I must thank you for all the wonderful trouble which you have taken about the seeds of Impatiens, and on scores of other occasions. It in truth makes me feel ashamed of myself, and I cannot help thinking: “Oh Lord, when he sees our book he will cry out, is this all for which I have helped so much!” In seriousness, I hope that we have made out some points, but I fear that we have done very little for the labour which we have expended on our work. We are here for a week for a little rest, which I needed.
If I remember right, November 30th, is the anniversary at the Royal, and I fear Sir Joseph must be almost at the last gasp. I shall be glad when he is no longer President.
Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
[In the spring of the following year, 1879. When he was engaged in putting his results together, he wrote somewhat despondingly to Mr. Dyer: “I am overwhelmed with my notes, and almost too old to undertake the job which I have in hand–i.e. movements of all kinds. Yet it is worse to be idle.”
Later on in the year, when the work was approaching completion, he wrote to Prof. Carus (July 17, 1879), with respect to a translation:–
“Together with my son Francis, I am preparing a rather large volume on the general movements of Plants, and I think that we have made out a good many new points and views.
“I fear that our views will meet a good deal of opposition in Germany; but we have been working very hard for some years at the subject.
“I shall be MUCH pleased if you think the book worth translating, and proof-sheets shall be sent you, whenever they are ready.”
In the autumn he was hard at work on the manuscript, and wrote to Dr. Gray (October 24, 1879):–
“I have written a rather big book–more is the pity–on the movements of plants, and I am now just beginning to go over the MS. for the second time, which is a horrid bore.”
Only the concluding part of the next letter refers to the ‘Power of Movements’:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO A. DE CANDOLLE.
May 28, 1880.
My dear Sir,
I am particularly obliged to you for having so kindly send me your ‘Phytographie’ (A book on the methods of botanical research, more especially of systematic work.); for if I had merely seen it advertised, I should not have supposed that it could have concerned me. As it is, I have read with very great interest about a quarter, but will not delay longer thanking you. All that you say seems to me very clear and convincing, and as in all your writings I find a large number of philosophical remarks new to me, and no doubt shall find many more. They have recalled many a puzzle through which I passed when monographing the Cirripedia; and your book in those days would have been quite invaluable to me. It has pleased me to find that I have always followed your plan of making notes on separate pieces of paper; I keep several scores of large portfolios, arranged on very thin shelves about two inches apart, fastened to the walls of my study, and each shelf has its proper name or title; and I can thus put at once every memorandum into its proper place. Your book will, I am sure, be very useful to many young students, and I shall beg my son Francis (who intends to devote himself to the physiology of plants) to read it carefully.
As for myself I am taking a fortnight’s rest, after sending a pile of MS. to the printers, and it was a piece of good fortune that your book arrived as I was getting into my carriage, for I wanted something to read whilst away from home. My MS. relates to the movements of plants, and I think that I have succeeded in showing that all the more important great classes of movements are due to the modification of a kind of movement common to all parts of all plants from their earliest youth.
Pray give my kind remembrances to your son, and with my highest respect and best thanks,
Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely, CHARLES DARWIN.
P.S.–It always pleases me to exalt plants in the organic scale, and if you will take the trouble to read my last chapter when my book (which will be sadly too big) is published and sent to you, I hope and think that you also will admire some of the beautiful adaptations by which seedling plants are enabled to perform their proper functions.
[The book was published on November 6, 1880, and 1500 copies were disposed of at Mr. Murray’s sale. With regard to it he wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker (November 23):–
“Your note has pleased me much–for I did not expect that you would have had time to read ANY of it. Read the last chapter, and you will know the whole result, but without the evidence. The case, however, of radicles bending after exposure for an hour to geotropism, with their tips (or brains) cut off is, I think, worth your reading (bottom of page 525); it astounded me. The next most remarkable fact, as it appeared to me (page 148), is the discrimination of the tip of the radicle between a slightly harder and softer object affixed on opposite sides of tip. But I will bother you no more about my book. The sensitiveness of seedlings to light is marvellous.”
To another friend, Mr. Thiselton Dyer, he wrote (November 28, 1880):–
“Very many thanks for your most kind note, but you think too highly of our work, not but what this is very pleasant…Many of the Germans are very contemptuous about making out the use of organs; but they may sneer the souls out of their bodies, and I for one shall think it the most interesting part of Natural History. Indeed you are greatly mistaken if you doubt for one moment on the very great value of your constant and most kind assistance to us.”
The book was widely reviewed, and excited much interest among the general public. The following letter refers to a leading article in the “Times”, November 20, 1880:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO MRS. HALIBURTON. (Mrs. Haliburton was a daughter of my father’s early friend, the late Mr. Owen, of Woodhouse.) Down, November 22, 1880.
My dear Sarah,
You see how audaciously I begin; but I have always loved and shall ever love this name. Your letter has done more than please me, for its kindness has touched my heart. I often think of old days and of the delight of my visits to Woodhouse, and of the deep debt of gratitude I owe to your father. It was very good of you to write. I had quite forgotten my old ambition about the Shrewsbury newspaper (Mrs. Haliburton had reminded him of his saying as a boy that if Eddowes’ newspaper ever alluded to him as “our deserving fellow-townsman,” his ambition would be amply gratified.); but I remember the pride which I felt when I saw in a book about beetles the impressive words “captured by C. Darwin.” Captured sounded so grand compared with caught. This seemed to me glory enough for any man! I do not know in the least what made the “Times” glorify me (The following is the opening sentence of the leading article:–“Of all our living men of science none have laboured longer and to more splendid purpose than Mr. Darwin.”), for it has sometimes pitched into me ferociously.
I should very much like to see you again, but you would find a visit here very dull, for we feel very old and have no amusement, and lead a solitary life. But we intend in a few weeks to spend a few days in London, and then if you have anything else to do in London, you would perhaps come and lunch with us. (My father had the pleasure of seeing Mrs. Haliburton at his brother’s house in Queen Anne Street.)
Believe me, my dear Sarah,
Yours gratefully and affectionately, CHARLES DARWIN.
[The following letter was called forth by the publication of a volume devoted to the criticism of the ‘Power of Movement in Plants’ by an accomplished botanist, Dr. Julius Wiesner, Professor of Botany in the University of Vienna:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO JULIUS WIESNER.
Down, October 25th, 1881.
My dear Sir,
I have now finished your book (‘Das Bewegungsvermogen der Pflanzen.’ Vienna, 1881.), and have understood the whole except a very few passages. In the first place, let me thank you cordially for the manner in which you have everywhere treated me. You have shown how a man may differ from another in the most decided manner, and yet express his difference with the most perfect courtesy. Not a few English and German naturalists might learn a useful lesson from your example; for the coarse language often used by scientific men towards each other does no good, and only degrades science.
I have been profoundly interested by your book, and some of your experiments are so beautiful, that I actually felt pleasure while being vivisected. It would take up too much space to discuss all the important topics in your book. I fear that you have quite upset the interpretation which I have given of the effects of cutting off the tips of horizontally extended roots, and of those laterally exposed to moisture; but I cannot persuade myself that the horizontal position of lateral branches and roots is due simply to their lessened power of growth. Nor when I think of my experiments with the cotyledons of Phalaris, can I give up the belief of the transmission of some stimulus due to light from the upper to the lower part. At page 60 you have misunderstood my meaning, when you say that I believe that the effects from light are transmitted to a part which is not itself heliotropic. I never considered whether or not the short part beneath the ground was heliotropic; but I believe that with young seedlings the part which bends NEAR, but ABOVE the ground is heliotropic, and I believe so from this part bending only moderately when the light is oblique, and bending rectangularly when the light is horizontal. Nevertheless the bending of this lower part, as I conclude from my experiments with opaque caps, is influenced by the action of light on the upper part. My opinion, however, on the above and many other points, signifies very little, for I have no doubt that your book will convince most botanists that I am wrong in all the points on which we differ.
Independently of the question of transmission, my mind is so full of facts leading me to believe that light, gravity, etc., act not in a direct manner on growth, but as stimuli, that I am quite unable to modify my judgment on this head. I could not understand the passage at page 78, until I consulted my son George, who is a mathematician. He supposes that your objection is founded on the diffused light from the lamp illuminating both sides of the object, and not being reduced, with increasing distance in the same ratio as the direct light; but he doubts whether this NECESSARY correction will account for the very little difference in the heliotropic curvature of the plants in the successive pots.
With respect to the sensitiveness of the tips of roots to contact, I cannot admit your view until it is proved that I am in error about bits of card attached by liquid gum causing movement; whereas no movement was caused if the card remained separated from the tip by a layer of the liquid gum. The fact also of thicker and thinner bits of card attached on opposite sides of the same root by shellac, causing movement in one direction, has to be explained. You often speak of the tip having been injured; but externally there was no sign of injury: and when the tip was plainly injured, the extreme part became curved TOWARDS the injured side. I can no more believe that the tip was injured by the bits of card, at least when attached by gum-water, than that the glands of Drosera are injured by a particle of thread or hair placed on it, or that the human tongue [is so] when it feels any such object.
About the most important subject in my book, namely circumnutation, I can only say that I feel utterly bewildered at the difference in our conclusions; but I could not fully understand some parts which my son Francis will be able to translate to me when he returns home. The greater part of your book is beautifully clear.
