Wallace, Darwin, and The Theory of Natural Selection

Wallace, Darwin, and the Theory of
Natural Selection
A Study in the Development of Ideas and Attitudes
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
2502 Bronson Road, Fairfield, Connecticut
INTRODUCTION
On 1 July 1908 the L i n n e a n Society of London c o m m e m o r a t e d
the r e a d i n g before the Society fifty years earlier of the Darwin-
Wallace joint papers, " O n the T e n d e n c y of Species to f o r m
Varieties; and on the P e r p e t u a t i o n of Varieties and Species
by N a t u r a l Means of Selection." 1 On the first occasion only
some thirty Fellows a n d guests h a d b e e n present at a quiet,
u n h e r a l d e d meeting; the authors themselves were absent. N o w
there w a s a large and distinguished gathering celebrating the
historic event. T w o of the original cast were present, the nat-
u_ralist Alfred Russel Wallace ( 1 8 2 3 - 1 9 1 3 ) and the botanist Sir
Joseph Dalton Hooker ( 1 8 1 7 - 1 9 1 1 ) . T h e other two, the biolo-
gist Charles Robert D a r w i n ( 1 8 0 9 - 1 8 8 2 ) and the geologist Sir
Charles Lyell ( 1 7 9 7 - 1 8 7 5 ) h a d been dead for m a n y years.
Hooker, n o w a venerable n o n a g e n a r i a n , spoke of his "half-
century-old real or fancied m e m o r i e s " of that J u n e in 1858
w h e n his old friend D a r w i n received Wallace's p a p e r on n a t u r a l
selection. He b a s e d his account on Sir Francis Darwin's L i f e
a n d L e t t e r s o f Charles D a r w i n , r e m a r k i n g with some u n e a s i n e s s
that, beyond the letters f r o m D a r w i n to h i m s e l f and to Lyell,
no other d o c u m e n t a r y evidence existed of the events of those
turbulent weeks before the reading of the papers. Despite a
search, the letters to D a r w i n f r o m Hooker and Lyell could not
be found, "and, m o s t surprising of all, Mr. Wallace's letter and
its enclosure h a v e disappeared." 2
1. IAnnean Society of London, The Darwin-Wallace Celebration held on
1st July, 1908, by the Linnean Society of London (London: The Society,
1908).
2. Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, in-
cludin9 an Autobiographical Chapter (London: Murray, 1887; reprinted
261
B A R B A R A G. B E D D A L L
Hooker was troubled by the meagerness of the evidence, but

Marchant, Wallace's first biographer, was unconcerned, and
most people have concurred in his opinion that the eight ex-
tant letters received f r o m Darwin while Wallace was in the
Malay Archipelago "explain themselves and reveal the inner
story of the independent discovery of the theory of N a t u r a l
Selection." z But do they?
A second question pertains to the relationship between Wal-
lace and Darwin. Their recollections are often taken to be ac-
curate reflections of their earlier thoughts and actions, but
details m a y have been altered and the emphasis changed. Both
m e n did come to play the roles assigned to them by history,
but the m a k i n g of the myth, in which they both participated,
has obscured some of the facts.
This study will emphasize Wallace and the influences on
him. It will attempt to disentangle the various lines of evidence,
to trace Wallace's progress toward the discovery of the theory
of natural selection, to throw some light on what happened
both before and after June 1858, and to suggest some alterna-
tives to c o m m o n l y accepted theories about these events. It is
based on a re-evaluation and reinterpretation of c o n t e m p o r a r y
sources, both published and unpublished. Because the aim has
been to concentrate on p r i m a r y source material, exhaustive
reference to every author who has written since on these sub-
jects has not been attempted.
I n particular, three of Wallace's published papers are con-
sidered in detail: "On the Law which has regulated the Intro-
duction of New Species," "Note on the Theory of P e r m a n e n t
and Geographical Varieties," and " O n the Tendency of Varieties
to depart indefinitely f r o m the Original Type."
A n u m b e r of previously published letters bear on questions
raised here. For ease of reference, information about these let-
ters has been arranged in tabular form in the Appendix and
the letters n u m b e r e d consecutively. They will be referred to
by n u m b e r s in brackets in the text, with further discussion
when required in appropriate footnotes.
Use has also been m a d e of a m a n u s c r i p t notebook kept by
Wallace during his travels in the Malay Archipelago, and I a m
grateful to Mr. T h o m a s O'Grady and the Council of the Linnean
Society of London for permission to quote f r o m it.
in 2 vols., New York, Basic Books, 1959); Linnean Society of London,

T h e Darwin-Wallace Celebration, p. 16. See also notes 115 and 139.
3. James Marchant, Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences
(New York: Harper, 1916), p. 105.
262
Wallace, Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection
I. A N I N Q U I R I N G M I N D
He who in place of reasoning, employs authority, assumes that those
to whom he addresses himself are incapable of forming a judgment of
their own. If they submit to this insult, may it not be presumed they
acknowledge the justice of it?
Wallace, "Notebook, 1855-1859," from Jeremy Bent_ham's Book of
FaUacies4
N o t u n t i l 1841, w h e n h e w a s e i g h t e e n y e a r s o f age, d i d A l f r e d
Russel Wallace, the eminent naturalist, begin his solitary study
o f t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d a r o u n d h i m . As a frequently unemployed
and always impecunious surveyor, he t u r n e d to t h e s t u d y o f
p l a n t s to fill h i s l e i s u r e t i m e :
But what occupied me chiefly and became more and more
t h e s o l a c e a n d d e l i g h t of m y l o n e l y r a m b l e s a m o n g t h e
m o o r s a n d m o u n t a i n s , w a s m y first i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h e v a r i -
ety, t h e b e a u t y , a n d t h e m y s t e r y of n a t u r e as m a n i f e s t e d i n
the vegetable kingdom.5
Wallace's early years and education were quite undistin-
g u i s h e d . T h e e i g h t h c h i l d of a n i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o v e r i s h e d
f a m i l y , h e w a s b o r n o n 8 January 1823 i n t h e r e m o t e v i l l a g e
o f U s k i n M o n m o u t h s h i r e , W a l e s . W h e n h e w a s five, t h e f a m i l y
m o v e d to H e r t f o r d , n e a r L o n d o n , a n d it w a s a t t h e H e r t f o r d
Grammar School that he received his "very ordinary education."
This ended when he was almost fourteen, and after that he
w a s m o r e o r less o n h i s own. D e s p i t e h i s c o m m o n p l a c e u p b r i n g -
ing, h o w e v e r , h e h a d r e c e i v e d a p r i c e l e s s gift f r o m h i s f a t h e r :
a l o v e of b o o k s a n d r e a d i n g - - a k e y to t h e w o r l d f o r a n y o n e
w h o w a n t s to u s e it.
After a few months spent with his brother John in London
i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1837, W a l l a c e j o i n e d h i s o l d e s t b r o t h e r , W i l -
l i a m , to l e a r n l a n d s u r v e y i n g . B u t t h e s e w e r e l e a n y e a r s f o r
William, just before the rush of activity brought on by the
c o n s t r u c t i o n o f r a i l r o a d s , a n d h e o f t e n h a d difficulty i n f i n d i n g
enough work for himself and his younger brother. During one
l u l l i n 1839, W a l l a c e s p e n t s o m e m o n t h s l e a r n i n g t h e w a t c h -
m a k i n g t r a d e . F o r t u n a t e l y , b u s i n e s s c h a n g e s b r o u g h t t h i s to
a n e n d b e f o r e W a l l a c e w a s f o r m a l l y a p p r e n t i c e d , a n d h e re-
t u r n e d to s u r v e y i n g w i t h W i l l i a m .
4. AJ_fred Russel Wallace, "Notebook, 1855--1859," MS, Linnean So-
ciety of London, p. 102. This and other quotations are reproduced with
permission from the Wallace and other manuscript material in the Library
of the Linnean Society of London.
5. Alfred Russel Wallace, My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions
(New York: Dodd, Mead, 1905), I, 191.
263
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
Two years later, in 1841, Wallace p u r c h a s e d his first book

