i860.] 



REVIEWS. 



H3 



without hesitation, that they are 

 Branchiae, 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 (' Fraser,' 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 Picidae. 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 [i860]. 

 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 