Finally, I wish that I had enough strength and spirit to commence a fresh set of experiments, and publish the results, with a full recantation of my errors when convinced of them; but I am too old for such an undertaking, nor do I suppose that I shall be able to do much, or any more, original work. I imagine that I see one possible source of error in your beautiful experiment of a plant rotating and exposed to a lateral light.
With high respect and with sincere thanks for the kind manner in which you have treated me and my mistakes, I remain, my dear Sir, yours sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.
CHAPTER 2.XV.
MISCELLANEOUS BOTANICAL LETTERS.
1873-1882.
[The present chapter contains a series of miscellaneous letters on botanical subjects. Some of them show my father’s varied interests in botanical science, and others give account of researches which never reached completion.]
BLOOM ON LEAVES AND FRUIT.
[His researches into the meaning of the “bloom,” or waxy coating found on many leaves, was one of those inquiries which remained unfinished at the time of his death. He amassed a quantity of notes on the subject, part of which I hope to publish at no distant date. (A small instalment on the relation between bloom and the distribution of the stomata on leaves has appeared in the ‘Journal of the Linnean Society,’ 1886. Tschirsch (“Linnaea”, 1881) has published results identical with some which my father and myself obtained, viz. that bloom diminishes transpiration. The same fact was previously published by Garreau in 1850.)
One of his earliest letters on this subject was addressed in August, 1873, to Sir Joseph Hooker:–
“I want a little information from you, and if you do not yourself know, please to enquire of some of the wise men of Kew.
“Why are the leaves and fruit of so many plants protected by a thin layer of waxy matter (like the common cabbage), or with fine hair, so that when such leaves or fruit are immersed in water they appear as if encased in thin glass? It is really a pretty sight to put a pod of the common pea, or a raspberry into water. I find several leaves are thus protected on the under surface and not on the upper.
“How can water injure the leaves if indeed this is at all the case?”
On this latter point he wrote to Sir Thomas Farrer:–
“I am now become mad about drops of water injuring leaves. Please ask Mr. Paine (Sir Thomas Farrer’s gardener.) whether he believes, FROM HIS OWN EXPERIENCE, that drops of water injure leaves or fruit in his conservatories. It is said that the drops act as burning-glasses; if this is true, they would not be at all injurious on cloudy days. As he is so acute a man, I should very much like to hear his opinion. I remember when I grew hot-house orchids I was cautioned not to wet their leaves; but I never then thought on the subject.
“I enjoyed my visit greatly with you, and I am very sure that all England could not afford a kinder and pleasanter host.”
Some years later he took up the subject again, and wrote to Sir Joseph Hooker (May 25, 1877):–
“I have been looking over my old notes about the “bloom” on plants, and I think that the subject is well worth pursuing, though I am very doubtful of any success. Are you inclined to aid me on the mere chance of success, for without your aid I could do hardly anything?”]
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, June 4 [1877].
…I am now trying to make out the use or function of “bloom,” or the waxy secretion on the leaves and fruit of plants, but am VERY doubtful whether I shall succeed. Can you give me any light? Are such plants commoner in warm than in colder climates? I ask because I often walk out in heavy rain, and the leaves of very few wild dicotyledons can be here seen with drops of water rolling off them like quick-silver. Whereas in my flower garden, greenhouse, and hot-houses there are several. Again, are bloom- protected plants common on your DRY western plains? Hooker THINKS that they are common at the Cape of Good Hope. It is a puzzle to me if they are common under very dry climates, and I find bloom very common on the Acacias and Eucalypti of Australia. Some of the Eucalypti which do not appear to be covered with bloom have the epidermis protected by a layer of some substance which is dissolved in boiling alcohol. Are there any bloom- protected leaves or fruit in the Arctic regions? If you can illuminate me, as you so often have done, pray do so; but otherwise do not bother yourself by answering.
Yours affectionately,
C. DARWIN.
CHARLES DARWIN TO W. THISELTON DYER.
Down, September 5 [1877].
My dear Dyer,
One word to thank you. I declare had it not been for your kindness, we should have broken down. As it is we have made out clearly that with some plants (chiefly succulent) the bloom checks evaporation–with some certainly prevents attacks of insects; with SOME sea-shore plants prevents injury from salt-water, and, I believe, with a few prevents injury from pure water resting on the leaves. This latter is as yet the most doubtful and the most interesting point in relation to the movements of plants…
CHARLES DARWIN TO F. MULLER.
Down, July 4 [1881].
My dear Sir,
Your kindness is unbounded, and I cannot tell you how much your last letter (May 31) has interested me. I have piles of notes about the effect of water resting on leaves, and their movements (as I supposed) to shake off the drops. But I have not looked over these notes for a long time, and had come to think that perhaps my notion was mere fancy, but I had intended to begin experimenting as soon as I returned home; and now with your INVALUABLE letter about the position of the leaves of various plants during rain (I have one analogous case with Acacia from South Africa), I shall be stimulated to work in earnest.
VARIABILITY.
[The following letter refers to a subject on which my father felt the strongest interest:–the experimental investigation of the causes of variability. The experiments alluded to were to some extent planned out, and some preliminary work was begun in the direction indicated below, but the research was ultimately abandoned.]
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.H. GILBERT. (Dr. Gilbert, F.R.S., joint author with Sir John Bennett Lawes of a long series of valuable researches in Scientific Agriculture.)
Down, February 16, 1876.
My dear Sir,
When I met you at the Linnean Society, you were so kind as to say that you would aid me with advice, and this will be of the utmost value to me and my son. I will first state my object, and hope that you will excuse a long letter. It is admitted by all naturalists that no problem is so perplexing as what causes almost every cultivated plant to vary, and no experiments as yet tried have thrown any light on the subject. Now for the last ten years I have been experimenting in crossing and self-fertilising plants; and one indirect result has surprised me much; namely, that by taking pains to cultivate plants in pots under glass during several successive generations, under nearly similar conditions, and by self-fertilising them in each generation, the colour of the flowers often changes, and, what is very remarkable, they became in some of the most variable species, such as Mimulus, Carnation, etc., quite constant, like those of a wild species.
This fact and several others have led me to the suspicion that the cause of variation must be in different substances absorbed from the soil by these plants when their powers of absorption are not interfered with by other plants with which they grow mingled in a state of nature. Therefore my son and I wish to grow plants in pots in soil entirely, or as nearly entirely as is possible, destitute of all matter which plants absorb, and then to give during several successive generations to several plants of the same species as different solutions as may be compatible with their life and health. And now, can you advise me how to make soil approximately free of all the substances which plants naturally absorb? I suppose white silver sand, sold for cleaning harness, etc., is nearly pure silica, but what am I to do for alumina? Without some alumina I imagine that it would be impossible to keep the soil damp and fit for the growth of plants. I presume that clay washed over and over again in water would still yield mineral matter to the carbonic acid secreted by the roots. I should want a good deal of soil, for it would be useless to experimentise unless we could fill from twenty to thirty moderately sized flower-pots every year. Can you suggest any plan? for unless you can it would, I fear, be useless for us to commence an attempt to discover whether variability depends at all on matter absorbed from the soil. After obtaining the requisite kind of soil, my notion is to water one set of plants with nitrate of potassium, another set with nitrate of sodium, and another with nitrate of lime, giving all as much phosphate of ammonia as they seemed to support, for I wish the plants to grow as luxuriantly as possible. The plants watered with nitrate of Na and of Ca would require, I suppose, some K; but perhaps they would get what is absolutely necessary from such soil as I should be forced to employ, and from the rain-water collected in tanks. I could use hard water from a deep well in the chalk, but then all the plants would get lime. If the plants to which I give Nitrate of Na and of Ca would not grow I might give them a little alum.
I am well aware how very ignorant I am, and how crude my notions are; and if you could suggest any other solutions by which plants would be likely to be affected it would be a very great kindness. I suppose that there are no organic fluids which plants would absorb, and which I could procure?
I must trust to your kindness to excuse me for troubling you at such length, and,
I remain, dear Sir, yours sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.
[The next letter to Professor Semper (Professor of Zoology at Wurzburg.) bears on the same subject:]
FROM CHARLES DARWIN TO K. SEMPER.
Down, July 19, 1881.
My dear Professor Semper,
I have been much pleased to receive your letter, but I did not expect you to answer my former one…I cannot remember what I wrote to you, but I am sure that it must have expressed the interest which I felt in reading your book. (Published in the ‘International Scientific Series,’ in 1881, under the title, ‘The Natural Conditions of Existence as they affect Animal Life.’) I thought that you attributed too much weight to the DIRECT action of the environment; but whether I said so I know not, for without being asked I should have thought it presumptuous to have criticised your book, nor should I now say so had I not during the last few days been struck with Professor Hoffmann’s review of his own work in the ‘Botanische Zeitung,’ on the variability of plants; and it is really surprising how little effect he produced by cultivating certain plants under unnatural conditions, as the presence of salt, lime, zinc, etc., etc., during SEVERAL generations. Plants, moreover, were selected which were the most likely to vary under such conditions, judging from the existence of closely-allied forms adapted for these conditions. No doubt I originally attributed too little weight to the direct action of conditions, but Hoffmann’s paper has staggered me. Perhaps hundreds of generations of exposure are necessary. It is a most perplexing subject. I wish I was not so old, and had more strength, for I see lines of research to follow. Hoffmann even doubts whether plants vary more under cultivation than in their native home and under their natural conditions. If so, the astonishing variations of almost all cultivated plants must be due to selection and breeding from the varying individuals. This idea crossed my mind many years ago, but I was afraid to publish it, as I thought that people would say, “how he does exaggerate the importance of selection.”