on n a t u r a l history, a shilling p a m p h l e t on b o t a n y published
by the i m p r o b a b l y n a m e d Society for Promoting the Diffusion
of Useful Knowledge. This quickly b e c a m e his constant com-
p a n i o n on his r a m b l e s through the countryside. Eager n o w to
learn more, he was attracted by an advertisement for a textbook
by one of England's experts, The Elements of Botany by J o h n
Lindley. But this expensive purchase, which arrived in July
1842, was a d i s a p p o i n t m e n t because it described all the orders
of plants without indicating the British species. Not deterred,
Wallace, with the aid of Loudon's Encyclopaedia of Plants, set
about a n n o t a t i n g his copy of Lindley, thereby giving himself
the r u d i m e n t s of a botanical education, s
H o w Wallace first h a p p e n e d u p o n Darwin's Voyage of the
Beagle is not known, but he tipped quotations f r o m the first
edition into his copy of Lindley. He was apparently struck by
Darwin's c o m m e n t t h a t to receive the fullest e n j o y m e n t f r o m
the passing scene, "a traveller should be a botanist, for in all
views plants f o r m the chief embellishment." 7 Still another
p u r c h a s e m a d e about the s a m e time was Swainson's Treatise
on the Geography and Classification of Animals, a r e m a r k a b l e
assembly indeed for someone with no biological b a c k g r o u n d
whatever.S
WiUiam's business did not improve, and Wallace again left
to look for something else. Early in 1844 he settled upon teach-
ing at the Collegiate School in Leicester. Teaching proved
enjoyable enough, but this period is i m p o r t a n t for other reasons.
The town of Leicester boasted a good library, and Wallace was
soon spending his free time there reading, a m o n g other things,
H u m b o l d t ' s Personal Narrative of Travels and Malthus' Essay
on the Principle of Population)
6. J o h n Lindley, T h e E l e m e n t s of B o t a n y , S t r u c t u r a l , Physiological,
S y s t e m a t i c a l , a n d Medical: B e i n g a F o u r t h E d i t i o n of T h e O u t l i n e of t h e
First P r i n c i p l e s o f B o t a n y ( L o n d o n : T a y l o r a n d W a l t o n , 1841 ) ; W a l l a c e ' s
copy is i n the l i b r a r y of the L i n n e a n Society of London. J o h n C l a u d i u s
Loudon, E n c y c l o p a e d i a of Plants ( L o n d o n : L o n g m a n , 1829-1840).
7. C h a r l e s D a r w i n , J o u r n a l a n d R e m a r k s , 1 8 3 2 - 1 8 3 6 (vol. 3 of Robert
Fitzroy's N a r r a t i v e of t h e S u r v e y i n g V o y a g e s of His M a j e s t y ' s S h i p s "Ad-
v e n t u r e ' a n d "Beagle," . . . L o n d o n : H. C o l b u r n , 1839), p. 604. B e c a u s e the
titles of the first a n d s e c o n d editions differ, the s h o r t title u s e d h e r e f o r
b o t h will be V o y a g e of t h e Beagle. See also n o t e s 39-41, 43 a n d A p p e n d i x ,
69.
8. W i l l i a m S w a i n s o n , T r e a t i s e o n t h e G e o g r a p h y a n d Classification o f
A n i m a l s ( L o n d o n : L o n g m a n , 1835). Wallace's copy is in the L i b r a r y of
the L i n n e a n Society of London.
9. A l e x a n d e r v o n H u m b o l d t a n d Aim6 B o n p l a n d , P e r s o n a l N a r r a t i v e of
T r a v e l s to t h e E q u i n o c t i a l R e g i o n s of t h e N e w C o n t i n e n t , tr. H. M. Wil-
l i a m s ( L o n d o n : L o n g m a n , 1 8 1 4 - 1 8 2 9 ) ; w h i c h edition W a l l a c e r e a d is
264
W a l l a c e , D a r w i n a n d the T h e o r y of N a t u r a l S e l e c t i o n
Most i m p o r t a n t of all w a s t h e f r i e n d s h i p of a n o t h e r y o u n g
a m a t e u r n a t u r a l i s t , the e n t o m o l o g i s t H e n r y W a l t e r B a t e s ( 1 8 2 5 -
1 8 9 2 ) . Bates, two y e a r s y o u n g e r t h a n W a l l a c e , h a d s i m i l a r l y
f i n i s h e d his f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n at the u s u a l e a r l y age. But, t h o u g h
a p p r e n t i c e d to a h o s i e r y m a n u f a c t u r e r i n Leicester, h e h a d
e n r o l l e d i n t h e l o c a l M e c h a n i c s ' I n s t i t u t e , o n e of m a n y s u c h
schools set u p for t h e f u r t h e r e d u c a t i o n of w o r k i n g m e n . H e r e
h e m a d e the a c q u a i n t a n c e of s e v e r a l n a t u r a l i s t s a n d s o o n
p l u n g e d e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y i n t o the s t u d y of e n t o m o l o g y . By the
t i m e h e m e t W a l l a c e h e h a d a l r e a d y p u b l i s h e d h i s first s h o r t
paper. Io
F o r the first t i m e W a l l a c e h a d s o m e o n e w i t h w h o m to t a l k
over his discoveries. A n d Bates soon i n t r o d u c e d h i m to t h e
w h o l l y n e w w o r l d of insects. W a l l a c e w a s overjoyed. I n s h o r t
order he equipped himself with collecting bottles and pins a n d
a copy of S t e p h e n s ' M a n u a l of B r i t i s h Coleoptera a n d e m -
b a r k e d o n this f a s c i n a t i n g n e w study. 11
This happy period ended abruptly w h e n Wallace's brother
W i l l i a m died u n e x p e c t e d l y i n F e b r u a r y 1846.12 W a l l a c e left
the school to h e l p settle h i s affairs, a n d i n J a n u a r y 1847 h i s
s e c o n d b r o t h e r , J o h n , j o i n e d h i m i n c a r r y i n g o n the b u s i n e s s .
W a l l a c e w a s i r k e d b y the d e t a i l s of m a n a g e m e n t , f o r m e r l y
h a n d l e d b y h i s oldest b r o t h e r . A n d h e w a s also c u t off f r o m
his n e w - f o u n d f r i e n d s i n Leicester, as h e w r o t e p l a i n t i v e l y to
Bates [1]. 13
T h e t i m e w a s n o t w a s t e d , h o w e v e r . W a l l a c e ' s l e t t e r s to Bates
s h o w the e x t r a o r d i n a r y p r o g r e s s i n h i s r e a d i n g [1--4114: Dar-
not known. Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Popula-
tion, 6th ed. (London: Murray, 1826). Which edition Wallace read is not
known; in 1908 he took his references from the 6th. According to De Beer
("Darwin's Notebook," part 4, 3On), this is the edition that Darwin read.
10. Henry Walter Bates, "Note on Coleopterous Insects Frequenting
Damp Places," Zoologist, 1 (1843), 114--115.
11. James Francis Stephens, Manual of British Coleoptera (London:
Longman, 1839).
12. There is some question about the date of William's death. In Wal-
lace's autobiography (My Life, I, 239), he gives it as 1846, but he also
said he spent only one year at Leicester and correspondingly longer at
Neath. In an attempt to straighten out this discrepancy, Poulton persuaded
Wallace's son that William must have died in 1845; see E. B. P[oulton],
"ALfred Russel Wallace, 1823--1913,'" Proc. Roy. Soc. London, [95B]
(1923-1924), viiin.
13. Numbers in brackets refer to the letters Listed in the Appendix.
Where additional discussion of the letters is required, it will be found in
appropriate footnotes.
14. The dates of letters nos. 2 and 3 are uncertain, and there is no com-
pelling evidence to settle the matter. McKinney, following Clodd, has
placed them in 1845; see H. Lewis McKinney, "A_l_C-redRussel Wallace and
the Discovery of Natural Selection," ]. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 21 (1966),
265
w i n a g a i n , LyeU's Principles o f Geology, Vestiges o f the N a t u r a l

H i s t o r y o f C r e a t i o n b y the t h e n a n o n y m o u s a u t h o r , R o b e r t
C h a m b e r s , L a w r e n c e ' s L e c t u r e s on M a n , a n d P r i c h a r d ' s P h y s i c a l
H i s t o r y of M a n . ~5 W a l l a c e w a s a l r e a d y c a u g h t u p i n the m o r e
p h i l o s o p h i c a l q u e s t i o n s of e v o l u t i o n , the o r i g i n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n
of species, a n d the d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n species a n d varieties.
W h a t a g i a n t step f o r w a r d f r o m the s h i l l i n g p a m p h l e t o n
b o t a n y p u r c h a s e d o n l y six y e a r s before l B u t a n e v e n g r e a t e r
step w a s i n store.
Late i n 1847, W a l l a c e a n d Bates r e a d a n " u n p r e t e n d i n g vol-

u m e , " A V o y a g e u p the R i v e r A m a z o n , b y a y o u n g A m e r i c a n
a m a t e u r n a t u r a l i s t , W. H. E d w a r d s . l° A l r e a d y dissatisfied w i t h
t h e i r p r o s p e c t s at h o m e , t h e y w o n d e r e d if they c o u l d m a k e
s u c h a trip. I n q u i r i e s at the B r i t i s h M u s e u m a b o u t the feasi-
bility of the s c h e m e b r o u g h t a s s u r a n c e s t h a t t h e r e w a s a r e a d y
m a r k e t for a n y t h i n g t h e y m i g h t collect i n this l i t t l e - k n o w n
r e g i o n . At o n c e t h e y d e t e r m i n e d to go.
B u t e v e n as e a r l y as this t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were n o t l i m i t e d to
collecting. W a l l a c e w a s a l r e a d y i n t e r e s t e d n o t o n l y i n the dif-
f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n species a n d v a r i e t i e s , b u t also i n the o r i g i n
of species, a n d j u s t before t h e y left h e wrote to Bates t h a t h e
h a d b e g u n to "feel r a t h e r dissatisfied w i t h a m e r e local col-
l e c t i o n ; little is to be l e a r n t b y it. I s h o u l d like to take some
o n e f a m i l y to s t u d y t h o r o u g h l y , p r i n c i p a l l y w i t h a view to the
t h e o r y of the o r i g i n of species. By t h a t m e a n s I a m s t r o n g l y
of o p i n i o n t h a t s o m e definite r e s u l t s m i g h t be a r r i v e d at [3, 4]." 17
T h e two y o u n g a d v e n t u r e r s left E n g l a n d i n April 1848, ar-
r i v i n g a m o n t h l a t e r at P a r k ( n o w B e l 6 m ) at t h e m o u t h of the
337 n25. See also note 12. Marchant, in his Wallace, pp. 73-74, puts
them in 1847, and that date is used here.
15. Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology: or the Modern Changes of the
Earth and Its Inhabitants (London: Murray, 1830-1833, and later edi-
tions). Robert Chambers, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (New
York: Wiley and Putnam, 1845, from the 1st English ed., 1844). Darwin,
among others, held a low opinion of the Vestiges; see Appendix, 14 and
note 99,. William Lawrence, Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the
Natural History of Man (London: Printed for J. Callow, 1819, and later
editions). James Cowles Prichard, Researches into the Physical History of
Man (London: J. & A. Arch, 1813, and later editions). Darwin also read
both Lawrence and Prichard (De Beer, "Darwin's Notebook," part 2,
107n).
16. William Hem'y Edwards, A Voyage up the River Amazon (London:
Murray, 1847).
17. See AppendLx; also note 97. McKinney ("Wallace and Natural
Selection," p. 337) has also pointed out Wallaee's early interest in species,
but he overlooked the significance of the related question of species and
varieties; see See. HI and note 105.
266
Wallace, D a r w i n and the Theory of N a t u r a l Selection
A m a z o n River. ( I t is worth noting that they h a d no benefactors,

