I 



Corrrff/}07uIrnrt' with C/utffes Darwin 1H7 



rel!i(i(inshi|>, than in iiiiicli current literature. It is only tlie teruiinolof^y 

 and the fact that (Jalton wuh not a profenHional biologist which have depriveti 

 him of the credit due to him aa the discoverer or inventor of what we now 

 term the 'continuity of tlu; i,'erm-|)l!isni.' Mij^ht not that theory, (lalton 

 modestly suggests, bt) substituted uitli advantage for that of pangeueHis ? 



Down, \uv. 7tli [1875]. 



.Mv DRAit (iAi.ToN, I liHM> D^iul }'oui' csHiiy with iiiucli cuHimity anil inUirt*Mt, l>at you 

 prultiilily liuvf no iiltvi liow oxc'CNsivcly ililliciilt it in lit uiKlerataiiil. I rniiiiot fully )(iiu<p, only 

 lici'i> anil tlinrc I'onji'oturi-, wliut are tin- poinl.s on which wi; iliffur 1 ilari-.-iiiy lliis is chiftly 

 ilui! to Miuiiilli!-hi>a(lini>8H on my part, hut I du nut think wholly so. Your many U^rnis, not 

 di'tinnl "iIovcIojkmI •jerms" — "fertile" and "Ht4nili^" ffiTms (the word 'jjurm' itself from asfw>- 

 ciation misloadiuK to me), "stirp," — "sept,'' "residue" etc. etc., quit*; confounded uie. If I ask 

 myself how you derive and whert^ you plw;e the innumerable geinmulcs contained within the 

 spermatozoa forme<l by a male animal during its whole life I cannot answer myst*lf. Unless you 

 can make several parts clearer, I Ix-lieve (though I hope I am altogether wrong) that very few 

 will endeavour or succeed in fathoming your meaning. I have marked a few poswiges with 

 nuinhers, and her-e make a few itMiiarks and express ray opinion, as you desire it, not that I 

 suppose it will lx> of any use to you. 



(1) If this iiiiplii's that many parts are not modifiixl l>y use and disuse during the life of 

 the individual, I diflbr from you, as every ye»ir 1 come to attribute mort- and nioi-e to 

 such agencj'. 



(2) This seems rather bold, as sexuality hius not been detecte<l in some of the lowest 

 forms, though T daresay it may hereafter be. 



(3) If gemmules (to use your own tenn) were often deficient in buds I could but tiiink 

 the bud- variations would be commoner than they are in a state of nature; nor does it 

 seem that bud-variations often exhibit deficiencies which might bi- accountt*! for by 

 aksence of the propi-r gemmules. I t-ake a very different view of the meaning or cause 

 of sexuality. 



(4) I have oiilered Fnuser's Mag. and am curious to learn how twins from a single ovum 

 are distinguished from twins from 2 ova. Nothing seems to me more curious than 

 the similarity and dis-.similarity of twins. 



(5) Awfully dithcult to undei-stand. 



(6) I have gi\en almost the sauie notion. 



(7) I hope that all this will lx> altered. I have received new and additional cases, so 

 that I have now not a shadow of doubt. 



(8) Such cases can hanlly be spoken of as very rare, as you would say if you had received 

 half the number of cases which I have. 



I am very sorry t« differ so much from you but I have thought that you would desire my 

 open opinion. Fnink is away; otherwi.se he should have copied my scrawl. 



I have got a good stixik of pods of Sweet Pwis, but the autumn has been frightfully bad; 

 perhaps we may still get a few mi>re to ripen. 



My dear Galton, Yours very sincerely, Ch. Darwin. 



A. R. Wallace took a difterent view as to what Galton had achieved in 

 a letter of the following spring. 



The Dell, Grays, Essex, .\farch 3rd, 1876. 



Dear Mr Galto.v, I return your paper signed. It is an excellent proposal. I must take 

 the opportunity of mentioning how immensely I was pleased and interested with your last 

 papers in the Anthrop. JounuU. Your 'Theory of Heredity' seems to me most ingenious and 

 a decided improvement on Darwin's, as it gets over some of the great diHiculties of the cum- 

 brousne.ss of his Pangenesis. Your jxiper on Twins is also wondrously suggestive. 



Believe me. Yours very faithfully, Alfred K. Wallace. 

 F. Galton, Esq. 



24—2 



