Christ Church, Oxford.

Dear Professor Meldola,—I trust that our differences—and disagreements—as presented in 'Nature,' will not disturb our relations in private. Anyhow, I send the inclosed circular, which I am addressing to English biologists, and hope you will testify to your desire for 'facts' by signing the memorial.

Yours truly,

Geo. J. Romanes.

Glasgow: 1880.

Now for my news. Everything was splendid, much the best thing in the way of lecturing that I have done since Dublin,[25] and I was so sorry that you were not there.

First of all we had a dinner given by my host in my honour, the guests being all the chief men in the University, including Professor Caird[26] and the biggest of all big swells, Sir W. Thomson.[27]

The dinner was to me highly interesting, as I talked nearly all the time to Sir William, who is a wonderful psychological study.

We then went to the lecture, where Sir William took the chair, and introduced me to the audience with such a glowing oration that it would have startled you. (It quite astonished me.) The audience being thus led to suppose that I was one of the brightest of all bright lights, received me very warmly; I got enthusiastic, discarded my notes, and swam along in the most magnificent style even for me, which, you know, is the highest praise I can bestow upon myself. I spoke for an hour and a half; at the end the people applauded so, I felt really awfully sorry you were not there. There seems to be a cruel fate preventing you from witnessing my performances.

The vote of thanks was proposed by Professor McKendrick. I was met by another storm of applause; I began to feel quite overcome. But I said a few words with all becoming humility, and then Sir William summed up.

When. But you are not yet either so feeble, old, or grey as to make me imagine that you have lost a needful prop in the absence of your 'peerless son!' And I am sure you are not more proud of him than he is of you. With your eyes as bright as the bright starlight, and your face as ruddy as the morning, I am glad you are my mother.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

By this post I return you Häckel's essay on Perigenesis. Although I have kept it so long, I have only just read it, as you said there was no need to return it at any particular time.

To me it seems that whatever merit Häckel's views may have in this matter, they certainly have no claim to be regarded as original; for I cannot see that his 'Plastidules' differ in anything but in name from Spencer's 'Physiological Units.' Why he does not acknowledge this, it is difficult to understand. Anyhow, the theories being the same, the same objections apply; and to me it has always seemed that this theory is unsatisfactory because so general. As you observe in your letter, everyone believes in molecular movements of some kind; but to offer this as a full explanation of heredity seems to me like saying that the cause, say, of an obscure disease like diabetes, is the persistence of force. No doubt this is the ultimate cause, but the pathologist requires some more proximate causes if his science is to be of any value. Similarly, I do not see that biology gains anything by a theory which is really but little better than a restatement of the mystery of heredity in terms of the highest abstraction. Pangenesis at least has the merit of supplying us with some conceivable carriers, so to speak, of the modified protoplasm from the various organs or parts of the parent to the corresponding organs or parts of the offspring, and the multiplication of gemmules seems to me to avoid a difficulty with which Perigenesis (as stated by Häckel) is beset, viz. that atavism sometimes occurs over too large a gap to be reasonably attributed to what remains of the original 'stem-vibrations' after their characters have been successively modified at each 'bifurcation.' But it would be tedious to enter into details. Perigenesis, in my opinion, is 'more simple' than Pangenesis, only because its terms are so much more general.

P.S.—I forgot to tell you, when we were at lunch, that the seed of the grafted beets is ready for sowing; also that the vine is now four feet high, and so, I should think, might be grafted next spring.

From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes.

Down: February 3, 1880.

I will keep your diagram for a few days[29] but I find it very difficult now to think over new subjects, so that it is not likely that I shall be able to send any criticisms; but you may rely on it that I will do my best.

I am glad you like Guthrie's book. If you care to read a little book on pure instinct, get Fabre, 'Souvenirs Entomologiques,' 1879. It is really admirable, and very good on the sense of direction in insects. I have sent him some suggestions such as rotating the insects, but I do not know whether he will try them.

Yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

February 6, 1880.