financial or otherwise, and t h a t they h a d no resource but them-
selves. Darwin, on the other h a n d , was attached to a n official
g o v e r n m e n t mission and was able to p a y his personal expenses
h i m s e l f . ) Wallace r e m a i n e d for four years, returnJ_ng to Eng-
land in October 1852; Bates stayed eleven, not arriving h o m e
until July 1859. For the first few m o n t h s , while they were
b e c o m i n g famfliax with their n e w surroundings, they traveled
together. T h e n they p a r t e d c o m p a n y , e a c h traveling indepen-
dently f r o m then on.
Wallace journeyed up the A m a z o n and the Rio Negro to
the place w h e r e the latter joins the Orinoco, a spot already
m a d e f a m o u s as the f a r t h e s t point r e a c h e d by H u m b o l d t com-
ing f r o m the other direction. Bates chose to go to the U p p e r
Amazon, spending considerable time at E t a , 1400 miles up-
s t r e a m f r o m the Atlantic Ocean. These intrepid explorers were
entirely on their o w n in the strange and oftentimes forbidding
tropics of Brazil, contending with an u n c e r t a i n supply of food,
h a z a r d o u s travel, indolent or dishonest natives (spoiled, they
thought, by being half-civilized), illness, and isolation. T h e y
financed their exploits by the sale in Europe of duplicate col-
lections, m a i n l y of insects.
Unfortunately, the scientific and financial results of Wal-
lace's travels were disappointingly m e a g e r , but with reason.
Owing to a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , the specimens collected during
the last two years were still waiting u n s h i p p e d w h e n he re-
turned to B a r r a ( n o w M a n a u s ) on his w a y b a c k to England.
And so, unhappily, these as well as the richest p a r t of his
private collections were on b o a r d with h i m w h e n the ship c a u g h t
fire at sea. N e a r l y everything was lost as p a s s e n g e r s and crew
r u s h e d to leave the b u r n i n g vessel, some 700 miles off Ber-
m u d a . Wallace a n d his c o m p a n i o n s were forced to spend ten
days in open boats before they were finally rescued by a passing
freighter.
As a consequence of this disaster, Wallace h a d to piece to-
gether the f e w p a p e r s and two books t h a t he wrote on his
r e t u r n h o m e f r o m letters, a f e w rescued notes, and his m e m o r y .
He p u r s u e d his growing interest in the geographical distribu-
tion of a n i m a l s in p a p e r s on the m o n k e y s and the butterflies
of the A m a z o n Valley, r e m a r k i n g on limits a n d barriers to
their distribution and on the i m p o r t a n c e of labelling specimens
with the exact locality where they were f o u n d for the proper
study of this distribution. 18 Besides a small book on the p a l m
18. Alfred Russel Wallace, "On the Monkeys of the Amazon," Proc.
Zool. Soc. London, 20 ( 1 8 5 2 ) , 107-110; and "'On the Habits of the Butter-
267
t r e e s o f t h e r e g i o n , h e also w r o t e t h e s t o r y o f h i s e x p e d i t i o n ,
A Narrative of Travels on the Amazon a n d R i o N e g r o . 19 I t
is a tale o f h i g h a d v e n t u r e b u t , d u e to t h e loss o f so m u c h
o f h i s m a t e r i a l , i t is less r e w a r d i n g f r o m a s c i e n t i f i c p o i n t of
view.
B a t e s w a s m o r e f o r t u n a t e , a l t h o u g h h e took good c a r e to
s e n d h i s l a s t c o l l e c t i o n s h o m e o n t h r e e s h i p s i n s t e a d of one. O n
h i s r e t u r n , h e w r o t e a s e r i e s of p a p e r s o n t h e i n s e c t f a u n a o f
t h e A m a z o n V a l l e y , i n o n e of w h i c h h e d e v e l o p e d h i s f a m o u s
t h e o r y o f p r o t e c t i v e c o l o r a t i o n , still k n o w n as B a t e s i a n m i m -
icry. 20 H i s a c c o u n t o f h i s t r a v e l s , T h e N a t u r a l i s t o n t h e R i v e r
A m a z o n s , w a s m o r e s c i e n t i f i c t h a n W a l l a c e ' s a n d also, to W a l -
l a c e ' s c h a g r i n , m o r e s u c c e s s f u l . 21
B u t W a l l a c e ' s m i s f o r t u n e p r o v e d a b o o n a f t e r all. H e h a d
c o u n t e d o n t h e m o n e y f r o m t h e s a l e of t h e lost c o l l e c t i o n s ;
w i t h o u t it h e f a c e d a r e t u r n to s u r v e y i n g or a n o t h e r trip. F o r -
tunately for both himself and the world, he chose the latter
course, deciding after much study that the Malayan region
o f f e r e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s h e s o u g h t . A n d so, i n t h e s p r i n g o f
1854, h e set off a g a i n , o n t h e e i g h t - y e a r e x p l o r a t i o n of t h e
t r o p i c s o n t h e o t h e r side o f t h e w o r l d " w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e d t h e
c e n t r a l a n d c o n t r o l l i n g i n c i d e n t o f m y life." 22
O n c e a g a i n W a l l a c e h a d to m a k e d o w i t h t h i n g s as h e f o u n d
t h e m , a c c o m m o d a t e h i m s e l f to l o c a l c u s t o m s , l e a r n n a t i v e l a n -
guages, find food and shelter where he could, and use any
a v a i l a b l e m e a n s of t r a v e l . As a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , t h e w e a t h e r
a n d t r a v e l i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s l a r g e l y d e t e r m i n e d his i t i n e r a r y .
T h e first t w o y e a r s w e r e s p e n t a r o u n d S i n g a p o r e a n d i n B o r n e o ,
t h e n e x t five i n t h e a r e a f r o m C e l e b e s to n o r t h e r n N e w G u i n e a ,
and the last year in Timor, Java, and Sumatra.
A particular aim this time was a more thorough investiga-
t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m s of t h e g e o g r a p h i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of a n i m a l s .
W a l l a c e h a d c h o s e n well, f o r t h e l e s s o n s of a n i s l a n d w o r l d
flies of the Amazon Valley," Trans. Entomol. Soc. London, N.S. 2 (1852-
1853), 253-264.
19. Alfred Russel Wallace, Palm Trees of the A m a z o n and Their Uses
(London: J. Van Voorst, 1853); and A Narrative of Travels on the Ama-
zon and Rio Negro (London: Reeve, 1853).
20. Henry Walter Bates, "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Ama-
zon Valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae,'" Trans. Linn. Soc. London, 23
(1862), 495-515.
21. Henry Walter Bates, T h e Naturalist on the River A m a z o n s (London:
Murray, 1863). Many of Bates" more interesting comments on the origin
of species and on geographical distribution were omitted from the 2rid
abridged edition (1864).
22. Wallace, M y Life, I, 336.
268
W a l l a c e , D a r w i n a n d the T h e o r y of N a t u r a l Selection
axe e v e n m o r e v i v i d t h a n those of a c o n t i n e n t a l r e g i o n ; D a r w i n
h a d also d i s c o v e r e d this w h e n h e v i s i t e d the i s l a n d s of the
Galapagos Archipelago. Although Wallace was again support-
i n g h i m s e l f b y t h e sale of d u p l i c a t e collections, his t h e o r e t i c a l
i n t e r e s t s w e r e n e v e r f a r f r o m his m i n d .
T h e m o s t s p e c t a c u l a r r e s u l t of this s e c o n d trip w a s the in-
d e p e n d e n t d i s c o v e r y of t h e t h e o r y of n a t u r a l selection, b u t
this w a s o n l y o n e of m a n y i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to evolu-
t i o n a r y theory. A n d h a p p i l y e n o u g h , h i s d i s c e r n i n g a n d well-
w r i t t e n a c c o u n t of t h e r e g i o n , T h e M a l a y A r c h i p e l a g o , b e c a m e
a w o r t h y r i v a l to D a r w i n ' s V o y a g e of t h e Beagle a n d Bates's
N a t u r a l i s t o n the R i v e r A m a z o n s . e 3
T h e t h r e e p a p e r s of s p e c i a l i m p o r t a n c e i n t r a c i n g t h e de-
v e l o p m e n t of W a l l a e e ' s i d e a s o n n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n will n o w b e
c o n s i d e r e d i n detail.
II. T H E "LAW"
To discover how the extinct species have from time to time been re-
placed by new ones down to the very latest geological period, is the
most difficult, and at the same time the most interesting problem in the
natural history of the earth. The present inquiry, which seeks to elim-
inate from known facts a law which has determined, to a certain
degree, what species could and did appear at a given epoch, may, it is
hoped, be considered as one step in the right dixection towards a com-
plete solution of it.
Wallace, "'On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of New
Species"
W a l l a c e ' s " p o w e r f u l essay," e4 " O n the L a w w h i c h h a s r e g u -
l a t e d t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n of N e w Species," w a s p u b l i s h e d i n Sep-
t e m b e r 1855, b u t to h i s d i s a p p o i n t m e n t it a t t r a c t e d little n o t i c e
at the time. ~5 H e h a d w r i t t e n it i n the p r e c e d i n g F e b r u a r y
d u r i n g a l u l l i n his c o l l e c t i n g activities, i n d u c e d b y t h e p u b -
l i c a t i o n of E d w a r d F o r b e s ' s t h e o r y of p o l a r i t y , a n d h e h a d
h o p e d at t h e l e a s t for s o m e c o m m e n t f r o m this b r i l l i a n t y o u n g
n a t u r a l i s t ; u n k n o w n to W a l l a c e , h o w e v e r , F o r b e s h a d died i n
N o v e m b e r 1854. E x c e p t for Bates's, o t h e r r e s p o n s e w a s m i n i -
real, if n o t d i s p a r a g i n g .
W a l l a c e p h r a s e d his '~law" as f o l l o w s : E v e r y species has
c o m e into e x i s t e n c e c o i n c i d e n t b o t h in space a n d t i m e w i t h a
p r e - e x i s t i n g closely allied species. 26 A l t h o u g h the e v o l u t i o n a r y
23. Alfred Russel Wallace, The Malay Archipelago: The Land of the
Orang-utan, and the Bird of Paradise: a Narrative of Travel, with Studies
of Man and Nature (London: Macmillan, 1869).
24. Thomas Hera'y Huxley, in Darwin, Life and Letters, I, 539.
25. Alfred Russel Wallace, "On the Law which has regulated the Intro-
duction of New Species," Ann. Mag. Nat. His~. [2], 16 (1855), 184--196.
269
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
implications of this statement are obvious, Wallace at this thne

