47 3 THE WRITING OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES.' [i8 5 3. 



half-spoiled Hooker ! ! " Now when I see such strong feeling 

 in my oldest friends, you need not wonder that I always ex- 

 pect my views to be received with contempt. But enough 

 and too much of this. 



I thank you most truly for the kind spirit of your last letter. 

 I agree to every word in it, and think I go as far as almost 

 any one in seeing the grave difficulties against my doctrine. 

 With respect to the extent to which I go, all the arguments 

 in favour of my notions fall rapidly away, the greater the scope 

 of forms considered. But in animals, embryology leads me to 

 an enormous and frightful range. The facts which kept me 

 longest scientifically orthodox are those of adaptation — the 

 pollen-masses in asclepias — the mistletoe, with its pollen 

 carried by insects, and seed by birds — the woodpecker, with 

 its feet and tail, beak and tongue, to climb the tree and secure 

 insects. To talk of climate or Lamarckian habit producing 

 such adaptations to other organic beings is futile. This diffi- 

 culty I believe I have surmounted. As you seem interested 

 in the subject, and as it is an immense advantage to me to 

 write to you and to hear, ever so briefly, what you think, I 

 will enclose (copied, so as to save you trouble in reading) 

 the briefest abstract of my notions on the means by which 

 Nature makes her species. Why I think that species have 

 really changed, depends on general facts in the affinities, 

 embryology, rudimentary organs, geological history, and geo- 

 graphical distribution of organic beings. In regard to my 

 Abstract, you must take immensely on trust, each paragraph 

 occupying one or two chapters in my book. You will, per- 

 haps, think it paltry in me, when I ask you not to mention 

 my doctrine ; the reason is, if any one, like the author of the 

 'Vestiges,' were to hear of them, he might easily work them 

 in, and then I should have to quote from a work perhaps 

 despised by naturalists, and this would greatly injure any 

 chance of my views being received by those alone whose 

 opinions I value. [Here follows a discussion on " large 

 genera varying," which has no direct connection with the 

 remainder of the letter.] 



