i86o.J 



REVIEWS. 



143 



without hesitation, that they are 

 Branchire, as did John Hunter long 

 ago. 



* The confounded Wealden Cal- 

 culation to be struck out, and a note 

 to be inserted to the effect that I am 

 convinced of its inaccuracy from a 

 review in the Saturday Review, and 

 from Phillips, as I see in his Table 

 of Contents that he alludes to it. 



* Mr. Hopkins (' Eraser,' vol. 

 , p. ) states I am quoting 



only from vague memory that, " I 

 argue in favour of my views from the 

 extreme imperfection of the Geo- 

 logical Record," and says this is the 

 first time in the history of Science 

 he has ever heard of ignorance be- 

 ing adduced as an argument. But 

 I repeatedly admit, in the most em- 

 phatic language which I can use, 

 that the imperfect evidence which 

 Geology offers in regard to transito- 

 rial forms is most strongly opposed 

 to my views. Surely there is a wide 

 difference in fully admitting an ob- 

 jection, and then in endeavoring to 

 show that it is not so strong as it at 

 first appears, and in Mr. Hopkins's 

 assertion that I found my argument 

 on the Objection. 



* I would also put a note to 

 " Natural Selection," and show how 

 variously it has been misunder- 

 stood. 



* A writer in the ' Edinburgh 

 Philosophical Journal ' denies my 

 statement that the Woodpecker 

 of La Plata never frequents trees. 

 I observed its habits during two 

 years, but, what is more to the pur- 

 pose, Azara, whose accuracy all ad- 

 mit, is more emphatic than I am in 

 regard to its never frequenting trees. 

 Mr. A. Murray denies that it ought 

 to be called a woodpecker ; it has 

 two toes in front and two behind, 

 pointed tail feathers, a long pointed 

 tongue, and the same general form 

 of body, the same manner of flight, 

 colouring and voice. It was classed, 

 until recently, in the same genus 

 Picus with all other woodpeckers, 

 but now has been ranked as a dis- 

 tinct genus amongst the Picidse. It 

 differs from the typical Picus only 

 in the beak, not being quite so 

 strong, and in the upper mandible 

 being slightly arched. I think these 

 facts fully justify my statement that 

 it is " in all essential parts of its or- 

 ganisation " a Woodpecker.] 



C. Darwin to T. H. Huxley. 



Down, Nov. 22 [1860]. 



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 