had no suggestions on a m e c h a n i s m of change. His specula-
tions were rooted in his long-standing interest in the geographi-
cal distribution of animals and colored by his extensive practical
experience in the tropics of two hemispheres.
The study of zoogeography, in which Wallace was to be-
come an acknowledged master, was still clouded in mystery
w h e n he first came upon it in Swainson's T r e a t i s e on the sub-
ject :
We may, indeed, build a theory upon every thing in n a t u r e :
but the more we investigate, the stronger will be our con-
viction in the following deduction : - - T h a t the p r i m a r y causes
which have led to different regions of the earth being peo-
pled by different races of animals, and the laws by which
their dispersion is regulated, m u s t be for ever hid f r o m
h u m a n research [to which Wallace wrote "no" in the mar-
gin]. This conclusion is strengthened by the inference which
will be d r a w n f r o m the facts we shall subsequently state;
an inference so well expressed by a very intelligent writer,
that we shall give it nearly in his own words. "It appears
that various tribes of organised beings were originally placed
by the Creator in certain regions, for which they are by their
nature peculiarly adapted [Wallace's underlining]." 2r
I n a modification of the quinarian system of William Sharpe
Macleay, Swainson divided the earth into five regions accord-
Lug to what he believed to be the five m a j o r races of m a n k i n d ;
animal groups were likewise divided into fives. The divisions
were mathematical, the reasons not only u n k n o w n but un-
knowable. But Wallace questioned Swainson f r o m the first,
noting that "there appears not to be the slightest reason for
believing a priori that all groups of animals are divided into
the same n u m b e r of types of f o r m s or divisions . . ." 28
Over the years Wallace's ideas matured. Traces of this can
be found, as mentioned earlier, in his papers on the monkeys
and the butterflies of the A m a z o n Valley, as well as in his
Narrative, but he was undoubtedly h a n d i c a p p e d by the loss
of so m u c h of his South American material. The appearance
of Forbes's paper spurred Wallace to collect and organize his
thoughts, for Forbes's theory of polarity as an explanation of
organic changes through geologic time seemed as untenable
26. Ibid., p. 186.
27. Swainson, T r e a t i s e o n G e o g r a p h y , p. 9.
28. Note written by Wallace in his copy of Swainson's T r e a t i s e o n
G e o g r a p h y , p. 223.
270
Wallace, Darwin and the Theory of N a t u r a l Selection
to h i m as h a d Swainson's theories about the present geographi-

cal distribution of animals.
A pervading influence on Wallace, one m i g h t almost say the
pervading influence, was Charles Lyell's Principles o f Geology.
Wallace h a d read Lyell at least as early as 1846, and he h a d
accepted wholeheartedly Lyell's application of the principle of
unfformitarianism to geology, But Lyell's influence was more
p r o f o u n d t h a n that. F r o m the notebook kept by Wallace dur-
Lug his Malayan travels, it seems that he h a d with h i m a
copy of the f o u r t h edition of Lyell's Principles, and the discus-
sion here refers to this edition. 29
I n a large measure, Wallace's 'T~lotebook" is a long, private
a r g u m e n t with /_,yell, refuting m a n y of the latter's biological
theories. Wallace was thus stimulated to broaden and deepen
his own thinking. It should be noted in Lyell's defense, how-
ever, that he was neither a trained biologist nor a collector
of living specimens ( a l t h o u g h he h a d collected insects as a
y o u t h ) , and that he lacked the extensive first-hand experience
with living things acquired through long years by a Lamarck,
a Darwin, or a Wallace.
It has often been said that Lyell nearly stumbled onto evo-
lutionary theory himself; it has even been suggested that he
was an evolutionist in secret, at least at first. 30 But in fact he
was far removed at m a n y critical points. He h a d missed alto-
gether the crux of Wallace's p a p e r - - t h e relationship of species
in both time a n d s p a c e - - a n d so a theory of descent was not
only not a logical deduction, it was irrelevant. On his own
terms he believed he h a d applied the principle of unfformi-
tarianism to organic changes by showing the gradual extinc-
tion and creation of species. But he believed firmly in the
stability of species, scarcely a good f o u n d a t i o n for a theory of
evolution.
Lyell was well acquainted, however, with L a m a r c k ' s theory
of the t r a n s m u t a t i o n of species, h a v i n g first read it in 1827.
Although he f o u n d the ideas provocative, he confessed in a
letter to Mantell that "I read h i m rather as I hear an advocate
on the wrong side, to know w h a t can be m a d e of the case in
good hands." 31 He included a lengthy s u m m a r y in his Prin-
29. Lyell, Principles of Geology, 4th ed. (London: Murray, 1835). See
a l s o n o t e 4.
30. Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 180-189. An early proponent
of this point of view was Thomas Huxley, in Darwin, Life and Letters, I,
543--548.
31. Katherine Lyell, ed., Life, Letters and ]ournals of Sir Charles Lyell
(London: Murray, 1881), I, 168.
271
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
ciples, at first in protest against the pretension that species

were "capable . . . of being indefinitely modified in the course
of a long series of generations," but later to give due honor
to L a m a r c k and his evolutionary theories. 32 Wallace and Dar-
win both read Lyell's summary. Parenthetically, it might be
observed that Lyell accepted to a limited degree what later
generations have considered the hallmark of Lamarckism,
the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In Lyell's case, this
m e a n t the possible inheritance of acquired habits that re-
m a i n e d within the strict limits of predetermined variation. To
a limited extent, Darwin was also to accept this Larnarckian
tenet, but Wallace never did.
Lyell's view of geographical distribution was more compre-
hensive t h a n Swainson's. He had broadened the scope to in-
clude time and change, although there was no hint of evolu-
tion :
I f the views which I have taken are just, there will be
no difficulty in explaining w h y the habitations of so m a n y
species are now restrained within exceedingly n a r r o w limits.
Every local revolution, such as those contemplated in the
preceding chapter, tends to circumscribe the r a n g e of some
species, while it enlarges that of others; and ff we ale led
to infer that new species originate in one spot only, each
m u s t require time to diffuse itself over a wide area. It will
follow, therefore, f r o m the adoption of this hypothesis, that
the recent origin of some species, and the high antiquity of
others, are equally consistent with the general fact of their
limited distribution, some being local, because they have
not existed long enough to admit of their wide dissemination;
others, because circumstances in the animate or inanimate
world have occurred to restrict the range which they m a y
once have obtained.
As considerable modification in the relative levels of land
and sea have taken place in certain regions since the exist-
ing species were in being, we can feel no surprise that the
zoologist and botanist have hitherto f o u n d it difficult to refer
the geographical distribution of species to any clear and
determinate principles, since they have usually speculated
on the p h e n o m e n a , upon the assumption that the physical
geography of the globe h a d undergone no material altera-
tion since the introduction of the species now living. So
long as this assumption was made, the facts relating to the
32. Lyell, Principles of Geology, 1st ed. ( 1 8 3 2 ) , II,1; l O t h ed. ( 1 8 6 8 ) ,