I have to thank you very much for your two letters, and also for the enclosures from ——, which I now return. The latter convey exactly the criticism that I should have expected from ——, for while writing my essay on Theism I had several conversations with him upon the subject of Spencer's writings, and so know exactly what he thinks of them. But in none of these conversations could I get at anything more definite than is conveyed by the returned letters. In no point of any importance did he make it clear to me that Spencer was wrong, and the only result of our conversation was to show me that in —— opinion it was only my ignorance of mathematics that prevented me from seeing that Mr. Spencer is merely a 'word philosopher.' Upon which opinion I reflected, and still reflect, that the mathematicians must be a singularly happy race, seeing that they alone of men are competent to think about the facts of the cosmos. And this reflection becomes still more startling when supplemented by another, viz. that although one may not know any mathematics, everybody knows what mathematics are: they are the sciences of number and measurement, and as such, one is at a loss to perceive why they should be so essentially necessary to enable a man to think fairly and well upon other subjects. But it is, as you once said, that when a man is to be killed by the sword mathematical, he must not have the satisfaction of even knowing how he is killed. Of course, in a general way I quite understand and agree with —— that Spencer has done but little service to science. But I believe that he has done great service to thinking, and all the mathematicians in the world would not convince me to the contrary, even though they should all deliver their judgment with the magnificent authority of a ——.

Coming now to the diagram, I am much obliged to you for your suggestions. The 'Descent of Man,' with all its references upon the subject, and also your paper on the 'Baby,' were read, and the results embodied in the diagram, so I am very glad you did not take the needless trouble of consulting these works. By 'Love' I intend to denote the complex emotion (dependent on the representative faculties) which, having been so lately smitten myself, I am perhaps inclined to place in too exalted a position. But you did not observe that I placed 'Parental Affection' and 'Social Feeling' very much lower down.

In my essay I carefully explain the two cases of Drosera and Dionæa as being the best hitherto observed for my purpose in establishing the principle of discrimination among stimuli, as a principle displayed by non-nervous tissues.

April 22, 1880.

As soon as I received your first intimation about Schneider's book I wrote over for it, and received a copy some weeks ago. I then lent it to Sully, who wanted to read it, so do not yet know what it is worth. I, together with my wife—who reads French much more quickly than I can—am now engaged upon all the French books on animal intelligence which you kindly lent me. I am also preparing for my Royal Institution lecture on the 7th of May. I will afterwards publish it in some of the magazines, and, last of all, in an expanded and more detailed form, it will go into my book on Animal Intelligence.

I went to see —— the other day on Spiritualism. He answered privately a letter that I wrote to 'Nature,' signed 'F.R.S.,' which was a feeler for some material to investigate. I had never spoken to —— before, but although I passed a very pleasant afternoon with him, I did not learn anything new about Spiritualism. He seemed to me to have the faculty of deglutition too well developed. Thus, for instance, he seemed rather queer on the subject of astrology! and when I asked whether he thought it worthy of common sense to imagine that, spirits or no spirits, the conjunctions of planets could exercise any causative influence on the destinies of children born under them, he answered that having already 'swallowed so much,' he did not know where to stop!!

My wife and baby are both flourishing. I noticed that the latter, at four days old, could always tell which hand I touched, inclining its head towards that hand.

From C. Darwin to G. J. Romanes.

September 14, 1880.

We send you our best thanks for your magnificent present of game. I have not tasted black-game for nearly half a century, when I killed some on my father-in-law's land in Staffordshire.

I hope that you are well and strong and do not give up all your time to shooting. Pray tell Mrs. Romanes, if you turn idle, I shall say it is her fault, and being an old man, shall scold her. But you have done too splendid work to turn idle, so I need not fear, and shall never have audaciously to scold Mrs. Romanes. But I am writing great rubbish. You refer to some Zoological station on your coast, and I now remember seeing something about it, and that more money was wanted for apparatus, therefore I send a cheque of 5l. 5s. just to show my goodwill.

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

We went to the Lakes for three weeks to Coniston, and the scenery gave me more pleasure than I thought my soul, or whatever remains of it, was capable of feeling. We saw Ruskin several times, and he was uncommonly pleasant.

To C. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace: November 18, 1880.

Very many thanks for your kind assistance and expressions of approval. It was stupid of me to forget your article in 'Nature' about the geese. I now quite well remember reading it when it came out.

Focke's book is just the very thing I wanted, as it supplies such a complete history of the subject. If I do not hear from you again, I shall keep it for a few days to refer to when the proof which I have sent to press shall be returned with my historical sketch added.

