i86o.] AGASSIZ. 333 



article, from the 'Atlantic Monthly,' I am very glad to 

 possess. By the way, the editor of the At/ienseum* has 

 inserted your answer to Agassiz, Bowen, and Co., and when 

 I therein read them, I admired them even more than at first. 

 They really seemed to me admirable in their condensation, 

 force, clearness and novelty. 



I am surprised that Agassiz did not succeed in writing 

 something better. How absurd that logical quibble " if 

 species do not exist, how can they vary ? " As if any one 

 doubted their temporary existence. How coolly he assumes 

 that there is some clearly defined distinction between indi- 

 vidual differences and varieties. It is no wonder that a man 

 who calls identical forms, when found in two countries, dis- 

 tinct species, cannot find variation in nature. Again, how 

 unreasonable to suppose that domestic varieties selected by 

 man for his own fancy (p. 147) should resemble natural 

 varieties or species. The whole article seems to me poor ; it 

 seems to me hardly worth a detailed answer (even if I could 

 do it, and I much doubt whether I possess your skill in 

 picking out salient points and driving a nail into them), and 

 indeed you have already answered several points. Agassiz's 

 name, no doubt, is a heavy weight against us. ... 



If you see Professor Parsons, will you thank him for the 

 extremely liberal and fair spirit in which his Essay f is written. 

 Please tell him that I reflected much on the chance of favour- 

 able monstrosities (i.e. great and sudden variation) arising. I 

 have, of course, no objection to this, indeed it would be a great 

 aid, but I did not allude to the subject, for, after much labour, 

 I could find nothing which satisfied me of the probability of 

 such occurrences. There seems to me in almost every case 

 too much, too complex, and too beautiful adaptation, in every 

 structure, to believe in its sudden production. I have alluded 

 under the head of beautifully hooked seeds to such possi- 

 bility. Monsters are apt to be sterile, or not to transmit 

 * Aug. 4, 1860. f ' Silliman's Journal,' July 1860. 