II, 246.
272
geography of plants and animals appeared capricious in the

extreme, and by m a n y the subject was p r o n o u n c e d to be
so full of mystery and anomalies, that the establishment of
a satisfactory theory was hopeless. 33
Although Lyell's biological theories were ambiguous and ill-
defined, his contributions to geology had added new dimensions
to the history of the earth. In particular, he had expanded on
the unfformitarian theory of the Scottish geologist James Hut-
ton ( 1 7 2 6 - 1 7 9 7 ) that attempted "to explain the f o r m e r changes
of the earth's crust by reference exclusively to natural agents," a4
and he had vigorously attacked the commonly accepted belief
that life on the earth had begun in the year 4004 B.C., as
calculated by James Usher, Archbishop of Armagh. Wallace's
efforts ( a n d Darwin's too) would have been crippled without
Lyell.
Evolution was advocated, however, in a book published not
long afterward, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.
But its a n o n y m o u s author, Robert Chambers, "a private per-
son with limited opportunities for study," was no biologist
either, and his popular work was ridiculed by scientists. Nev-
ertheless, Wallace thought his hypothesis ingenious, as he
wrote to Bates [2, 3].
For somewhat different reasons, two editions of Darwin's
Voyage of the Beagle should also be included here. Wallace
read the first edition ( 1 8 3 9 ) quite early, perhaps as early as
1842 according to his first letter to Bates and the note in his
copy of Lindley; and f r o m evidence in the '~Iotebook,'" he took
a copy of the second ( 1 8 4 5 ) along with him to the Malay
Archipelago.
Wallace began his paper "On the Law" by noting the long-
continued series of geologic changes. Then, applying the uni-
formitarian principle to organic changes, he proposed "'a like
gradation and natural sequence f r o m one geological epoch to
another." 35 (Lyell had suggested the slow and gradual extinc-
tion and creation of species, but with no hint of descent.)
F r o m a series of propositions relating to "organic geography
and geology," Wallace then deduced his 'qaw," which supported
a hypothesis that might explain the past and present distribu-
tion of life upon the earth that h a d occurred to him, he said,
about ten years earlier.
First of the four m a i n questions illuminated by Wallace's
33. Ibid., 4 t h ed., III, 1 6 5 - 1 6 6 .
34. Ibid., 1 2 t h ed. ( 1 8 7 5 ) , I, 73.
35. W a l l a c e , "'On t h e L a w , " p. 184.
273
BARBAKAG. BEDDALL
' l a w " was that perennial problem, "the system of natural af-
fi_nities.'" z~ If the 'qaw" were true, species would be related to
closely allied species which had preceded them. This relation-
ship could rarely be expressed for long by a straight line. The
divergence, u n e v e n rates of change, and extinction of species,
complicated by the f r a g m e n t a r y fossil record, could be better
represented by a b r a n c h i n g "as intricate as the twigs of a
gnarled oak." aT Artificial systems of classification based on
circles or a fixed n u m b e r of divisions were u n n e c e s s a r y con-
trivances.
L a m a r c k would have agreed. He believed that species were
defined by the gaps between them that were produced by ex-
tinction and by the f r a g m e n t a r y record, and that two or more
diverging species would merge going backward in time. To
Lyell this would have been unthinkable, convinced as he was
of the real and p e r m a n e n t existence of species in nature.
Next, in answer to the "singular p h e n o m e n a " of the dis-
tribution of animals and plants in space, Wallace offered some
original suggestions, as He clearly recognized the part played
by geographical isolation in the origin of peculiar forms of
life in long-isolated places, and also the divergence f r o m a
widespread "antitype" that results in two or more representa-
tive forms in different regions of the world. He brought forward
as examples the problems posed by the inhabitants of both
ancient and recent island groups and m o u n t a i n ranges.
Of particular interest are Wallace's suggestions regarding
the Galapagos Islands, where the " p h e n o m e n a . . . have not
hitherto received any, even a conjectural explanation." a9 Dar-
win h a d mentioned in the first edition of his Voyage of the
Beagle the m a n y peculiarities of distribution that he had f o u n d
in this small archipelago, six h u n d r e d miles off the coast of
Ecuador, concluding only: "But there is not space in this work,
to enter on this curious subject." 40
Although Darwin expanded on this in the second edition of
the Voyage, his remarks were again inconclusive :
The only light which I can throw on this remarkable dif-
ference in the inhabitants of the different islands, is, that
very strong currents of the sea r u n n i n g in a westerly and
W.N.W. direction m u s t separate, as far as transportal by
36. Ibid., pp. 186--188.
37. " D i v e r g e n c e " w a s a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t of D a r w i n ' s theory. See also
notes 105, 111-113, 125-127, a n d Wallace, " O n the L a w , " p. 187.
38. Ibid., pp. 188-190.
39. Ibid., p. 188.
40. D a r w i n , Voyage of the Beagle ( 1 8 3 9 ) , p. 475.
274
sea is concerned, the southern islands f r o m the n o r t h e r n

ones; and between these n o r t h e r n islands a strong N.W.
current was observed, which m u s t effectually separate
J a m e s and Albemarle Islands. As the archipelago is free to
a most remarkable degree f r o m gales of wind, neither the
birds, insects, nor lighter seeds, would be blown f r o m island
to island. And lastly, the p r o f o u n d depth of the ocean be-
tween the islands, and their apparently recent (in a geologi-
cal sense) volcanic origin, render it highly unlikely that they
were ever united; and this, probably, is a f a r more important
consideration t h a n any other, with respect to the geographi-
cal distribution of their inhabitants. Reviewing the facts
here given, one is astonished at the a m o u n t of creative force,
if such an expression m a y be used, displayed on these small,
barren, and rocky islands; and still more so, at its diverse
and yet analogous action on points so near each other. I
have said that the Galapagos Archipelago m i g h t be called
a satellite attached to America, but it should rather be called
a group of satellites, physically similar, organically distinct,
yet intimately related to each other, and all related in a
marked, t h o u g h m u c h lesser degree, to the great American
continent. 41
I n other words, these islands were geologically recent, separ-
ated not only by deep ocean but also by currents, and without
winds strong e n o u g h to have blown birds, insects, or seeds
f r o m one island to another. With no m e a n s of dispersal and a
limited a m o u n t of time, it is no wonder that D a r w i n seemed
puzzled. Actually, his private thinking was m u c h in advance of
this public statement, for he h a d already worked out his theory
of n a t u r a l selection as a n explanation of the "creative force"
at work in the islands, but Wallace h a d no w a y of k n o w i n g
this.42
Wallace suggested, on the contrary, that these were islands
of high antiquity that h a d been peopled by the agency of wind
and water, as other islands were peopled, and that, the pre-
existing species h a v i n g died out, only variously modified pro-
totypes n o w remained. The islands of the Malay Archipelago
differed in being separated by shallow seas (this was written
shortly before Wallace discovered in the s u m m e r of 1856 the
division between the Australian and Oriental Regions since
41. Charles Darwin, Journal of Researches into the Natural History
and Geology of the Countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
round the World, 2rid ed. (London: Murray, 1fl45), p. 398.
42. Charles Darwin and Alfred R. Wallace, Evolution by Natural Selec-
tion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958), pp. 116--121.
275
BARBARA G. B E D D A L L
immortalized as "Wallace's Line"), probably indicating a n ear-

lier land connection that could account for the basic similari-
ties in their faunas. Islands like Great Britain, which h a d only
recently (geologically s p e a k i n g ) been separated f r o m conti-
nents, would h a v e few groups peculiar to themselves.
Wallace's r e a s o n for first writing D a r w i n in October 1856
c a n only be guessed at. P e r h a p s he hoped for some c o m m e n t
f r o m D a r w i n on these suggestions. (An entry in his "Notebook"
shows that he was rereading D a r w i n about this time.) 43
A p p r o a c h i n g the p r o b l e m f r o m another point of view, Wal-
lace n e x t considered the close geographical proximity of closely
allied species in rich g r o u p s - - s u c h as the h u m m i n g b i r d s ,
toucans, p a l m s , orchids, and various families of b u t t e r f l i e s - -
and asked, "why are these things so?" These facts of distribu-
tion would not only be explained by his "law," they would also
be its necessary results. A corollary was t h a t species h a v e not
arisen m o r e t h a n once, in two widely separated places. LyeU,
for all his shortcomings in biology, h a d believed that species
were "'created" in one place only, although he recognized that
this m i g h t give a false impression of centers of creation.
Thirdly, Wallace inquired into the p h e n o m e n a of geological
distribution, the distribution of species in time r a t h e r t h a n in
space. 44 Again he pointed out that proximity and gradual
change were the rule and t h a t species h a d been "created" only
once. It is in connection with geological distribution, however,
that reasons for Lyell's failure to hit u p o n evolutionary theory
b e c o m e clear. Especially i m p o r t a n t is the m a t t e r of the ex-
tinction of species. On this point Lyell and L a m a r c k repre-
sented two opposite points of view. Lyell, convinced of the
i m m u t a b i l i t y of species, could hardly believe otherwise t h a n
in their absolute extinction. He was applying the u n i f o r m i t a r i a n
principle in extending b a c k w a r d in time the acknowledged
present-day and probable f u t u r e extinction of species:
Although we have as yet considered one class only of the
causes (the organic) by which species m a y b e c o m e extermin-
ated, yet it c a n n o t but a p p e a r evident that the continued
action of these alone, t h r o u g h o u t m y r i a d s of f u t u r e ages,
m u s t work an entire change in the state of the organic crea-
tion, not m e r e l y on the continents and islands, where the
power of m a n is chiefly exerted, but in the great oceans,
where his controul [sic] is almost unknown. The m i n d is pre-
43. W a l l a c e , " N o t e b o o k , " p. 60. See also n o t e s 81, 103, a n d 162, a n d