I have now nearly finished my paper on the physiology of the locomotor system in Echinoderms. The most important result in it is the proof, both morphological and physiological, of a nervous plexus, external to everything, which in Echinus serves to co-ordinate spines, feet, and pedicellariæ in a wonderful manner. By the way, I remember once talking with you about the function of the latter, and thinking it mysterious. There is no doubt now that this function is to seize bits of seaweed, and hold them steady till the sucking feet have time to establish their adhesions, so assisting locomotion of animal when crawling about seaweed-covered rocks.

November 5, 1880.

I was sorry to hear on my return from Scotland that I had missed the pleasure of a call from you, and also to hear from Mr. Teesdale to-day that you had returned to Down, owing, he fears, to the alarming condition of Miss Wedgwood. I trust, however, that her state of health may not be so serious as he apprehends.

On my way South I stayed for a couple of days at Newcastle, to give two lectures on Mental Evolution, and hence my absence when you called. I stayed with Mr. Newall, who has the monster telescope, and 'as good luck would have it, Providence was on my side,' in the matter of giving us a clear sky for observing, rather a rare thing at Newcastle.

You will be glad to hear that our season's work at the 'Zoological station' has been very successful. A really interesting research has been conducted by Ewart and myself jointly on the locomotor system of Echinoderms, he taking the morphological and I the physiological part. When next I see you I shall tell you the principal points, but to do so in a letter would be tedious.

I think it is probable that Mivart and I shall have a magazine battle some day on Mental Evolution, as I think it is better to draw him in this way before finally discussing the whole subject in my book.

18 Cornwall Terrace: November 13, 1880.

I am grieved to hear from Mr. Teesdale that his fears were only too well founded. Although I had not myself the privilege of Miss Wedgwood's acquaintance, I know, from what I have been told by those who had, how greatly your household must feel her loss.

I should not, however, have written only to trouble you with expressions of sympathy. I desire to ask you one or two questions with reference to an article on Hybridism which I have written for the 'Encyclopædia Britannica,' and the corrected proof of which I send. It is in chief part an epitome of your own chapters upon the subject, and therefore you need not trouble to read the whole, unless you care to see whether I have been sufficiently clear and accurate. But there are two points on which I should like to have your opinion, both for my own benefit and for that of my readers. First, I think it is desirable to append a list of the more important works bearing upon the subject, and if I make such a list I should not like to trust to my own information, lest I should do unwitting injustice to some observing writers. If, therefore, you could, without taking any special trouble, jot down from memory the works you think most deserving of mention, I think it would be of benefit to the reading public.

From C. Darwin, Esq.

Down: November 14, 1880.

My dear Romanes,—Many thanks for your kind sympathy. My wife's sister was, I fully believe, as good and generous a woman as ever walked this earth.

The proof-sheets have not arrived, but probably will to-morrow. I shall like to read them, though I may not be able to do so very quickly, as I am bothered with a heap of little jobs which must be done. I will send by to-day's post a large book by Focke, received a week or two ago, on Hybrids, and which I have not had time to look at, but which I see in Table of Contents includes full history of subject and much else besides. It will aid you far better than I can; for I have now been so long attending to other subjects, and with old age, I fear I could make no suggestions worth anything. Formerly I knew the subject well.

Kölreuter, Gärtner, and Herbert are certainly far the most trustworthy authorities. There was also a German, whose name I mention in 'Origin,' who wrote on Hybrid Willows. Naudin, who is often quoted, I have much less confidence in. By the way, Nägeli (whom many think the greatest botanist in Germany) wrote a few years ago on Hybridism; I cannot remember title, but I will hunt for it if you wish. The title will be sure to be in Focke.

I quite agree with what you say about Passiflora. Herbert observed an analogous case in Crinum.

November 15, 1880.

I have just read your article. As far as my judgment goes it is excellent and could not be improved. You have skimmed the cream off the whole subject. It is also very clear. One or two sentences near the beginning seem rather too strong, as I have marked with pencil, without attending to style. I have made one or two small suggestions. If you can find my account in 'Nature' (last summer I think)[30] about the hybrid Chinese geese [being fertile] inter se, it would be worth adding, and would require only two or three lines. I do not suppose you wish to add, but in my paper on Lythrum, and I think requoted in 'Var. under Dom.' vol. ii. 2nd edit. bottom of page 167, I have a good sentence about a man finding two vars. of Lythrum, and testing them by fertility, and coming to egregiously wrong conclusion.