I still MUST believe that changed conditions give the impulse to variability, but that they act IN MOST CASES in a very indirect manner. But, as I said, it is a most perplexing problem. Pray forgive me for writing at such length; I had no intention of doing so when I sat down to write.
I am extremely sorry to hear, for your own sake and for that of Science, that you are so hard worked, and that so much of your time is consumed in official labour.
Pray believe me, dear Professor Semper, Yours sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.
GALLS.
[Shortly before his death, my father began to experimentise on the possibility of producing galls artificially. A letter to Sir J.D. Hooker (November 3, 1880) shows the interest which he felt in the question:–
“I was delighted with Paget’s Essay (‘Disease in Plants,’ by Sir James Paget.–See “Gardeners’ Chronicle”, 1880.); I hear that he has occasionally attended to this subject from his youth…I am very glad he has called attention to galls: this has always seemed to me a profoundly interesting subject; and if I had been younger would take it up.”
His interest in this subject was connected with his ever-present wish to learn something of the causes of variation. He imagined to himself wonderful galls caused to appear on the ovaries of plants, and by these means he thought it possible that the seed might be influenced, and thus new varieties arise. He made a considerable number of experiments by injecting various reagents into the tissues of leaves, and with some slight indications of success.]
AGGREGATION.
[The following letter gives an idea of the subject of the last of his published papers. (‘Journal of the Linnean Society.’ volume xix, 1882, pages 239 and 262.) The appearances which he observed in leaves and roots attracted him, on account of their relation to the phenomena of aggregation which had so deeply interested him when he was at work on Drosera:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO S.H. VINES. (Reader in Botany in the University of Cambridge.)
Down, November 1, 1881.
My dear Mr. Vines,
As I know how busy you are, it is a great shame to trouble you. But you are so rich in chemical knowledge about plants, and I am so poor, that I appeal to your charity as a pauper. My question is–Do you know of any solid substance in the cells of plants which glycerine and water dissolves? But you will understand my perplexity better if I give you the facts: I mentioned to you that if a plant of Euphorbia peplus is gently dug up and the roots placed for a short time in a weak solution (1 to 10,000 of water, suffices in 24 hours) of carbonate of ammonia the (generally) alternate longitudinal rows of cells in every rootlet, from the root-cap up to the very top of the root (but not as far as I have yet seen in the green stem) become filled with translucent, brownish grains of matter. These rounded grains often cohere and even become confluent. Pure phosphate and nitrate of ammonia produce (though more slowly) the same effect, as does pure carbonate of soda.
Now, if slices of root under a cover-glass are irrigated with glycerine and water, every one of the innumerable grains in the cells disappear after some hours. What am I to think of this.?…
Forgive me for bothering you to such an extent; but I must mention that if the roots are dipped in boiling water there is no deposition of matter, and carbonate of ammonia afterwards produces no effect. I should state that I now find that the granular matter is formed in the cells immediately beneath the thin epidermis, and a few other cells near the vascular tissue. If the granules consisted of living protoplasm (but I can see no traces of movement in them), then I should infer that the glycerine killed them and aggregation ceased with the diffusion of invisibly minute particles, for I have seen an analogous phenomenon in Drosera.
If you can aid me, pray do so, and anyhow forgive me. Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
MR. TORBITT’S EXPERIMENTS ON THE POTATO-DISEASE.
[Mr. James Torbitt, of Belfast, has been engaged for the last twelve years in the difficult undertaking, in which he has been to a large extent successful, of raising fungus-proof varieties of the potato. My father felt great interest in Mr. Torbitt’s work, and corresponded with him from 1876 onwards. The following letter, giving a clear account of Mr. Torbitt’s method and of my father’s opinion of the probability of its success, was written with the idea that Government aid for the work might possibly be obtainable:]
CHARLES DARWIN TO T.H. FARRER.
Down, March 2, 1878.
My dear Farrer,
Mr. Torbitt’s plan of overcoming the potato-disease seems to me by far the best which has ever been suggested. It consists, as you know from his printed letter, of rearing a vast number of seedlings from cross-fertilised parents, exposing them to infection, ruthlessly destroying all that suffer, saving those which resist best, and repeating the process in successive seminal generations. My belief in the probability of good results from this process rests on the fact of all characters whatever occasionally varying. It is known, for instance, that certain species and varieties of the vine resist phylloxera better than others. Andrew Knight found in one variety or species of the apple which was not in the least attacked by coccus, and another variety has been observed in South Australia. Certain varieties of the peach resist mildew, and several other such cases could be given. Therefore there is no great improbability in a new variety of potato arising which would resist the fungus completely, or at least much better than any existing variety. With respect to the cross-fertilisation of two distinct seedling plants, it has been ascertained that the offspring thus raised inherit much more vigorous constitutions and generally are more prolific than seedlings from self-fertilised parents. It is also probable that cross-fertilisation would be especially valuable in the case of the potato, as there is reason to believe that the flowers are seldom crossed by our native insects; and some varieties are absolutely sterile unless fertilised with pollen from a distinct variety. There is some evidence that the good effects from a cross are transmitted for several generations; it would not, therefore be necessary to cross-fertilise the seedlings in each generation, though this would be desirable, as it is almost certain that a greater number of seeds would thus be obtained. It should be remembered that a cross between plants raised from the tubers of the same plant, though growing on distinct roots, does no more good than a cross between flowers on the same individual. Considering the whole subject, it appears to me that it would be a national misfortune if the cross- fertilised seeds in Mr. Torbitt’s possession produced by parents which have already shown some power of resisting the disease, are not utilised by the Government, or some public body, and the process of selection continued during several more generations.
Should the Agricultural Society undertake the work, Mr. Torbitt’s knowledge gained by experience would be especially valuable; and an outline of the plan is given in his printed letter. It would be necessary that all the tubers produced by each plant should be collected separately, and carefully examined in each succeeding generation.
It would be advisable that some kind of potato eminently liable to the disease should be planted in considerable numbers near the seedlings so as to infect them.
Altogether the trial would be one requiring much care and extreme patience, as I know from experience with analogous work, and it may be feared that it would be difficult to find any one who would pursue the experiment with sufficient energy. It seems, therefore, to me highly desirable that Mr. Torbitt should be aided with some small grant so as to continue the work himself.
Judging from his reports, his efforts have already been crowned in so short a time with more success than could have been anticipated; and I think you will agree with me, that any one who raises a fungus-proof potato will be a public benefactor of no common kind.
My dear Farrer, yours sincerely,
CHARLES DARWIN.
[After further consultation with Sir Thomas Farrer and with Mr. Caird, my father became convinced that it was hopeless to attempt to obtain Government aid. He wrote to Mr. Torbitt to this effect, adding, “it would be less trouble to get up a subscription from a few rich leading agriculturists than from Government. This plan I think you cannot object to, as you have asked nothing, and will have nothing whatever to do with the subscription. In fact, the affair is, in my opinion, a compliment to you.” The idea here broached was carried out, and Mr. Torbitt was enabled to continue his work by the aid of a sum to which Sir T. Farrer, Mr. Caird, my father, and a few friends, subscribed.
My father’s sympathy and encouragement were highly valued by Mr. Torbitt, who tells me that without them he should long ago have given up his attempt. A few extracts will illustrate my father’s fellow feeling with Mr. Torbitt’s energy and perseverance:–
“I admire your indomitable spirit. If any one ever deserved success, you do so, and I keep to my original opinion that you have a very good chance of raising a fungus-proof variety of the potato.
“A pioneer in a new undertaking is sure to meet with many disappointments, so I hope that you will keep up your courage, though we have done so very little for you.”
Mr. Torbitt tells me that he still (1887) succeeds in raising varieties possessing well-marked powers of resisting disease; but this immunity is not permanent, and, after some years, the varieties become liable to the attacks of the fungus.]
THE KEW INDEX OF PLANT-NAMES, OR ‘NOMENCLATOR DARWINIANUS.’
[Some account of my father’s connection with the Index of Plant-names now (1887) in course of preparation at Kew will be found in Mr. B. Daydon Jackson’s paper in the ‘Journal of Botany,’ 1887, page 151. Mr. Jackson quotes the following statement by Sir J.D. Hooker:–
“Shortly before his death, Mr. Charles Darwin informed Sir Joseph Hooker that it was his intention to devote a considerable sum of money annually for some years in aid or furtherance of some work or works of practical utility to biological science, and to make provisions in his will in the event of these not being completed during his lifetime.
“Amongst other objects connected with botanical science, Mr. Darwin regarded with especial interest the importance of a complete index to the names and authors of the genera and species of plants known to botanists, together with their native countries. Steudel’s ‘Nomenclator’ is the only existing work of this nature, and although now nearly half a century old, Mr. Darwin had found it of great aid in his own researches. It has been indispensable to every botanical institution, whether as a list of all known flowering plants, as an indication of their authors, or as a digest of botanical geography.”
Since 1840, when the ‘Nomenclator’ was published, the number of described plants may be said to have doubled, so that the ‘Nomenclator’ is now seriously below the requirements of botanical work. To remedy this want, the ‘Nomenclator’ has been from time to time posted up in an interleaved copy in the Herbarium at Kew, by the help of “funds supplied by private liberality.” (Kew Gardens Report, 1881, page 62.)
