P.S.--Have you seen the admirable article in the _Guardian_ (!) on Lyell's "Principles"? It is most excellent and liberal. It is written by the Rev. Geo. Buckle, of Tiverton Vicarage, Bath, whom I met at Norwich and found a thoroughly scientific and liberal parson. Perhaps you have heard that I have undertaken to write an article for the _Quarterly_ (!) on the same subject, to make up for that on "Modern Geology" last year not mentioning Sir C. Lyell. Really, what with the Tories passing Radical Reform Bills and the Church periodicals advocating Darwinianism, the millennium must be at hand.--A.R.W. * * * * * _Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E. January 22, 1869._ My dear Wallace,--Your intended dedication pleases me much and I look at it as a _great_ honour, and this is nothing more than the truth. I am glad to hear, for Lyell's sake and on general grounds, that you are going to write in the _Quarterly_. Some little time ago I was actually wishing that you wrote in the _Quarterly_, as I knew that you occasionally contributed to periodicals, and I thought that your articles would thus be more widely read. Thank you for telling me about the _Guardian_, which I will borrow from Lyell. I did note the article in the _Quarterly Journal of Science_ and put it aside to read again with the articles in _Fraser_ and the _Spectator_. I have been interrupted in my regular work in preparing a new edition[74] of the "Origin," which has cost me much labour, and which I hope I have considerably improved in two or three important points. I always thought individual differences more important than single variations, but now I have come to the conclusion that they are of paramount importance, and in this I believe I agree with you. Fleeming Jenkin's arguments have convinced me.[75] I heartily congratulate you on your new book being so nearly finished.--Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely, CH. DARWIN. * * * * * _9 St. Mark's Crescent, N.W. January 30, 1869._ Dear Darwin,--Will you tell me _where_ are Fleeming Jenkin's arguments on the importance of single variation? Because I at present hold most strongly the contrary opinion, that it is the individual differences or _general variability_ of species that enables them to become modified and adapted to new conditions. Variations or "sports" may be important in modifying an animal in one direction, as in colour for instance, but how it can possibly work in changes requiring co-ordination of many parts, as in Orchids for example, I cannot conceive. And as all the more important structural modifications of animals and plants imply much co-ordination, it appears to me that the chances are millions to one against _individual variations_ ever coinciding so as to render the required modification possible. However, let me read first what has convinced you. You may tell Mrs. Darwin that I have now a daughter.