I think your idea of reference to best books and short history of subject good. By the way, you have made me quite proud of my chapter on Hybridism, I had utterly forgotten how good it appears when dressed up in your article.

Yours very sincerely,

Charles Darwin.

I have had a hunt and found my little article on Geese, which please hereafter return.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: December 10, 1880.

I return by this post the book on Hybridism, with many thanks. It has been of great use to me in giving an abstract of the history.

I have read your own book with an amount of pleasure that I cannot express.

One idea occurred to me with reference to luminous stimulation, which, if it has not already occurred to you, would be well worth trying. The suggestion suggests itself. How about the period of latent stimulation in these non-nervous and yet irritable tissues? And especially with reference to luminous stimulation it would be most interesting to ascertain whether the tissues are affected by brief flashes of light. If you had an apparatus to give bright electrical sparks in a dark room, and were to expose one of your plants to flashes of timed intervals between each other, you might ascertain, first, whether any number of sparks in any length of time would affect the plants at all; and second, if so, what number in a given time. I should not wonder (from some of my experiments on Medusæ, see 'Phil. Trans.' vol. clxvii. pt. ii. pp. 683-4) if it would turn out that a continuous uninterrupted series of sparks, however bright, would produce no effect at all, owing to the plant tissues being too sluggish to admit of being affected by a succession of stimuli each of such brief duration. But if any effect were produced, it would still be interesting to make out whether this interrupted source of flashing light were considerably less effective than a continuous source of the same intensity.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,

Geo. J. Romanes.

Linnean Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, W.:

December 14, 1880.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—I am glad that you think the experiment worth trying. As you say you have not got the requisite apparatus for trying it, I have written to Professor Tyndall to see if he would allow it to be carried through at the Royal Institution.

If I had known you were in town I should have called to tell you about the Echinoderms. My paper on them is now written (70 pages), so I have begun to come here (Burlington House) to read up systematically all the literature I can find on animal intelligence. Hence it is that, having left your letter at home, and not remembering the address upon it, I have to send this answer to Down.

—— is a lunatic beneath all contempt—an object of pity were it not for his vein of malice.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,

Geo. J. Romanes.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: December 17, 1880.

My dear Mr. Darwin,—Just a line to let you know that Professor Tyndall has kindly placed at my disposal the apparatus required to conduct the experiment with flashing light.

Frank's papers at the Linnean were, as you will probably have heard from other sources, a most brilliant success, as not only was the attendance enormously large and the interest great, but his exposition was a masterpiece of scientific reasoning, rendered with a choice and fluency of language that were really charming. I knew, of course, that he is a very clever fellow, but I did not know that he could do that sort of thing so well.

I have now got a monkey. Sclater let me choose one from the Zoo, and it is a very intelligent, affectionate little animal. I wanted to keep it in the nursery for purposes of comparison, but the proposal met with so much opposition that I had to give way. I am afraid to suggest the idiot, lest I should be told to occupy the nursery myself.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,

Geo. J. Romanes.

Down, Beckenham, Kent: January 24.

My dear Romanes,—I have been thinking about Pompilius and its allies. Please take the trouble to read on 'Perforation of the Corolla by Bees,' p. 425 of my Cross Fertilisation to end of chapter. Bees show so much intelligence in their acts, that it seems not improbable to me that the progenitors of Pompilius originally stung caterpillars and spiders, &c., in any part of their bodies, and then observed by their intelligence that if they stung them in one particular place, as between certain segments on the lower side, their prey was at once paralysed. It does not seem to me at all incredible that this action should thus become instinctive, i.e. memory transmitted from one generation to another. It does not seem necessary to suppose that when Pompilius stung its prey in the ganglion that it intended or knew that the prey would long keep alive. The development of the larvæ may have been subsequently modified in relation to their half-dead instead of wholly dead prey, supposing that the prey was at first quite killed, which would have required much stinging. Turn this notion over in your mind, but do not trouble yourself by answering.