My father, like other botanists, had as Sir Joseph Hooker points out, experienced the value of Steudel’s work. He obtained plants from all sorts of sources, which were often incorrectly named, and he felt the necessity of adhering to the accepted nomenclature, so that he might convey to other workers precise indications as to the plants which he had studied. It was also frequently a matter of importance to him to know the native country of his experimental plants. Thus it was natural that he should recognize the desirability of completing and publishing the interleaved volume at Kew. The wish to help in this object was heightened by the admiration he felt for the results for which the world has to thank the Royal Gardens at Kew, and by his gratitude for the invaluable aid which for so many years he received from its Director and his staff. He expressly stated that it was his wish “to aid in some way the scientific work carried on at the Royal Gardens” (Kew Gardens Report, 1881, page 62.)–which induced him to offer to supply funds for the completion of the Kew ‘Nomenclator.’
The following passage, for which I am indebted to Professor Judd, is of much interest, as illustrating the motives that actuated my father in this matter. Professor Judd writes:–
“On the occasion of my last visit to him, he told me that his income having recently greatly increased, while his wants remained the same, he was most anxious to devote what he could spare to the advancement of Geology or Biology. He dwelt in the most touching manner on the fact that he owed so much happiness and fame to the natural-history sciences, which had been the solace of what might have been a painful existence;–and he begged me, if I knew of any research which could be aided by a grant of a few hundreds of pounds, to let him know, as it would be a delight to him to feel that he was helping in promoting the progress of science. He informed me at the same time that he was making the same suggestion to Sir Joseph Hooker and Professor Huxley with respect to Botany and Zoology respectively. I was much impressed by the earnestness, and, indeed, deep emotion, with which he spoke of his indebtedness to Science, and his desire to promote its interests.”
Sir Joseph Hooker was asked by my father “to take into consideration, with the aid of the botanical staff at Kew and the late Mr. Bentham, the extent and scope of the proposed work, and to suggest the best means of having it executed. In doing this, Sir Joseph had further the advantage of the great knowledge and experience of Professor Asa Gray, of Cambridge, U.S.A., and of Mr. John Ball, F.R.S.” (‘Journal of Botany,’ loc. cit.)
The plan of the proposed work having been carefully considered, Sir Joseph Hooker was able to confide its elaboration in detail to Mr. B. Daydon Jackson, Secretary of the Linnean Society, whose extensive knowledge of botanical literature qualifies him for the task. My father’s original idea of producing a modern edition of Steudel’s ‘Nomenclator’ has been practically abandoned, the aim now kept in view is rather to construct a list of genera and species (with references) founded on Bentham and Hooker’s ‘Genera Plantarum.’ The colossal nature of the work in progress at Kew may be estimated by the fact that the manuscript of the ‘Index’ is at the present time (1887) believed to weigh more than a ton. Under Sir Joseph Hooker’s supervision the work goes steadily forward, being carried out with admirable zeal by Mr. Jackson, who devotes himself unsparingly to the enterprise, in which, too, he has the advantage of the active interest in the work felt by Professor Oliver and Mr. Thiselton Dyer.
The Kew ‘Index,’ which will, in all probability, be ready to go to press in four or five years, will be a fitting memorial of my father: and his share in its completion illustrates a part of his character–his ready sympathy with work outside his own lines of investigation–and his respect for minute and patient labour in all branches of science.]
CHAPTER 2.XVI.
CONCLUSION.
Some idea of the general course of my father’s health may have been gathered from the letters given in the preceding pages. The subject of health appears more prominently than is often necessary in a Biography, because it was, unfortunately, so real an element in determining the outward form of his life.
During the last ten years of his life the condition of his health was a cause of satisfaction and hope to his family. His condition showed signs of amendment in several particulars. He suffered less distress and discomfort, and was able to work more steadily. Something has been already said of Dr. Bence Jones’s treatment, from which my father certainly derived benefit. In later years he became a patient of Sir Andrew Clark, under whose care he improved greatly in general health. It was not only for his generously rendered service that my father felt a debt of gratitude towards Sir Andrew Clark. He owed to his cheering personal influence an often- repeated encouragement, which laterally added something real to his happiness, and he found sincere pleasure in Sir Andrew’s friendship and kindness towards himself and his children.
Scattered through the past pages are one or two references to pain or uneasiness felt in the region of the heart. How far these indicate that the heart was affected early in life, I cannot pretend to say; in any case it is certain that he had no serious or permanent trouble of this nature until shortly before his death. In spite of the general improvement in his health, which has been above alluded to, there was a certain loss of physical vigour occasionally apparent during the last few years of his life. This is illustrated by a sentence in a letter to his old friend Sir James Sulivan, written on January 10, 1879: “My scientific work tires me more than it used to do, but I have nothing else to do, and whether one is worn out a year or two sooner or later signifies but little.”
A similar feeling is shown in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker of June 15, 1881. My father was staying at Patterdale, and wrote: “I am rather despondent about myself…I have not the heart or strength to begin any investigation lasting years, which is the only thing which I enjoy, and I have no little jobs which I can do.”
In July, 1881, he wrote to Mr. Wallace, “We have just returned home after spending five weeks on Ullswater; the scenery is quite charming, but I cannot walk, and everything tires me, even seeing scenery…What I shall do with my few remaining years of life I can hardly tell. I have everything to make me happy and contented, but life has become very wearisome to me.” He was, however, able to do a good deal of work, and that of a trying sort (On the action of carbonate of ammonia on roots and leaves.), during the autumn of 1881, but towards the end of the year he was clearly in need of rest; and during the winter was in a lower condition than was usual with him.
On December 13 he went for a week to his daughter’s house in Bryanston Street. During his stay in London he went to call on Mr. Romanes, and was seized when on the door-step with an attack apparently of the same kind as those which afterwards became so frequent. The rest of the incident, which I give in Mr. Romanes’ words, is interesting too from a different point of view, as giving one more illustration of my father’s scrupulous consideration for others:–
“I happened to be out, but my butler, observing that Mr. Darwin was ill, asked him to come in, he said he would prefer going home, and although the butler urged him to wait at least until a cab could be fetched, he said he would rather not give so much trouble. For the same reason he refused to allow the butler to accompany him. Accordingly he watched him walking with difficulty towards the direction in which cabs were to be met with, and saw that, when he had got about three hundred yards from the house, he staggered and caught hold of the park-railings as if to prevent himself from falling. The butler therefore hastened to his assistance, but after a few seconds saw him turn round with the evident purpose of retracing his steps to my house. However, after he had returned part of the way he seems to have felt better, for he again changed his mind, and proceeded to find a cab.”
During the last week of February and in the beginning of March, attacks of pain in the region of the heart, with irregularity of the pulse, became frequent, coming on indeed nearly every afternoon. A seizure of this sort occurred about March 7, when he was walking alone at a short distance from the house; he got home with difficulty, and this was the last time that he was able to reach his favourite ‘Sand-walk.’ Shortly after this, his illness became obviously more serious and alarming, and he was seen by Sir Andrew Clark, whose treatment was continued by Dr. Norman Moore, of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, and Mr. Alfrey, of St. Mary Cray. He suffered from distressing sensations of exhaustion and faintness, and seemed to recognise with deep depression the fact that his working days were over. He gradually recovered from this condition, and became more cheerful and hopeful, as is shown in the following letter to Mr. Huxley, who was anxious that my father should have closer medical supervision than the existing arrangements allowed:
Down, March 27, 1882.
My dear Huxley,
Your most kind letter has been a real cordial to me. I have felt better to-day than for three weeks, and have felt as yet no pain. Your plan seems an excellent one, and I will probably act upon it, unless I get very much better. Dr. Clark’s kindness is unbounded to me, but he is too busy to come here. Once again, accept my cordial thanks, my dear old friend. I wish to God there were more automata (The allusion is to Mr. Huxley’s address ‘On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and its History,’ given at the Belfast meeting of the British Association in 1874, and republished in ‘Science and Culture.’) in the world like you.
Ever yours,
CH. DARWIN.”
The allusion to Sir Andrew Clark requires a word of explanation. Sir Andrew Clark himself was ever ready to devote himself to my father, who, however, could not endure the thought of sending for him, knowing how severely his great practice taxed his strength.
No especial change occurred during the beginning of April, but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to reach his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my temporary absence recorded for me the progress of an experiment in which I was engaged. During the night of April 18th, about a quarter to twelve, he had a severe attack and passed into a faint, from which he was brought back to consciousness with great difficulty. He seemed to recognise the approach of death, and said, “I am not the least afraid to die.” All the next morning he suffered from terrible nausea and faintness, and hardly rallied before the end came.
He died at about four o’clock on Wednesday, April 19th, 1882, in the seventy-fourth year of his age.
I close the record of my father’s life with a few words of retrospect added to the manuscript of his ‘Autobiography’ in 1879:–
“As for myself, I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following, and devoting my life to Science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures.”
APPENDIX I.
THE FUNERAL IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
On the Friday succeeding my father’s death, the following letter, signed by twenty members of Parliament, was addressed to Dr. Bradley, Dean of Westminster:–
HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 21, 1882.
Very Rev. Sir,
We hope you will not think we are taking a liberty if we venture to suggest that it would be acceptable to a very large number of our fellow-countrymen of all classes and opinions that our illustrious countryman, Mr. Darwin, should be buried in Westminster Abbey.