A p p e n d i x , 69.
44. W a l l a c e , " O n t h e L a w , " pp. 1 9 0 - 1 9 5 .
276
p a r e d by the c o n t e m p l a t i o n of such f u t u r e revolutions to

look for the signs of others, of an analogous nature, in the
m o n u m e n t s of the past. I n s t e a d of being astonished at the
proofs there m a n i f e s t e d of endless m u t a t i o n s in the a n i m a t e
world, they will a p p e a r to one who h a s t h o u g h t profoundly
on the fluctuations n o w in progress, to afford evidence in
f a v o u r of the u n i f o r m i t y of the system, unless, indeed, we are
precluded f r o m speaking of u n i f o r m i t y w h e n we charac-
terize a principle of endless variation. 45
L a m a r c k , on the other h a n d , considered t h a t only a f e w large
l a n d a n i m a l s at m o s t h a d b e c o m e extinct, and t h e n through
the agency of m a n . E v e n earlier t h a n Lyell he h a d disagreed
with the catastrophists, who t h o u g h t t h a t life h a d b e e n wiped
out at various times by universal cataclysms. Lyell suggested
a course of gradual extinction and creation of species, But La-
m a r c k h a d proposed t h a t earlier species h a d gradually been
c h a n g e d into present-day species through t r a n s m u t a t i o n ; ex-
tinction thus played no i m p o r t a n t p a r t in his system. LyeU,
however, disagreed completely with L a m a r c k :
To p u r s u e this train of reasoning f a r t h e r is unnecessary;
the geologist h a s only to reflect on w h a t h a s b e e n said of
the habitations a n d stations of organic beings in general,
and to consider t h e m in relation to those effects w h i c h were
c o n t e m p l a t e d in the second book, as resulting f r o m the ig-
neous and aqueous causes n o w in action, and he will im-
mediately perceive that, a m i d s t the vicissitudes of the earth's
surface, species c a n n o t be i m m o r t a l , b u t m u s t perish, one
after the other, like the individuals which compose them.
T h e r e is no possibility of escaping f r o m this conclusion,
without resorting to some hypothesis as violent as t h a t of
L a m a r c k , who imagined, as we h a v e before seen, t h a t spe-
cies are e a c h of t h e m endowed with indefinite powers of
m o d i f y i n g their organization, in c o n f o r m i t y to the endless
c h a n g e s of c i r c u m s t a n c e s to w h i c h they are exposed. 46
Wallace steered a middle course. He agreed with Lyell t h a t
some species m i g h t b e c o m e extinct, but he also agreed with
L a m a r c k t h a t modified prototypes m i g h t r e m a i n . If extinction
were the rule, as Lyell suggested, t h e n some sort of "'creation"
was necessary to fill the gaps. Here Lyell was quite vague,
his hypothesis on the original introduction of species reading
as follows :
Each species m a y h a v e h a d its origin in a single pair, or
45. Lyell, Principles of Geology, 4th ed., III, 140--141.
46. Ibid., 155-156.
277
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
individual, where a n individual was sufficient, a n d species

m a y h a v e been created in succession at such times and in
such places as to enable t h e m to multiply and endure for
a n appointed period, and occupy a n appointed space on the
globe.4~
This creation of n e w species was not readily seen because it
was an i n f r e q u e n t occurrence taking place over a long period
of time at different places on the earth.
L a m a r c k ' s solution to this p r o b l e m was the mutability of
species, though the agency he s u g g e s t e d - - i n h e r i t a n c e of char-
acteristics acquired through the will of the a n i m a l - - w a s scoffed
at even in his own day.
The author of the Vestiges h a d still another suggestion:
The idea, then, which I f o r m of the progress of organic
life u p o n the g l o b e - - a n d the hypothesis is applicable to all
similar theatres of vital b e i n g - - i s , that the simplest and
m o s t primitive type, under a law to w h i c h that of like-pro-
duction is subordinate, gave birth to the type n e x t above it,
that this again produced the n e x t higher, and so on to the
very highest, the stages of a d v a n c e being in all cases very
s m a l l - - n a m e l y , f r o m one species only to another; so that
the p h e n o m e n o n has always been of a simple and modest
character. 4s
C h a m b e r s ' proposal that one species gave birth directly to the
n e x t higher brought derision u p o n his book. Nevertheless, he
should at least be credited with h a v i n g e m p h a s i z e d a n a t u r a l
method.
Wallace, however, h a d no theory on how extinct species
were replaced. For the present, he confined himself to "what
species could and did appear." He saw that this was neither a
r a n d o m process n o r a straight line f r o m simple to complex,
as proposed by the p r o p o n e n t s of the theory of progressive
development. A theory of gradual c h a n g e c o m b i n e d with his
"law" would, he thought, account for the observed f a c t s a n d
even for a p p a r e n t retrogressions.
Lyell, as a geologist f a m i l a r with the anomalies of the fossil
record, h a d protested against the theory of progressive devel-
o p m e n t because he disputed the a c c u r a c y of the facts:
It was before r e m a r k e d , that the theory of progressive
d e v e l o p m e n t arose f r o m an a t t e m p t to ingraft the doctrine
of the t r a n s m u t a t i o n i s t s u p o n one of the m o s t p o p u l a r gen-
eralizations in geology. But m o d e r n geological researches
47. Ibid., 9 9 - 1 0 0 . 48. C h a m b e r s , Vestiges, 1st ed., p. 167.
278
have almost destroyed every appearance of that gradation

in the successive groups of animate beings, which was sup-
posed to indicate the slow progress of the organic world from
the more simple to the more c o m p o u n d structure. 49
Although evolutionary trends do exist ( a n d Lyell later ac-
cepted a general progression), the record is far f r o m straight-
forward, and its message is not easily read. The theory of
evolution, with n a t u r a l selection as an agent of change, was to
m a k e this record more comprehensible, for it postulates suc-
cessful adaptation rather t h a n any necessary progression. Wal-
lace was still several years away f r o m this answer, but he was
heading in the right direction.
It was Forbes's metaphysical theory of polarity that h a d
prompted Wallace to set out his own t h o u g h t s ) ° According
to this theory, the distribution of organized beings ( g e n e r a rather
t h a n species) in time manifested a quality k n o w n as polarity:
an " a r r a n g e m e n t in opposite directions with a development
of intensity towards the extremes of each." 51 This relation
was used to explain the larger n u m b e r of generic f o r m s in the
earlier epochs of the Palaeozoic (Silurian and D e v o n i a n ) and
in the later epochs of the Neozoic (Cretaceous, Tertiary, and
present), c o m p a r e d with the smaller n u m b e r to be f o u n d in
the intervening time.
Wallace objected to this theory on several grounds. First of
all, it invoked an obscure and hypothetical cause w h e n "the
facts m a y be readily accounted for on the principles already
laid down." 52 I n typical Lyellian style, he stressed the vast
a m o u n t s of time involved and the action of n a t u r a l causes, and
he went on to propose that the rates of creation and extinction
of species were related to unequal rates of geologic change,
more species being created during quiet periods of the earth's
long history and more becoming extinct during violent periods.
Even more to the point was Wallace's criticism that Forbes's
theory presupposed the completeness of the geological record
( a n error also m a d e by those who believed in the theory of
progressive development). Wallace knew it was f r a g m e n t a r y ,
but he would have been surprised to know that a century later
fossils are still thought to represent less t h a n one per cent
of the species that have existed, Polarity's f o u n d a t i o n was
fragile at best.
49. Lyell, Principles of Geology, 4th ed., III, 14-15.
50. Edward Forbes, "'On the Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribu-
tion of Organized Beings in Time," Proc. Roy. Inst. London, 57 (October
1854), 332--337.
51. Ibid., p. 336. 52. Wallace, "On the Law," p. 192.
279
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
The f o u r t h and final point of Wallace's p a p e r was another

subject t h a t h a d attracted m u c h attention, the puzzling prob-
l e m of r u d i m e n t a r y organs. 5~ LyeU later admitted t h a t he h a d
missed their significance and as a result h a d omitted f r o m
his s u m m a r y m o s t of the e x a m p l e s given by L a m a r c k . 54 This
is not surprising, however, because L a m a r c k h a d interpreted
t h e m in his own light, believing t h e m to be the result of "the
permanent disuse of an organ, arising from a change of habits,
[which caused] a gradual shrinkage and ultimately the disap-
pearance and even extinction of that organ." 55 Wallace, like
C h a m b e r s , t h o u g h t that r u d i m e n t a r y organs showed relation-
ships, but he misinterpreted t h e m , confusing vestigial with
n a s c e n t organs. He did, however, ask the right question. "If each
species h a s b e e n created independently, and without any neces-
sary relations with pre-existing species, w h a t do these rudiments,
these a p p a r e n t imperfections m e a n ? " 56
Wallace ended his p a p e r grandly: "Granted the law, and
m a n y of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t facts in N a t u r e could not h a v e
been otherwise, b u t are almost as necessary deductions f r o m
it, as are the elliptic orbits of the planets f r o m the law of
gravitation." 57 The response to it was hardly encouraging.
More t h a n two years passed before Bates's letter congratulat-
ing h i m arrived f r o m the U p p e r A m a z o n [9]. I n the m e a n t i m e ,
his agent, S a m u e l Stevens, wrote t h a t he h a d h e a r d several
naturalists object to Wallace's "theorizing" w h e n w h a t was
needed was m o r e facts•
III. T H E "NOTE"
• . . w h y s h o u l d a special act of c r e a t i o n be r e q u i r e d to call into existence
a n o r g a n i s m differing only i n degree f r o m a n o t h e r w h i c h h a s b e e n
p r o d u c e d by e x i s t i n g l a w s ?
Wallace, "'Note o n the T h e o r y of P e r m a n e n t a n d G e o g r a p h i c a l Varieties'"
I n the fall of 1857 Wallace sent off to the Zoologist a short