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

N.B. Once on a time a fool said to himself that at an ancient period small soft crabs or other creatures stuck to certain fishes; these struggled violently, and in doing so, discharged electricity, which annoyed the parasites, so that they often wriggled away. The fish was very glad, and some of its children gradually profited in a higher degree and in various ways by discharging more electricity and by not struggling. The fool who thought thus persuaded another fool to try an eel in Scotland, and lo and behold electricity was discharged when it struggled violently. He then placed in contact with the fish, or near it, a small medusa or other animal which he cleverly knew was sensitive to electricity, and when the eel struggled violently, the little animals in contact showed by their movements that they felt a slight shock. Ever afterwards men said that the two fools were not such big fools as they seemed to be.

Stultus.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: Sunday, March 1881.

I have got a lot of cats waiting for me at different houses round Wimbledon Common, and some day next week shall surprise our coachman by making a round of calls upon the cats, drive them several miles into the country, and then let them out of their respective bags. If any return, I shall try them again in other directions before finally trying the rotation experiment.

I am also getting the experiment on flashing light agoing. The first apparatus did not answer, so now I have invested in a large eight-day clock, the pendulum of which I intend to make do the flashing.

18 Cornwall Terrace. Regent's Park, N.W.: March 24, 1881.

I write to ask you what you think of the following idea as to a possible method of attacking Pangenesis. Why not, I mean, inarch, at an early period of their growth, the seed-vessels or ovaries of plants belonging to different varieties? If adhesion takes place, the ovary might then be severed from its parent plant, and left to develop upon the foreign one.

If you think this a possible experiment, now would be the time of year to try it. Therefore I write to ask whether you do think it possible, and if so, what plants you may think it would be best to try it with.

All the cats[31] I have hitherto let out of their respective bags have shown themselves exceedingly stupid, not one having found her way back.

Very sincerely and most respectfully yours,

Geo. J. Romanes.

From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes.

Down, Beckenham, Kent: March 26, 1881.

You are very plucky about Pangenesis, and I much wish that you could have any success. I do not understand your scheme. Do you intend to operate on an ovarium with a single ovule, and to bisect it after being fertilised? I should fear that this was quite hopeless. If you intend to operate on ovaria with many seeds, whether before or after fertilisation, I do not see how you could possibly distinguish any effect from the union of the two ovaria. Any operation before fertilisation would, I presume, quite prevent the act; for very few flowers can be fertilised if the stem is cut and placed in water. Gärtner, however, says, that some Liliaceæ can be fertilised under these circumstances.

If Hooker is correct, he found that cutting off or making a hole into the summit of the ovarium and then inserting pollen caused the fertilisation of the ovules. This has always stretched my belief to the cracking point. I think he has published a notice on this experiment, but forget where, and I think it was on 'Papaver.' Dyer could probably tell you about it. Perhaps your plan is to remove one half of the ovarium of a one-seeded plant and join it on to the ovary of another of a distinct var., with its ovule removed; but this would be a frightfully difficult operation.

I am very sorry to hear about your ill success with cats, and I wish you could get some detailed account of the Belgium trials.

Yours very sincerely,

C. Darwin.

April 16, 1881.

My manuscript on Worms has been sent to printers, so I am going to amuse myself by scribbling to you on a few points; but you must not waste your time in answering at any length this scribble. Firstly, your letter on intelligence was very useful to me, and I tore up and rewrote what I sent you. I have not attempted to define intelligence, but have quoted your remarks on experience, and have shown how far they apply to worms. It seems to me, that they must be said to work with some intelligence, anyhow, they are not guided by a blind instinct.

Secondly, I was greatly interested by the abstract in 'Nature' of your work on Echinoderms; the complexity, with simplicity, and with such curious co-ordination of the nervous system, is marvellous; and you showed me before what splendid gymnastic feats they can perform.

Thirdly, Dr. Roux has sent me a book just published by him, 'Der Kampf der Theile,' &c., 1881 (240 pages in length). He is manifestly a well-read physiologist and pathologist, and from his position a good anatomist. It is full of reasoning, and this in German is very difficult to me, so that I have only skimmed through each page, here and there reading with a little more care. As far as I can imperfectly judge, it is the most important book on evolution which has appeared for some time. I believe that G. H. Lewes hinted at the same fundamental idea, viz. that there is a struggle going on within every organism between the organic molecules, the cells, and the organs. I think that his basis is that every cell which best performs its function is as a consequence at the same time best nourished and best propagates its kind. The book does not touch on mental phenomena, but there is much discussion on rudimentary or atrophied parts, to which subject you formerly attended. Now if you would like to read this book, I will send it after Frank has glanced at it, for I do not think he will have time to read it with care. If you read it and are struck with it (but I may be wholly mistaken about its value), you would do a public service by analysing and criticising it in 'Nature.' Dr. Roux makes, I think, a gigantic oversight in never considering plants; these would simplify the problem for him.