We remain, your obedient servants,
JOHN LUBBOCK,
NEVIL STOREY MASKELYNE,
A.J. MUNDELLA,
G.O. TREVELYAN,
LYON PLAYFAIR,
CHARLES W. DILKE,
DAVID WEDDERBURN,
ARTHUR RUSSEL,
HORACE DAVEY,
BENJAMIN ARMITAGE,
RICHARD B. MARTIN,
FRANCIS W. BUXTON,
E.L. STANLEY,
HENRY BROADHURST,
JOHN BARRAN,
F.J. CHEETHAM,
H.S. HOLLAND,
H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,
CHARLES BRUCE,
RICHARD FORT.
The Dean was abroad at the time, and telegraphed his cordial acquiescence.
The family had desired that my father should be buried at Down: with regard to their wishes, Sir John Lubbock wrote:–
HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 25, 1882.
My dear Darwin,
I quite sympathise with your feeling, and personally I should greatly have preferred that your father should have rested in Down amongst us all. It is, I am sure, quite understood that the initiative was not taken by you. Still, from a national point of view, it is clearly right that he should be buried in the Abbey. I esteem it a great privilege to be allowed to accompany my dear master to the grave.
Believe me, yours most sincerely,
JOHN LUBBOCK.
W.E. DARWIN, ESQ.
The family gave up their first-formed plans, and the funeral took place in Westminster Abbey on April 26th. The pall-bearers were:–
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,
MR. HUXLEY,
MR. JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL (American Minister), MR. A.R. WALLACE,
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE,
CANON FARRAR,
SIR J.D. HOOKER,
MR. WM. SPOTTISWOODE (President of the Royal Society), THE EARL OF DERBY,
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.
The funeral was attended by the representatives of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, and by those of the Universities, and learned Societies, as well as by large numbers of personal friends and distinguished men.
The grave is in the North aisle of the Nave close to the angle of the choir-screen, and a few feet from the grave of Sir Isaac Newton. The stone bears the inscription–
CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN.
Born 12 February, 1809.
Died 19 April, 1882.
APPENDIX II.
I.–LIST OF WORKS BY CHARLES DARWIN.
Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of Her Majesty’s Ships ‘Adventure’ and ‘Beagle’ between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the Southern shores of South America, and the ‘Beagle’s’ circumnavigation of the globe. Volume iii. Journal and Remarks, 1832-1836. By Charles Darwin. 8vo. London, 1839.
Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. ‘Beagle’ round the world, under the command of Captain Fitz-Roy, R.N. 2nd edition, corrected, with additions. 8vo. London, 1845. (Colonial and Home Library.)
A Naturalist’s Voyage. Journal of Researches, etc., 8vo. London, 1860. [Contains a postscript dated February 1, 1860.]
Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. ‘Beagle.’ Edited and superintended by Charles Darwin. Part I. Fossil Mammalia, by Richard Owen. With a Geological Introduction, by Charles Darwin. 4to. London, 1840.
–Part II. Mammalia, by George R. Waterhouse. With a notice of their habits and ranges, by Charles Darwin. 4to. London, 1839.
–Part III. Birds, by John Gould. An “Advertisement” (2 pages) states that in consequence of Mr. Gould’s having left England for Australia, many descriptions were supplied by Mr. G.R. Gray of the British Museum. 4to. London, 1841.
–Part IV. Fish, by Rev. Leonard Jenyns. 4to. London, 1842.
–Part V. Reptiles, by Thomas Bell. 4to. London, 1843.
The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. Being the First Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the ‘Beagle.’ 8vo. London, 1842.
The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. 2nd edition. 8vo. London, 1874.
Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands, visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. ‘Beagle.’ Being the Second Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the ‘Beagle.’ 8vo. London, 1844.
Geological Observations on South America. Being the Third Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the ‘Beagle.’ 8vo. London, 1846.
Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands and parts of South America visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. ‘Beagle.’ 2nd edition. 8vo. London, 1876.
A Monograph of the Fossil Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes of Great Britain. 4to. London, 1851. (Palaeontographical Society.)
A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes. 8vo. London, 1851. (Ray Society.)
–The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, etc. 8vo. London, 1854. (Ray Society.)
A Monograph of the Fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae of Great Britain. 4to. London, 1854. (Palaeontographical Society.)
On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 8vo. London, 1859. (Dated October 1st, 1859, published November 24, 1859.)
–Fifth thousand. 8vo. London, 1860.
–Third edition, with additions and corrections. (Seventh thousand.) 8vo. London, 1861. (Dated March, 1861.)
–Fourth edition with additions and corrections. (Eighth thousand.) 8vo. London, 1866. (Dated June, 1866.)
–Fifth edition, with additions and corrections. (Tenth thousand.) 8vo. London, 1869. (Dated May, 1869.)
–Sixth edition, with additions and corrections to 1872. (Twenty-fourth thousand.) 8vo. London, 1882. (Dated January, 1872.)
On the various contrivances by which Orchids are fertilised by Insects. 8vo. London, 1862.
–Second edition. 8vo. London, 1877. [In the second edition the word “On” is omitted from the title.]
The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants. Second edition. 8vo. London, 1875. [First appeared in the ninth volume of the ‘Journal of the Linnean Society.’]
The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. 2 volumes. 8vo. London, 1868.
–Second edition, revised. 2 volumes. 8vo. London, 1875.
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2 volumes. 8vo. London, 1871.
–Second edition. 8vo. London, 1874. (In 1 volume.)
The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. 8vo. London, 1872.
Insectivorous Plants. 8vo. London, 1875.
The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom. 8vo. London, 1876.
–Second edition. 8vo. London, 1878.
The different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the same Species. 8vo. London, 1877.
–Second edition. 8vo. London, 1880.
The Power of Movement in Plants. By Charles Darwin, assisted by Francis Darwin. 8vo. London, 1880.
The Formation of Vegetable Mould, through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits. 8vo. London, 1881.
II.–LIST OF BOOKS CONTAINING CONTRIBUTIONS BY CHARLES DARWIN.
A Manual of scientific enquiry; prepared for the use of Her Majesty’s Navy: and adapted for travellers in general. Edited by Sir John F.W. Herschel, Bart. 8vo. London, 1849. (Section VI. Geology. By Charles Darwin.)
Memoir of the Rev. John Stevens Henslow. By the Rev. Leonard Jenyns. 8vo. London, 1862. [In Chapter III., Recollections by Charles Darwin.]
A letter (1876) on the ‘Drift’ near Southampton published in Prof. J. Geikie’s ‘Prehistoric Europe.’
Flowers and their unbidden guests. By A. Kerner. With a Prefatory Letter by Charles Darwin. The translation revised and edited by W. Ogle. 8vo. London, 1878.
Erasmus Darwin. By Ernst Krause. Translated from the German by W.S. Dallas. With a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin. 8vo. London, 1879.
Studies in the Theory of Descent. By August Weismann. Translated and edited by Raphael Meldola. With a Prefatory Notice by Charles Darwin. 8vo. London, 1880–.
The Fertilisation of Flowers. By Hermann Muller. Translated and edited by D’Arcy W. Thompson. With a Preface by Charles Darwin. 8vo. London, 1883.
Mental Evolution in Animals. By G.J. Romanes. With a posthumous essay on instinct by Charles Darwin, 1883. [Also published in the Journal of the Linnean Society.]
Some Notes on a curious habit of male humble bees were sent to Prof. Hermann Muller, of Lippstadt, who had permission from Mr. Darwin to make what use he pleased of them. After Muller’s death the Notes were given by his son to Dr. E. Krause, who published them under the title, “Ueber die Wege der Hummel-Mannchen” in his book, ‘Gesammelte kleinere Schriften von Charles Darwin.’ (1886).
III.–LIST OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS, INCLUDING A SELECTION OF LETTERS AND SHORT COMMUNICATIONS TO SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS.
Letters to Professor Henslow, read by him at the meeting of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, held November 16, 1835. 31 pages. 8vo. Privately printed for distribution among the members of the Society.
Geological Notes made during a survey of the East and West Coasts of South America in the years 1832, 1833, 1834, and 1835; with an account of a transverse section of the Cordilleras of the Andes between Valparaiso and Mendoza. [Read November 18, 1835.] Geology Society Proc. ii. 1838, pages 210-212. [This Paper is incorrectly described in Geology Society Proc. ii., page 210 as follows:–“Geological notes, etc., by F. Darwin, Esq., of St. John’s College, Cambridge: communicated by Prof. Sedgwick.” It is Indexed under C. Darwin.]
Notes upon the Rhea Americana. Zoology Society Proc., Part v. 1837. pages 35-36.
Observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili, made during the survey of H.M.S. “Beagle,” commanded by Captain Fitz-Roy. [1837.] Geological Society Proc. ii.1838, pages 446-449.
A sketch of the deposits containing extinct Mammalia in the neighbourhood of the Plata. [1837.] Geological Society Proc. ii. 1838, pages 542-544.
On certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations. [1837.] Geological Society Proc. ii. 1838, pages 552-554.
On the Formation of Mould. [Read November 1, 1837.] Geological Society Proc. ii. 1838, pages 574-576; Geological Society Transactions v. 1840, pages 505-510.
