The Wallace-Darwin Correspondence 



enclosed letter^ to Mature, that is, if 3^ou in the least desire 

 it. In this case please post it. If you do not at all wish 

 it, I should rather prefer not sending it, and in this case 

 please tear it up. And I beg you to do the same, if you 

 intend answering Dr. Bree yourself, as you will do it in- 

 comparably better than I should. Also please tear it up 

 if you don't like the letter. — My dear Wallace, yours very 

 sincerely, Oh. Darwin. 



The Dell, Grays, Essex. August 4, 1872. 



Dear Darwin, — I have sent your letter to Nature^ as I 

 think it will settle that question far better than anything 

 I can say. Many thanks for it. I have not seen Dr. Bree's 

 letter yet, as I get Nature here very irregularly, but as I 

 was very careful to mention none but real errors in Dr. 

 Bree's book, I do not imagine there will be any necessity 

 for my taking any notice of it. It was really entertaining 

 to have such a book to review, the errors and misconcep- 

 tions were so inexplicable and the self-sufficiency of the 

 man so amazing. Yet there is some excellent writing in 

 the book, and to a half-informed person it has all the 

 appearance of being a most valuable and authoritative 

 work. 



I am now reviewing a much more important book and 

 one that, if I mistake not, will really compel you sooner 

 or later to modify some of your views, though it will not 



i**Bree on Darwinism," Nature, Aug. 8, 1872. The letter is as follows: 

 " Permit me to state — though the statement is almost superfluous — that Mr. 

 Wallace, in his review of Dr. Bree's work, gives with perfect correctness what I 

 intended to express, and what I believe was expressed clearly, with respect to 

 the probable position of man in the early part of his pedigree. As I have not seen 

 Dr. Bree's recent work, and as his letter is unintelligible to me, I cannot even 

 conjecture how he has so completely mistaken my meaning; but, perhaps, no 

 one who has read Mr. Wallace's article, or who has read a work formerly 

 published by Dr. Bree on the same subject as his recent one, will be surprised 

 at any amount of misunderstanding on his part. — Charles Darwin, Aug. 3." 

 See "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,*' iii. 167. 



S 273 



