Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences, Vol. 1Wallace, Alfred Russel
History
Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences, Vol. 1
Wallace, Alfred Russel
Naturalists -- Correspondence; Wallace, Alfred Russel, 1823-1913
I return you Forel's letter. It does not advance the question much,
neither do I think it likely that even the complete observation he
thinks necessary would be of much use; because it may well be that the
ova or larvæ or imagos of the beetles are not carried systematically by
the ants, but only occasionally owing to some exceptional circumstances.
This might produce a great effect in distribution, yet be so rare as
never to come under observation.
Several of your remarks in previous letters I shall carefully consider.
I know that, compared with the extent of the subject, my book is in many
parts crude and ill-considered; but I thought, and still think, it
better to make _some generalisations_ wherever possible, as I am not at
all afraid of having to alter my views in many points of detail. I was
so overwhelmed with zoological details that I never went through the
Geological Society's _Journal_ as I ought to have done, and as I mean to
do before writing more on the subject.
With best wishes, believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Rose Hill, Dorking. December 13, 1876._
My dear Darwin,--Many thanks for your new book on "Crossing Plants,"
which I have read with much interest. I hardly expected, however, that
there would have been so many doubtful and exceptional cases. I fancy
that the results would have come out better had you always taken
weights instead of heights; and that would have obviated the objection
that will, I daresay, be made, that _height_ proves nothing, because a
tall plant may be weaker, less bulky and less vigorous than a shorter
one. Of course no one who knows you or who takes a _general_ view of
your results will say this, but I daresay it will be said. I am afraid
this book will not do much or anything to get rid of the one great
objection, that the physiological characteristic of species, the
infertility of hybrids, has not yet been produced. Have you ever tried
experiments with plants (if any can be found) which for several
centuries have been grown under very different conditions, as for
instance potatoes on the high Andes and in Ireland? If any approach to
sterility occurred in mongrels between these it would be a grand step.
The most curious point you have brought out seems to me the slight
superiority of self-fertilisation over fertilisation with another flower
of the same plant, and the most important result, that difference of
constitution is the essence of the benefit of cross-fertilisation. All
you now want is to find the neutral point where the benefit is at its
maximum, any greater difference being prejudicial.
Hoping you may yet demonstrate this, believe me yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
_Rose Hill, Dorking. January 17, 1877._
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account