Alfred Russel Wallace 



the name of the deviPs advocate. The discussion which fol- 

 lowed during three consecutive meetings is very rich from 

 the nonsense talked. If you would care to see the number 

 I could lend it you. 



I forgot to remark how capitally you turn the table on 

 the Duke, when you make him create the Angrwcum and 

 moth by special creation. 



Hurstjyierpoint October 22, 1867. 



Dear Darwin, — I am very glad you approve of my article 

 on ^^ Creation by Law " as a whole. 



The ^* machine metaphor ^' is not mine, but the North 

 British reviewer^s. I merely accept it and show that it is 

 on our side and not against us, but I do not think it at all 

 a good metaphor to be used as an argument either way. I 

 did not half develop the argument on the limits of varia- 

 tion, being myself limited in space; but I feel satisfied that 

 it is the true answer to the very common and very strong 

 objection, that ^* variation has strict limits." The fallacy 

 is the requiring variation in domesticity to go beyond the 

 limits of the same variation under nature. It does do so 

 sometimes, however, because the conditions of existence are 

 so different. I do not think a case can be pointed out in 

 which the limits of variation under domestication are not 

 up to or beyond those already marked out in nature, only 

 we generally get in the species an amount of change which 

 in nature occurs only in the whole range of the genus or 

 family. 



The many cases, however, in which variation has gone 

 far beyond nature and has not yet stopped are ignored. 

 For instance, no wild pomaceous fruit is, I believe, so 

 large as our apples, and no doubt they could be got much 

 larger if flavour, etc., were entirely neglected. 



I may perhaps push *^ protection " too far sometimes, for 



192 