On the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena and on the formation of mountain-chains and the effects of continental elevations. [Read March 7, 1838.] Geological Society Proc. ii. 1838, pages 654-660; Geological Society Transactions v. 1840, pages 601-632. [In the Society’s Transactions the wording of the title is slightly different.]
Origin of saliferous deposits. Salt Lakes of Patagonia and La Plata. Geological Society Journal ii. (Part ii.), 1838, pages 127-128.
Note on a Rock seen on an Iceberg in 16 deg South Latitude. Geographical Society Journal ix. 1839, pages 528-529.
Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of other parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an attempt to prove that they are of marine origin. Phil. Trans. 1839, pages 39-82.
On a remarkable Bar of Sandstone off Pernambuco, on the Coast of Brazil. Phil. Mag. xix. 1841, pages 257-260.
On the Distribution of the Erratic Boulders and on the Contemporaneous Unstratified Deposits of South America. [1841.] Geological Society Proc. iii. 1842, pages 425-430; Geological Society Transactions vi. 1842, pages 415-432.
Notes on the Effects produced by the Ancient Glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the Boulders transported by Floating Ice. London Philosophical Magazine volume xxi. page 180. 1842.
Remarks on the preceding paper, in a Letter from Charles Darwin, Esq., to Mr. Maclaren. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal xxxiv. 1843, pages 47- 50. [The “preceding” paper is: “On Coral Islands and Reefs as described by Mr. Darwin. By Charles Maclaren, Esq., F.R.S.E.”]
Observations on the Structure and Propagation of the genus Sagitta. Annals and Magazine of Natural History xiii. 1844, pages 1-6.
Brief descriptions of several Terrestrial Planariae, and of some remarkable Marine Species, with an Account of their Habits. Annals and Magazine of Natural History xiv. 1844, pages 241-251.
An account of the Fine Dust which often falls on Vessels in the Atlantic Ocean. Geological Society Journal ii. 1846, pages 26-30.
On the Geology of the Falkland Islands. Geological Society Journal ii. 1846, pages 267-274.
A review of Waterhouse’s ‘Natural History of the Mammalia.’ [Not signed.] Annals and Magazine of Natural History 1847. Volume xix. page 53.
On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a lower to a higher level. Geological Society Journal iv. 1848, pages 315-323.
On British fossil Lepadidae. Geological Society Journal vi. 1850, pages 439-440. [The G.S.J. says “This paper was withdrawn by the author with the permission of the Council.”]
Analogy of the Structure of some Volcanic Rocks with that of Glaciers. Edinburgh Royal Society Proc. ii. 1851, pages 17-18.
On the power of Icebergs to make rectilinear, uniformly-directed Grooves across a Submarine Undulatory Surface. Philosophical Magazine x. 1855, pages 96-98.
Vitality of Seeds. “Gardeners’ Chronicle”, November 17, 1855, page 758.
On the action of Sea-water on the Germination of Seeds. [1856.] Linnean Society Journal i. 1857 (“Botany”), pages 130-140.
On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers. “Gardeners’ Chronicle”, page 725, 1857.
On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. By Charles Darwin, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S., and F.G.S., and Alfred Wallace, Esq. [Read July 1st, 1858.] Journal of the Linnean Society 1859, volume iii. (“Zoology”), page 45.
Special titles of Charles Darwin’s contributions to the foregoing:–
i. Extract from an unpublished work on Species by Charles Darwin Esq., consisting of a portion of a chapter entitled, “On the Variation of Organic Beings in a State of Nature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison of Domestic Races and true Species.”
ii. Abstract of a Letter from C. Darwin, Esq., to Professor Asa Gray, of Boston U.S., dated September 5, 1857.
On the Agency of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers, and on the Crossing of Kidney Beans. “Gardeners’ Chronicle”, 1858, page 828 and Annals of Natural History 3rd series ii. 1858, pages 459-465.
Do the Tineina or other small Moths suck Flowers, and if so what Flowers? “Entomological Weekly Intelligencer” volume viii. 1860, page 103.
Note on the achenia of Pumilio Argyrolepis. “Gardeners’ Chronicle”, January 5, 1861, page 4.
Fertilisation of Vincas. “Gardeners’ Chronicle”, pages 552, 831, 832. 1861.
On the Two Forms, or Dimorphic Condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable Sexual Relations. Linnean Society Journal vi. 1862 (“Botany”), pages 77-96.
On the Three remarkable Sexual Forms of Catasetum tridentatum, an Orchid in the possession of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society Journal vi. 1862 (“Botany”), pages 151-157.
Yellow Rain. “Gardeners’ Chronicle”, July 18, 1863, page 675.
On the thickness of the Pampean formation near Buenos Ayres. Geological Society Journal xix. 1863, pages 68-71.
On the so-called “Auditory-sac” of Cirripedes. Natural History Review, 1863, pages 115-116.
A review of Mr. Bates’ paper on ‘Mimetic Butterflies.’ Natural History Review, 1863, page 221-. [Not signed.]
On the existence of two forms, and on their reciprocal sexual relation, in several species of the genus Linum. Linnean Society Journal vii. 1864 (“Botany”), pages 69-83.
On the Sexual Relations of the Three Forms of Lythrum salicaria. [1864.] Linnean Society Journal viii. 1865 (“Botany”), pages 169-196.
On the Movement and Habits of Climbing Plants. [1865.] Linnean Society Journal ix. 1867 (“Botany”), pages 1-118.
Note on the Common Broom (Cytisus scoparius). [1866.] Linnean Society Journal ix. 1867 (“Botany”), page 358.
Notes on the Fertilization of Orchids. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4th series, iv. 1869, pages 141-159.
On the Character and Hybrid-like Nature of the Offspring from the Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants. [1868.] Linnean Society Journal x. 1869 (“Botany”), pages 393-437.
On the Specific Difference between Primula veris, British Fl. (var. officinalis, of Linn.), P. vulgaris, British Fl. (var. acaulis, Linn.), and P. elatior, Jacq.; and on the Hybrid Nature of the common Oxlip. With Supplementary Remarks on naturally produced Hybrids in the genus Verbascum. [1868.] Linnean Society Journal x. 1869 (“Botany”), pages 437-454.
Note on the Habits of the Pampas Woodpecker (Colaptes campestris). Zoological Society Proceedings November 1, 1870, pages 705-706.
Fertilisation of Leschenaultia. “Gardeners’ Chronicle”, page 1166, 1871.
The Fertilisation of Winter-flowering Plants. ‘Nature,’ November 18, 1869, volume i. page 85.
Pangenesis. ‘Nature,’ April 27, 1871, volume iii. page 502.
A new view of Darwinism. ‘Nature,’ July 6, 1871, volume iv. page 180.
Bree on Darwinism. ‘Nature,’ August 8, 1872, volume vi. page 279.
Inherited Instinct. ‘Nature,’ February 13, 1873, volume vii. page 281.
Perception in the Lower Animals. ‘Nature,’ March 13, 1873, volume vii. page 360.
Origin of certain instincts. ‘Nature,’ April 3, 1873, volume vii. page 417.
Habits of Ants. ‘Nature,’ July 24, 1873, volume viii. page 244.
On the Males and Complemental Males of Certain Cirripedes, and on Rudimentary Structures. ‘Nature,’ September 25, 1873, volume viii. page 431.
Recent researches on Termites and Honey-bees. ‘Nature,’ February 19, 1874, volume ix. page 308.
Fertilisation of the Fumariaceae. ‘Nature,’ April 16, 1874, volume ix. page 460.
Flowers of the Primrose destroyed by Birds. ‘Nature,’ April 23, 1874, volume ix. page 482; May 14, 1874, volume x. page 24.
Cherry Blossoms. ‘Nature,’ May 11, 1876, volume xiv. page 28.
Sexual Selection in relation to Monkeys. ‘Nature,’ November 2, 1876, volume xv. page 18. Reprinted as a supplement to the ‘Descent of Man,’ 18..
Fritz Muller on Flowers and Insects. ‘Nature,’ November 29, 1877, volume xvii. page 78.
The Scarcity of Holly Berries and Bees. “Gardeners’ Chronicle”, January 20, 1877, page 83.
Note on Fertilization of Plants. “Gardeners’ Chronicle”, volume vii. page 246, 1877.
A biographical sketch of an infant. ‘Mind,’ No.7, July, 1877.
Transplantation of Shells. ‘Nature,’ May 30, 1878, volume xviii. page 120.
Fritz Muller on a Frog having Eggs on its back–on the abortion of the hairs on the legs of certain Caddis-Flies, etc. ‘Nature,’ March 20, 1879, volume xix. page 462.
Rats and Water-Casks. ‘Nature,’ March 27, 1879, volume xix. page 481.
Fertility of Hybrids from the common and Chinese Goose. ‘Nature,’ January 1, 1880, volume xxi. page 207.
The Sexual Colours of certain Butterflies. ‘Nature,’ January 8, 1880, volume xxi. page 237.
The Omori Shell Mounds. ‘Nature,’ April 15, 1880, volume xxi. page 561.
Sir Wyville Thomson and Natural Selection. ‘Nature,’ November 11, 1880, volume xxiii. page 32.
Black Sheep. ‘Nature,’ December 30, 1880, volume xxiii. page 193.
Movements of Plants. ‘Nature,’ March 3, 1881, volume xxiii. page 409.
The Movements of Leaves. ‘Nature,’ April 28, 1881, volume xxiii. page 603.
Inheritance. ‘Nature,’ July 21, 1881, volume xxiv. page 257.