Fourthly, I do not know whether you will discuss in your book on the 'Mind of Animals' any of the more complex and wonderful instincts. It is unsatisfactory work, as there can be no fossilised instincts, and the sole guide is their state in other members of the same order and mere probability. But if you do discuss any (and it will perhaps be expected of you) I should think that you could not select a better case than that of the sand-wasps, which paralyse their prey, as formerly described by Fabre in his wonderful paper in 'Annales des Sciences,' and since amplified in his admirable 'Souvenirs.' Whilst reading this latter book, I speculated a little on the subject. Astonishing nonsense is often spoken of the sand-wasp's knowledge of anatomy. Now will anyone say that the Gauchos on the plains of La Plata have such knowledge, yet I have often seen them prick a struggling and lassoed cow on the ground with unerring skill, which no mere anatomist could imitate. The pointed knife was infallibly driven in between the vertebræ by a single slight thrust. I presume that the art was first discovered by chance, and that each young Gaucho sees exactly how the others do it, and then with a very little practice learning the art. Now I suppose that the sand-wasps originally merely killed their prey by stinging them in many places (see p. 129 of Fabre, 'Souvenirs,' and page 241), on the lower and softer side of the body, and that to sting a certain segment was found by far the most successful method, and was inherited, like the tendency of a bull-dog to pin the nose of a bull, or of a ferret to bite the cerebellum. It would not be a very great step in advance to prick the ganglion of its prey only slightly, and thus to give its larvæ fresh meat instead of old dry meat. Though Fabre insists so strongly on the unvarying character of instinct, yet it shows that there is some variability, as on pp. 176, 177.

I fear that I shall have utterly wearied you with my scribbling and bad handwriting.

My dear Romanes,

Yours very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.: April 17, 1881.

Your long letter has been most refreshing to me in every way.

I am looking forward with keen interest to the appearance of your book on Worms, and am unexpectedly glad to hear that my letter was of any use.

I should very much like to see the book you mention, and from what you say about sending it I shall not order it. But there is no need to send it soon, as I have already an accumulation of books to review for 'Nature.'

I am very glad that you think well of the Echinoderm work. Several other experiments have occurred to me to try, and I hope to be able to do so next autumn, as also the interesting experiment suggested by Frank of rotating by clockwork (as you did the plants) an Echinus inverted upon its aboral pole, to see whether it would right itself when the influence of gravity is removed.

No doubt I must in my second book deal with instincts of all kinds, complex or otherwise. Your 'speculations' on the sand-wasp seem to me very pithy—excuse the pun suggested by the analogy of the cattle—and I think there can be little doubt that such is the direction in which the explanation is to be sought. I also think that the difficulty is mitigated by the consideration that both the ganglion of the spider and the sting of the wasp are organs situated on the median line of their respective possessors, and therefore that the origin of the instinct may have been determined or assisted by the mere anatomical form of the animals—the wasp not stinging till securely mounted on the spider's back, and when so mounted the sting might naturally strike the ganglion. But I have not yet read Fabre's own account, so this view may not hold. Anyhow, and whatever determining conditions as to origin may have been, it seems to me there can be little doubt that natural selection would have developed it in the way you suggest.

I have now grown a number of seeds exposed to the flashing light, but am not yet quite sure as to the result. About one seedling out of ten bends towards the flashing source very decidedly, while all the rest, although exposed to just the same conditions, grow perfectly straight. But I shall, no doubt, find out the reason of this by further trials. It is strange that the same thing happens when I expose other seedlings to constant light of exceedingly dim intensity. It looks as if some individuals were more sensitive to light than others. I do not know whether you found any evidence of this.

I have just found that this year again I have been too late in asking them to send me cuttings of the vine for grafting. I did not know that the sap in vines began to run so early.

I remain ever yours, very sincerely and most respectfully,

Geo. J. Romanes.

From C. Darwin, Esq., to G. J. Romanes.

Down: April 18, 1881.