p a p e r entitled "Note on the Theory of P e r m a n e n t and Geo-
graphical Varieties." 58 The first p a r t of his hypothesis h a d
been his 'Jaw" on " w h a t species could and did appear"; the
53. Ibid., pp. 195--196.
54. Lyell, Principles of Geology, 12th ed., II, 274.
55. J e a n Baptiste L a m a r c k , Zoological Philosophy: an Exposition zvith
Regard to the Natural History of Animals, tr. H u g h Elliot ( L o n d o n : Mac-
m i l l a n , 1914; r e p r i n t e d , N e w York: H a f n e r , 1963), p. 115.
56. Wallace, " O n the L a w , " p. 195.
57. Ibid., p. 196.
58. Alfred R u s s e l Wallace, "Note o n the T h e o r y of P e r m a n e n t a n d
G e o g r a p h i c a l Varieties," Zoologist, 16 ( 1 8 5 8 ) , 5887-5888.
280
second p a r t concerned the distinction b e t w e e n species and vari-

eties, as he wrote to Bates in J a n u a r y 1858 [19]. This question
still exists, of course, but the p r e m i s e s are entirely different.
Then, species were real a n d p e r m a n e n t , "created" with certain
relatively fixed characteristics; varieties, on the other h a n d ,
were produced by ordinary generation within strict limits of
variation. Varieties were, ff anything, a n inconvenience, inter-
fering with the rigid definition of species. Today, however,
species h a v e only a relative p e r m a n e n c e ; they also come about
by ordinary generation, a n d varieties m a y ( t h o u g h they do not
a l w a y s ) lead to the f o r m a t i o n of n e w species.
The definition of species h a s b e e n a troublesome p r o b l e m at
least as f a r b a c k as the time of A.ristofle. N o t until the time
of the English naturalist J o h n Ray ( 1 6 2 8 - 1 7 0 5 ) was the t e r m
limited to w h a t we would today recognize as a breeding unit,
including sex, color, and age variants. Ray concluded his dis-
cussion of species in his Historia P l a n t a r u m with the observa-
tion that " a n i m a l s that differ in species preserve their distinct
species p e r m a n e n t l y ; one species n e v e r springs f r o m the seed
of a n o t h e r nor vice versa." 59
L i n n a e u s ( 1 7 0 7 - 1 7 7 8 ) was strongly influenced by Ray. A
clear notion of w h a t was m e a n t by the t e r m "species" was a
necessity in organizing his S y s t e m a Naturae, first published
in 1735. At first he was convinced of the p e r m a n e n c e of species,
but later, after he h a d b e c o m e acquainted with the vast n u m -
ber of n e w f o r m s b r o u g h t h o m e by explorers f r o m all over the
world, he was not so sure. Nevertheless, the belief in the
creation of p e r m a n e n t species, which was closely intertwined
with religion, was the generally accepted opinion in the first
h a l f of the n i n e t e e n t h century, in spite of the heresies of people
like L a m a r c k and Chambers.
This vexed question h a d attracted Wallace's attention f r o m
the start, as c a n be seen f r o m his early letters to Bates [3, 4].
It b e c a m e a m a t t e r of daily c o n c e r n when, as a collector,
he was c o n f r o n t e d over and over again with the task of prop-
erly identifying specimens. U n h a m p e r e d by a n y strong re-
ligious convictions, he worried at the p r o b l e m as a dog does
a bone, as his "Notebook" attests.
L a m a r c k h a d clearly grasped the gradual n a t u r e of c h a n g e
in species t h r o u g h time. Chambers, although he believed in
evolution, t h o u g h t t h a t it proceeded by sudden leaps f r o m
species to species r a t h e r t h a n by the a c c u m u l a t i o n of small
changes. But Lyell stood on the opposite side of the fence,
59. B a r b a r a G. Beddall, "Historical N o t e s o n A v i a n Classification," Syst.
Zooi., 6 (1957), 134.
281
firmly convinced of the fixity of species and of strict limita-

tions to variation. Had either Chambers or LyeU been trained
biologists or collectors, exposed day after day to the endless
variations to be f o u n d in nature, they m i g h t have modified
their views. But Wallace benefited f r o m LyeU's position, using
it as a springboard f r o m which to develop his own. Although
Lyell was u n a w a r e that he had been cast in the role of prin-
cipal antagonist, his importance to Wallace c a n n o t be over-
rated.
It seems likely that the '~Notebook" was intended as the basis
of a projected book about which Wallace wrote to Darwin in
the fall of 1857 and to Bates early in 1858 [16, 19]. 60 The
entries of particular interest here were written between June
1855 (not long after the formulation of his ' ] a w " ) and No-
vember 1857, assuming that the dates scattered here and there
are accurate indicators of the time and order of writing. They
cover an assortment of topics relating to e v o l u t i o n - - p r o o f s of
design, the theory of progressive development, transmutation
and special creation, the "balance of species," geological changes
and gaps in the fossil record, and the doctrine of the mor-
phology of p l a n t s - - a n d reflect Wallace's progress toward a
solution of the problem of the origin of species. ~1
The a r g u m e n t f r o m design was teleological, presuming that
a contrivance existed in accordance with a preconceived plan.
Adaptation between structure and function was recognized,
but it was thought that a structure was provided simply be-
cause a function required it. Wallace wondered, however, how
an animal could have necessities before it came into existence?
And how could it "continue to exist unless its structure en-
abled it to obtain food?" B2 He thought that the arguments
brought forward as proofs of design were absurd; not only were
they insulting to the intelligence of a Supreme Being, but they
also placed n a r r o w limits on His power.
Wallace returned several times to the inconsistencies in the
geological record that m a d e the theory of progressive develop-
m e n t so troublesome for Lyell, observing that "the supposed
contradictions all arise f r o m considering it necessary that the
highest forms of one group should appear before the lowest of
the next succeeding, not considering that each group goes on
60. The information that Wallace's plan for his book is on the r e v e r s e
side of the fragment about the jaguars was sent me by Sydney Smith.
61. Wallace, "Notebook," pp. 12--100. See also McKinney ("Wallace
and Natural Selection," pp. 342-347), who has also pointed out that this
is essentially a long argument with LyeU.
62. Wallace, '¢Notebook," p. 12.
282
progressing after other groups have b r a n c h e d f r o m it." 0a LyeU's

static concept of species did not allow for such a d y n a m i c
interpretation.
Were there connecting forms between groups, and if so,
w h a t were they? Wallace r e m a r k e d that "as long as these m o s t
important characters [of groups] r e m a i n undiminished, no al-
terations of external f o r m or habits c a n be held to shew any
signs of a transition." 64 He questioned the popularly held
transitional status of the seal, asking, "is not the Cetaceous
group rather a modification of m a m m a l i a to an aquatic life
t h a n a link connecting them with fishes?" 05 He noted that
neither the bat nor the h u m m i n g b i r d is a transition f o r m either,
because each contains the characteristic features of m a m m a l
or bird in a high state of development. The bat's wing is even
less like a bird's wing t h a n are less modified forelimbs of
other m a m m a l s . Therefore, the highest f o r m s of one group
c a n n o t be a transition to the lowest forms of the next.
Lyell h a d also h a d trouble in accounting for the appearance
of n e w species. Having decided in favor of the stability of
species, he was obliged to settle for their extinction and "cre-
ation," admitting to only a limited a m o u n t of variation. Wallace
was groping his way forward, however, questioning LyeU's
assumptions :
Lyell says that varieties of some species m a y differ more
t h a n other species do f r o m each other without shaking our
confidence in the reality of s p e c i e s - - B u t why should we
have that confidence? Is it not a nice prepossession or preju-
dice like that in f a v o u r of the stability of the earth which
he has so ably argued against? I n fact, w h a t positive evidence
have we that species only vary within certain limits? . . . we
have no proof how the varieties of dogs were produced. All
varieties we know of are produced at birth, the offspring
differing f r o m the parent. This offspring propagates its kind.
W h o can declare that it shall not produce a variety, which
process continued at intervals will account for all the facts? 6"
Not only did Lye]] believe that the a m o u n t of variation was
strictly limited, but he also believed that it occurred over a
brief period, after which no more changes took place no mat-
ter how long a time passed. Wallace thought that "'Mr. LyeU
m u s t be very perplexed to know this." 6v Lyell did concede
63. Ibid., p. 38. 64. Ibid., pp. 77-78; comma added.
65, Ibid., p. 76.
66. Ibid., pp. 3 9 - 4 0 ; c o m m a s added. See also LyeH, Principles of
Geology, 4th ed., II, 435.
67. Wallace, "'Notebook," p. 42.
283
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
that time might bring about any metamorphosis, but only ff