Leaves injured at Night by Free Radiation. ‘Nature,’ September 15, 1881, volume xxiv. page 459.
The Parasitic Habits of Molothrus. ‘Nature,’ November 17, 1881, volume xxv. page 51.
On the Dispersal of Freshwater Bivalves. ‘Nature,’ April 6, 1882, volume xxv. page 529.
The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on the Roots of certain Plants. [Read March 16, 1882.] Linnean Society Journal (“Botany”), volume xix. 1882, pages 239-261.
The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll-bodies. [Read March 6, 1882.] Linnean Society Journal (“Botany”), volume xix. 1882, pages 262- 284.
On the modification of a Race of Syrian Street-Dogs by means of Sexual Selection. By W. Van Dyck. With a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin. [Read April 18, 1882.] Proceedings of the Zoological Society 1882, pages 367-370.
APPENDIX III.
PORTRAITS.
1838: Water-colour by G. Richmond in the possession of The Family.
1851: Lithograph by Ipswich British Association Series.
1853: Chalk Drawing by Samuel Lawrence in the possession of The Family.
1853?: Chalk Drawing (Probably a sketch made at one of the sittings for the last mentioned.) by Samuel Lawrence in the possession of Prof. Hughes, Cambridge.
1869: Bust, marble, by T. Woolner, R.A. in the possession of The Family.
1875: Oil Painting (A replica by the artist is in the possession of Christ’s College, Cambridge.) by W. Ouless, R.A., etched by P. Rajon, in the possession of The Family.
1879: Oil Painting by W.B. Richmond in the possession of The University of Cambridge.
1881: Oil Painting (A replica by the artist is in the possession of W.E. Darwin, Esq., Southampton.) by the Hon. John Collier, in the possession of The Linnaean Society, etched by Leopold Flameng.
CHIEF PORTRAITS AND MEMORIALS NOT TAKEN FROM LIFE.
Statue by Joseph Boehm, R.A., in the possession of Museum, South Kensington.
Bust by Chr. Lehr, Junr.
Plaque by T. Woolner, R.A., and Josiah Wedgwood and Sons in the possession of Christ’s College, in Charles Darwin’s Room.
Deep Medallion by J. Boehm, R.A. to be placed in Westminster Abbey.
CHIEF ENGRAVINGS FROM PHOTOGRAPHS.
1854?: By Messrs. Maull and Fox, engraved on wood for ‘Harper’s Magazine’ (October 1884).
1870?: By O.J. Rejlander, engraved on steel by C.H. Jeens for ‘Nature’ (June 4, 1874).
1874?: By Captain Darwin, R.E., engraved on wood for the ‘Century Magazine’ (January 1883). Frontispiece, volume i.
(The dates of these photographs must, from various causes, remain uncertain. Owing to a loss of books by fire, Messrs. Maull and Fox can give only an approximate date. Mr. Rejlander died some years ago, and his business was broken up. My brother, captain Darwin, has no record of the date at which his photograph was taken.)
1881: By Messrs. Elliott and Fry, engraved on wood by G. Kruells, for the present work.
APPENDIX IV.
HONOURS, DEGREES, SOCIETIES, ETC.
(The list has been compiled from the diplomas and letters in my father’s possession, and is no doubt incomplete, as he seems to have lost or mislaid some of the papers received from foreign Societies. Where the name of a foreign Society (excluding those in the United States) is given in English, it is a translation of the Latin (or in one case Russian) of the original Diploma.)
ORDER.–Prussian Order, ‘Pour le Merite.’ 1867.
OFFICE.–County Magistrate. 1857.
DEGREES.
Cambridge:
B.A. 1831 [1832]. See volume i.
M.A. 1837.
Hon. LL.D. 1877.
Breslau: Hon. Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. 1862.
Bonn: Hon. Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. 1868.
Leyden: Hon. M.D. 1875.
SOCIETIES.–London:
Zoological. Corresponding Member. 1831. (He afterwards became a Fellow of the Society.)
Entomological. 1833, Original Member. Geological. 1836. Wollaston Medal, 1859. Royal Geographical. 1838.
Royal. 1839. Royal Medal, 1853. Copley Medal, 1864. Linnean. 1854.
Ethnological. 1861.
Medico-Chirurgical. Hon. Member. 1868. Baly Medal of the Royal College of Physicians, 1879.
SOCIETIES.–PROVINCIAL, COLONIAL, AND INDIAN.
Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1865.
Royal Medical Society of Edinburgh, 1826. Hon. Member, 1861. Royal Irish Academy. Hon. Member, 1866.
Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester. Hon. Member, 1868. Watford Natural History Society. Hon. Member, 1877. Asiatic Society of Bengal. Hon. Member, 1871. Royal Society of New South Wales. Hon. Member, 1879. Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, New Zealand. Hon. Member, 1863. New Zealand Institute. Hon. Member, 1872.
FOREIGN SOCIETIES.–AMERICA.
Sociedad Cientifica Argentina. Hon. Member, 1877. Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Argentine Republic. Hon. Member, 1878. Sociedad Zoologica Arjentina. Hon. Member, 1874. Boston Society of Natural History. Hon. Member, 1873. American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Boston). Foreign Hon. Member, 1874. California Academy of Sciences. Hon. Member, 1872. California State Geological Society. Corresponding Member, 1877. Franklin Literary Society, Indiana. Hon. Member, 1878. Sociedad de Naturalistas Neo-Granadinos. Hon. Member, 1860. New York Academy of Sciences. Hon. Member, 1879. Gabinete Portuguez de Leitura em Pernambuco. Corresponding Member, 1879. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Correspondent, 1860. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Member, 1869.
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.
Imperial Academy of Sciences of Vienna. Foreign Corresponding Member, 1871; Hon. Foreign Member, 1875.
Anthropologische Gesellschaft in Wien. Hon. Member, 1872. K. k. Zoologisch-botanische Gesellschaft in Wien. Member, 1867. Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, Pest, 1872.
BELGIUM.
Societe Royale des Sciences Medicales et Naturelles de Bruxelles. Hon. Member, 1878.
Societie Royale de Botanique de Belgique. ‘Membre Associe,’ 1881. Academie Royale des Sciences, etc., de Belgique. ‘Associe de la Classe des Sciences.’ 1870.
DENMARK.
Royal Society of Copenhagen. Fellow, 1879.
FRANCE.
Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris. Foreign Member, 1871. Societe Entomologique de France. Hon. Member, 1874. Societe Geologique de France (Life Member), 1837. Institut de France. ‘Correspondant’ Section of Botany, 1878.
GERMANY.
Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences (Berlin). Corresponding Member, 1863; Fellow, 1878.
Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, etc. Corresponding Member, 1877. Schlesische Gesellschaft fur Vaterlandische Cultur (Breslau). Hon. Member 1878.
Caesarea Leopoldino-Carolina Academia Naturae Curiosorum (Dresden). 1857. (The diploma contains the words “accipe…ex antiqua nostra consuetudine cognomen Forster.” It was formerly the custom in the “Caesarea Leopoldino- Carolina Academia”, that each new member should receive as a ‘cognomen,’ a name celebrated in that branch of science to which he belonged. Thus a physician might be christened Boerhave, or an astronomer, Kepler. My father seems to have been named after the traveller John Reinhold Forster.) Senkenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft zu Frankfurt am Main. Corresponding Member, 1873.
Naturforschende Gesellschaft zu Halle. Member 1879. Siebenburgische Verein fur Naturwissenschaften (Hermannstadt). Hon. Member, 1877.
Medicinisch-naturwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft zu Jena. Hon. Member, 1878.
Royal Bavarian Academy of Literature and Science (Munich). Foreign Member, 1878.
HOLLAND.
Koninklijke Natuurkundige Vereeniging in Nederlandsch-Indie (Batavia). Corresponding Member, 1880.
Societe Hollandaise des Sciences a Harlem. Foreign Member, 1877. Zeeuwsch Genootschap der Wetenschappen te Middelburg. Foreign Member, 1877.
ITALY.
Societa Geografica Italiana (Florence). 1870. Societa Italiana di Antropologia e di Etnologia (Florence). Hon. Member, 1872.
Societa dei Naturalisti in Modena. Hon. Member, 1875. Academia de’ Lincei di Roma. Foreign Member, 1875. La Scuola Italica, Academia Pitagorica, Reale ed Imp. Societa (Rome). “Presidente Onoraria degli Anziani Pitagorici,” 1880. Royal Academy of Turin. 1873. “Bressa” Prize, 1879.
PORTUGAL.
Sociedade de Geographia de Lisboa (Lisbon). Corresponding Member, 1877.
RUSSIA.
Society of Naturalists of the Imperial Kazan University. Hon. Member, 1875.
Societas Caesarea Naturae Curiosorum (Moscow). Hon. Member, 1870. Imperial Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg). Corresponding Member, 1867.
SPAIN.
Institucion Libre de Ensenanza (Madrid). Hon. Professor, 1877.
SWEDEN.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (Stockholm). Foreign Member, 1865. Royal Society of Sciences (Upsala). Fellow, 1860.
SWITZERLAND.
Societe des Sciences Naturelles de Neuchatel. Corresponding Member, 1863.
INDEX.
ABBOT, F.E., letter to.
ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES (Philadelphia) elects Darwin a member.
AGASSIZ, Alexander, letter to.