I am extremely glad of your success with the flashing light. If plants are acted on by light, like some of the lower animals, there is an additional point of interest, as it seems to me, in your results. Most botanists believe that light causes a plant to bend to it in as direct a manner as light affects nitrate of silver.

I believe that it merely tells the plant to which side to bend, and I see indications of this belief prevailing even with Sachs. Now it might be expected that light would act on a plant in something the same manner as on the lower animals. As you are at work on this subject, I will call your attention to another point. Wiesner, of Vienna (who has lately published a good book on Heliotropism) finds that an intermittent light during 20 m. produces same effect as a continuous light of same brilliancy during 60 m. So that Van Tieghem, in the first part of his book, which has just appeared, remarks, the light during 40 m. out of the 60 m. produced no effect. I observed an analogous case described in my book. Wiesner and Tieghem seem to think that this is explained by calling the whole process 'induction,' borrowing a term used by some physico-chemists (of whom I believe Roscoe is one), and implying an agency which does not produce any effect for some time, and continues its effect for some time after the cause has ceased. I believe (?) that photographic paper is an instance. I must ask Leonard whether an interrupted light acts on it in the same manner as on a plant. At present I must still believe in my explanation that it is the contrast between light and darkness which excites a plant.

I have forgotten my main object in writing, viz. to say that I believe (and have so stated) that seedlings vary much in their sensitiveness to light; but I did not prove this, for there are many difficulties, whether time of incipient curvature or amount of curvature is taken as the criterion. Moreover, they vary according to age and perhaps from vigour of growth; and there seems inherent variability, as Strasburger (whom I quote) found with spores. If the curious anomaly observed by you is due to varying sensitiveness, ought not all the seedlings to bend if the flashes were at longer intervals of time? According to my notion of contrast between light and darkness being the stimulus, I should expect that if flashes were made sufficiently slow it would be a powerful stimulus, and that you would suddenly arrive at a period when the result would suddenly become great. On the other hand, as far as my experience goes, what one expects rarely happens.

I heartily wish you success, and remain, yours ever very sincerely,

Ch. Darwin.

Do you read the 'Times'? As I had a fair opportunity, I sent a letter to the 'Times' on Vivisection, which is printed to-day. I thought it fair to bear my share of the abuse poured in so atrocious a manner on all physiologists.

From G. J. Romanes to C. Darwin, Esq.

18 Cornwall Terrace: April 22.

I have left your last letter so long unanswered in order that I might be able to let you know the result of the next experiment I was trying on the seeds with flashing light. I think in the end the conclusion will be that short flashes, such as I am now using, influence the seedlings, but only to a comparatively small degree, so that it is only the more sensitive seedlings that perceive them.

Your letter in the 'Times' was in every way admirable, and coming from you will produce more effect than it could from anybody else. The answer to-day to —— is also first-rate—just enough without being too much. It would have been a great mistake to have descended into a controversy. I thought —— had more wit than to adopt such a tack and tone, and am sure that all physiologists will be for ever grateful to you for such a trenchant expression of opinion.

I have a little piece of gossip to tell. Yesterday the Council of the Linnean nominated me Zoological Secretary, and some of the members having pressed me to accept, I have accepted. I also hear that your son is to be on the same Council, and that Sir John Lubbock is to be the new President.

I have at length decided on the arrangement of my material for the books on Animal Intelligence and Mental Evolution. I shall reserve all the heavier parts of theoretical discussion for the second book—making the first the chief repository of facts, with only a slender network of theory to bind them into mutual relation, and save the book as much as possible from the danger that you suggested of being too much matter-of-fact. It will be an advantage to have the facts in a form to admit of brief reference when discussing the heavier philosophy in the second book, which will be the more important, though the less popular, of the two.

Down, Beckenham, Kent: April 25, 1881.

My dear Romanes,—I was very glad to read your last notes with much news interesting to me. But I write now to say how I, and indeed all of us in the house, have admired your letter in the 'Times.'[32] It was so simple and direct. I was particularly glad about Burdon Sanderson, of whom I have been for several years a great admirer. I was, also, especially glad to read the last sentences. I have been bothered with several letters, but none abusive. Under a selfish point of view I am very glad of the publication of your letter, as I was at first inclined to think that I had done mischief by stirring up the mud, now I feel sure that I have done good....