good article, but 

 with not much original. . . . Andrew Murray has criticised, 

 in an address to the Botanical Society of Edinburg, the 

 notice in the t Linnean Journal,' and " has disposed of " the 

 whole theory by an ingenious difficulty, which I was very 

 stupid not to have thought of ; for I express surprise at more 

 and analogous cases not being known. The difficulty is, that 

 amongst the blind insects of the caves in distant parts of the 

 world there are some of the same genus, and yet the genus is 

 not found out of the caves or living in the free world. I have 

 little doubt that, like the fish Amblyopsis, and like Proteus in 

 Europe, these insects are " wrecks of ancient life,'' or " living 

 fossils," saved from competition and extermination. But 

 that formerly seeing insects of the same genus roamed over 

 the whole area in which the cases are included. 



Farewell, yours affectionately, 



C. DARWIN, 



P.S. Our ancestor was an animal which breathed water, 

 had a swim bladder, a great swimming tail, an imperfect 

 skull, and undoubtedly was an hermaphrodite ! 



Here is a pleasant genealogy for mankind. 



C. Darwin to C. Lyell. 



Down, January I4th [1860]. 



... I shall be much interested in reading your man dis- 

 cussion, and will give my opinion carefully, whatever that 