AGASSIZ, Louis, Darwin’s estimate of. Letters to.
His attitude toward the ‘Origin of Species.’ Reviews the ‘Origin of Species.’
AGGREGATION, studied by Darwin.
‘ALMANACK, THE NATURALISTS’ POCKET,’ mentioned.
ANDES, Darwin crosses the.
‘ANNALS AND MAGAZINE OF NATURAL HISTORY,’ mentioned.
ANTICIPATION of Darwin’s views.
ANTS, observations on.
APPLETON, D., & CO., publish ‘Origin of Species’ in America.
ARGYLL, Duke of, criticises the ‘Origin of Species.’ Darwin’s comments on his criticisms.
Darwin on his ‘Reign of Law.’
Reviews the ‘Fertilisation of Orchids.’
ARISTOTLE, Darwin’s estimate of.
ARRANGEMENT of leaves on the stems of plants.
‘ATHENAEUM,’ Darwin on its review of the ‘Origin of Species.’ Reports British Association discussion.
Darwin’s letters to, in his own defence. Criticises Darwin.
AUSTRALIA, development of animals in.
AUSTRALIAN flora.
AUSTRIAN expedition.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY, extracts from.
AVELING, Dr., on Darwin’s religious views. Note.
BAIN, Alexander, letter to.
BALFOUR, Francis M., Darwin’s estimate of.
BALY medal presented to Darwin.
BAER, K.E. von, agrees with Darwin.
BASTIAN, H.C., Darwin on his ‘Beginnings of Life.’
BATES, H.W., Darwin on his insect fauna of the Amazon valley. Letters to.
Darwin on his mimetic variations of butterflies.
BATS.
“BEAGLE”, voyage of.
Darwin offered an appointment to the. Her equipments.
Object of her voyage.
Her crew.
BEETLES, collecting.
BEHRENS, W., letter to.
BELL, T., describes Darwin’s reptiles.
BELL-STONE of Shrewsbury mentioned.
BELT, Thomas, Darwin on his ‘Naturalist in Nicaragua.’
BEMMELEN, A. van, letter to.
BENTHAM, George, his silence on natural selection. Letter to Francis Darwin on his adoption of Darwin’s views. His view of natural selection.
Letters to.
BERKELEY, Rev. M.J., reviews the ‘Fertilisation of Orchids.’
BERLIN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES elects Darwin corresponding member.
BET made by Darwin.
BLOMEFIELD (JENYNS), Rev. Leonard, Darwin becomes acquainted with. Letters to.
Darwin on his ‘Observations in Natural History.’
BLOOM on leaves and fruit, Darwin’s work on.
BLYTH, Edward, mentioned.
BOOLE, Mrs., her letter on natural selection and religion. Letter to.
BOOTT, Francis, mentioned.
BOTANY, Darwin’s work on, and its relation to natural selection.
BOWEN, Francis, reviews the ‘Origin of Species.’
BRACE, C.L., and wife, Darwin on their philanthropic work.
BRAZIL, Emperor of, wishes to meet Darwin.
BREE, C.R., his work ‘Species not Transmutable.’ Accuses Wallace of blundering, and is answered by Darwin.
BREEDING, sources of information on.
BRESSA prize presented to Darwin.
BRITISH ASSOCIATION discusses the ‘Origin of Species.’ Oxford meeting of, allegorized.
Belfast meeting.
BRONN, H.G., edits the ‘Origin of Species’ in German. Letters to.
Criticisms on the ‘Origin of Species.’
BROWN, Robert, mentioned.
BRUNTON, T. Lauder, letter to.
BUCKLE, his system of collecting facts. Darwin on his ‘History of Civilisation.’
BUCKLEY, Miss A.B., letters to.
BUFFON, Darwin on.
BUNBURY, Sir C., mentioned.
BUTLER, Samuel, charges Darwin of falsehood.
BUTLER, Dr., his school at Shrewsbury.
BUTTON, Jemmy, a visit to.
CAIRNS, J.E., his lecture on ‘The Slave Power.’
CAM BRIDGE, University of, makes Darwin LL.D. Obtains memorial portrait of him.
CAMERON, Mrs., makes a photograph of Darwin.
CANARY ISLANDS, projected trip to.
CANDOLLE, Alphonse de, letters to.
His view of the ‘Origin of Species.’ Darwin on his ‘Histoire des Sciences et des Savants.’
CARLYLE, Thomas, on Erasmus A. Darwin. His interesting talk.
CARPENTER, W.B., letters to.
Reviews the ‘Origin of Species.’
His work on ‘Foraminifera.’
CARUS, J. Victor, letters to.
CATON, John D., letter to.
CHAMBERS, R., Darwin on his geological views.
CHANCE, not implied in evolution.
CHIMNEY-SWEEPS, Darwin’s efforts for.
CIRRIPEDIA, monograph of the.
Nomenclature of.
Work on.
The so-called auditory sac of.
CIVIL WAR in the United States.
Darwin on.
CLARK, William, mentioned.
CLARK, Sir Andrew, is Darwin’s physician.
CLIMATE and migration.
‘CLIMBING PLANTS,’ written and published. Work on.
Republished in book-form.
COAL, discussion on submarine.
COHN, Prof., describes a visit to Darwin.
COLENSO, Bishop, his ‘Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua.’
COLLECTING, Darwin on.
Butterflies.
COLLIER, John, paints Darwin’s portrait.
COLOURS OF INSECTS.
CONTINENTAL EXTENSION, Darwin’s reasons against.
CONTINENTS, permanence of.
COPE, E.D., Darwin on his theory of acceleration.
COPLEY MEDAL presented to Darwin.
‘CORAL REEFS,’ at work upon.
Opinions on.
Criticised by Semper.
Darwin’s answer to Semper.
Darwin on Murray’s criticisms of.
Second edition.
CRAWFORD, John, reviews the ‘Origin of Species.’
CREATIVE POWER.
‘CREED OF SCIENCE,’ read by Darwin.
CRESY, E., letter to.
CRICK, W.D., communicates to Darwin a mode of dispersal of bivalve shells.
CUTTING EDGES OF BOOKS, Darwin on.
DANA, Prof., sends Darwin ‘Geology of U.S. Expedition.’
DARESTE, Camille, letter to.
DARWIN FAMILY.
DARWIN, Annie, Darwin’s account of.
Death of.
DARWIN, Miss C., letter to.
DARWIN, Catherine, letters to.
DARWIN, Charles, studies medicine at Edinburgh. Young man of great promise.
DARWIN, Charles Robert (1809-1882).
Table of relationship.
Ancestors.
Personal characteristics as traced from his forefathers. Love and respect for his father’s memory. His affection for his brother Erasmus.
Autobiography.
Mother dies.
Taste for natural history.
School-boy experiences.
Humane disposition toward animals.
Goes to Dr. Butler’s school at Shrewsbury. Taste for long, solitary walks.
Inability to master a language.
Leaves school with strong and diversified tastes. Fondness for poetry in early life.
A wish to travel first roused by reading ‘Wonders of the World.’ Fondness for shooting.
Collects minerals and becomes interested in insects and birds. Studies chemistry.
Goes to Edinburgh University.
And attends medical lectures.
Collects and dissects marine animals. Attends meetings of the Plinian Royal Medical and Wernerian societies. Attends lectures on geology and zoology. Meets Sir J. Mackintosh.
Spends three years at Cambridge studying for the ministry. Phrenological characteristics.
Reads Paley with delight.
Attends Henslow’s lectures on botany. His taste for pictures and music.
His interest in entomology.
Friendship of Prof. Henslow and its influence upon his career. Meets Dr. Whewell.
Reads Humboldt’s ‘Personal Narrative’ and Herschel’s ‘Introduction to the Study of Natural History.’
Begins the study of geology.
Field-work in North Wales.
Voyage of the “Beagle”.
Receives a proposal to sail in the “Beagle”. Starts for Cambridge and thence to London. ‘Voyage of the “Beagle” the most important event in my life.’ Sails in the “Beagle”.
His letters read before the Philosophical Society of Cambridge. Returns to England.
Begins his ‘Journal of Travels.’
Takes lodgings in London.
Begins preparing MS. for his ‘Geological Observations.’ Arranges for publication of ‘Zoology of the Voyage of the “Beagle”. Opens first note-book of ‘Origin of Species.’ Meets Lyell and Robert Brown.
Marries.
Works on his ‘Coral Reefs.’
Reads papers before Geological Society. Acts as secretary of the Geological Society. Residence at Down.
His absorption in science.
His publications.
‘Geological Observations’ published. Success of the ‘Journal of Researches.’
Begins work on ‘Cirripedia.’
visits to water-cure establishments. Work on the ‘Origin of Species.’
Reads ‘Malthus on Population.’
Begins notes on ‘Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication.’ Becomes interested in cross-fertilisation of flowers. Publishes papers on dimorphic and trimorphic plants. Publishes ‘Descent of Man.’
First child born.
Publishes translation and sketch of ‘Life of Erasmus Darwin.’ Methods of work.
Mental qualities.
Fond of novel reading.
A good observer.
Habits and personal appearance.
Ill health.
Fondness for dogs.
Correspondence.
Business habits.
Scientific reading.
Wide interest in science.
Journals of daily events.
Holidays.
Relation to his family and friends. His account of his little daughter Annie. How he brought up his children.
Manner towards servants.
As a host.
Modesty.
Not quick at argument.