such c h a n g e were evidenced by a wholly new sense or organ.
Wallace objected that "this would be taking a leap with a
v e n g e a n c e . We should have to get out of one class or order
into another passing through m a n y thousand s p e c i e s - - I f this
is supposed to prove a change f r o m one species to another,
it can never be proved." 0s
Lyell opposed Lamarck's theory of the t r a n s m u t a t i o n of
species, but Wallace defended his doctrine of their indefinite
modifiability:
Many of Lamarck's views arc quite untenable & it is easy
to controvert them, but not so the simple question of a
species being produced in time f r o m a closely allied distinct
species, which, however, m a y of course continue to exist
as long or longer t h a n the offshoot. Changes which we bring
about artificially in short periods m a y have a tendency to
revert to the parent stock, t h o u g h this in animals is not
proved. This is considered a grand test of a variety. But
w h e n the c h a n g e has been produced by Nature during a long
series of generations, as gradual as the changes of Geology,
it by no m e a n s follows that they m a y not be permanent,
& thus true species produced. ~°
Wallace was to r e t u r n later to the "grand test of a variety";
it became the opening gun in the essay he sent to Darwin
f r o m Ternate in February 1858.
Lyell had m a d e m a n y contributions to the tangle of ques-
tions surrounding the geographical distribution of animals. But
a central p r o b l e m - - t h e "creation" of s p e c i e s - - m u d d l e d his
conclusions, and Wallace put his finger on one of the incon-
sistencies to which this led :
LyeU occupies m u c h space in shewing how the species
which are c o m m o n to different & distant countries, might
have been carried f r o m one to the other by a variety of acci-
dents. But this has never been felt to be a difficulty. The
m a t t e r of wonder has always been that in distant countries
of similar climate so m a n y should be different. This he gets
over by special creation of the species each in one spot as
they are wanted.
This is no doubt a very easy way of getting over it, but
just as philosophical as to say that fossils of existing species
68. Ibid., p. 43; comma added. See also Lyell, Principles of Geology,
4th ed., II, 414.
69. Wallace, "'Notebook," pp. 44--45; some commas added. See also
note 100.
284
are r e m a i n s of real animals while those which are not like

any species n o w existing are special creations & not fossil
animals at allJ °
Wallace turned again to the peculiarities of distribution to
be f o u n d on the Galapagos Islands. Lyell's theories were in-
adequate to the task of explaining them, as Wallace pointed
out :
I n a small group of islands not very distant f r o m the m a i n
land, like the Galapagos, we find animals & plants different
f r o m those of any other country but resembling those of the
nearest land. I f they are special creations, w h y should they
resemble those of the nearest land? Does not that fact point
to an origin f r o m that land? Again in these islands we find
species peculiar to each island, & not one of t h e m containing
all the species f o u n d in the others as would be the case had
one been peopled with new creations & the others left to
become peopled by winds, currents, etc., f r o m it. Here we
m u s t suppose special creations in each island of peculiar
species though the islands are all exactly similar in struc-
ture, soil, & climate, & some of t h e m within sight of each
other, a work of supererogation one would suppose, as they
m u s t inevitably in time become peopled from each other, &
contrary to w h a t takes place e l s e w h e r e - - l r e l a n d is peopled
f r o m England. It m a y be said it is a mystery which we can-
not explain, but do we not thus m a k e u n n e c e s s a r y systems
and difficulties by supposing special creations contrary to
the present course of n a t u r e ? For we m u s t conclude the
course of n a t u r e in peopling islands in the ocean to be uni-
f o r m & that all islands distant f r o m others should now be
stocked with animals & plants equally peculiar.
But we know this not to be the case. Volcanic islands re-
cently produced & coral islands f a r in the ocean contain
stragglers f r o m the nearest land & no other, nothing peculiarl
N o w we can hardly suppose that islands would be left for
ages to become stocked in this m a n n e r , & then the new &
peculiar creations be introduced just w h e n they were not
wanted. According to Mr. Lyelrs own arguments, they would
hardly be able to hold their own against the previous occu-
piers of the soil & there would have to be a special extermina-
tion of t h e m to make room for the new & peculiar species.
W e m u s t therefore suppose that such islands as St. Helena
& the Galapagos were stocked with their peculiar species
70. Ibid., pp. 45-46; see also Lye]l, Principles of Geology, 4th ed., III,
22-97.
285
immediately on their being raised f r o m the ocean, & they

would then have a chance of keeping out the new comers
which might be blown accidentally on their shores. This
supposition will certainly explain the present condition of
those islands but it has the disadvantage of being contrary
to the present order of nature, for none of the islands which
we have any reason to believe have been formed, since a
very late geological era, are inhabited by peculiar species.
They generally have not one species peculiar to themselves.
On the other hand, islands which are thus peculiarly in-
habited, appear to be of a considerable antiquity [in a mar-
ginal note, Wallace wrote, "this m u s t be proved"]. A long
succession of generations appears therefore to have been
requisite, to produce those peculiar productions f o u n d no-
where else but allied to those of the nearest land. The change
like every other c h a n g e in n a t u r e was no doubt gradual, &
the supposition that other species were successively produced
closely allied to those previously existing, & that while this
was going on, the original or some of the first f o r m e d species
died out, exactly accords with the facts as we find them &
the process of peopling n e w islands at the present day. 71
How far removed Lyell was f r o m evolutionary theory is
brought out at still another point. He thought that when cli-
matic changes did cause the extinction of local species, any
new inhabitants would be "perfectly dissimilar ha their forms,
habits, and organization." 72 In other words, there would be
a wholesale extinction followed by a renewal with altogether
different species. Wallace pointed out, however, that the new
species would more likely be modified forms of those previ-
ously existing: "'It would be an extraordinary thing if while
the modifications of the surface took [place] by n a t u r a l causes
n o w in operation, & the extinction of species was the natural
result of the same causes, yet the reproduction & introduction
of new species required special acts of creation, or some process
which does not present itself in the ordinary course of nature."
(At this point in his '2qotebook," Wallace inserted the following
note: "'Introduce this and disprove all Lyell's arguments first
at the c o m m e n c e m e n t of m y last c h a p t e r " - - e v i d e n c e that this
was part of his proposed book.)Va
W h e n environmental conditions changed, Lyell thought that
new species already adapted to these new conditions would
come in f r o m surrounding areas before those in residence h a d
71. Wallace, "'Notebook," pp. 46-49; some commas added.
72. Lye]l, Principles of Geology, 4th ed., III, 154.
73. Wallace, "'Notebook," pp. 50-51.
286
time to c h a n g e ( i f they c h a n g e d at all). Wallace agreed t h a t

"if the change took place rapidly, the exact results LyeU pre-
dicts m i g h t follow"; "but," he w e n t on, "how the s a m e results
could follow f r o m a n excessively gradual c h a n g e it is impos-
sible to understand." 74 Lyell a n d L a m a r c k both agreed that
plenty of time was available, b u t they differed on w h a t would
happen. Lyell believed that species could change, but only to a
limited degree and within the space of a few generations, N o t
only were they incapable of greater change, b u t such change
would also be precluded by the i m m i g r a t i o n of other species
already adapted to the n e w environment. L a m a r c k , on the
other h a n d , believed t h a t species did c h a n g e gradually t h r o u g h
time in response to changes in the e n v i r o n m e n t , but his agency,
the wills of the a n i m a l s themselves, was suspect. W h a t e v e r
their deficiencies ( p e r h a p s because of t h e m ) , the beliefs of
both these m e n were valuable steppingstones along Wallace's
way.
I n the m e a n t i m e , Wallace was reading as widely as circum-

stances p e r m i t t e d : E d w a r d Blyth on the classification of vari-
eties, Richard Owen on the varieties of color in m a n , a n d
Leopold yon Bueh on the flora of the C a n a r y Islands. 75 Be-
cause yon Buch's perceptive c o m m e n t s also influenced Darwin,
Wallace's notes on t h e m are worth quoting:
On continents the individuals of one kind of p l a n t disperse
themselves very far, and by the difference of stations of
n o u r i s h m e n t & of soft produce varieties, which at such a
distance not being crossed by other varieties & thus b r o u g h t
b a c k to the primitive type, b e c o m e at length p e r m a n e n t &
distinct species. T h e n if by c h a n c e in other directions they
m e e t with another variety equally c h a n g e d in its m a r c h , the
two h a v e b e c o m e very distinct species 8: are no longer sus-
ceptible of i n t e r m i x t u r e . . . He t h e n shews t h a t plants on
the exposed p e a k of Teneriffe where they c a n m e e t & cross
do not f o r m varieties or species, while others such as Pyre-
t h r u m & Cineraria living in sheltered valleys & low grounds
often h a v e closely allied species confined to one valley or
one island. TM
74. Ibid., p. 52; c o m m a s added. See also Lyell, Principles of Geology,
4 t h ed., III, 1 6 1 - 1 6 3 .
75. C h r i s t i a n Leopold y o n B u c h , Physicalische Beschreibung der Can-
arisehen Inseln ( B e r l i n : K. A k a d e i n i e d e r W i s s e n s c h a f t e n , 1 8 2 5 ) . A n
e a r l i e r r e p o r t o n t h e flora of t h e C a n a r y I s l a n d s a p p e a r e d i n t h e Abhand-
lungen of t h e Society ( 1 8 1 6 - 1 8 1 7 ) , 3 3 7 - 3 8 4 .
76. W a l l a c e , "'Notebook," p. 90.
287
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
Darwin in his own "Notebook" says, 'Won Buch distinctly states

that p e r m a n e n t varieties become species, pp. 1 4 7 - 1 5 0 , - - n o t
being crossed with others." 77
Still another clue attracted Wallace's attention, and he asked:
W h a t is the import of the doctrine of Morphology of plants?
• . For if stamens & petals & carpels have been in every
.
case independently created as such, it is absurd to say they

are modifications or developments of any thing else, & the
absurdity is still greater if that of which they are said to
be the development came into existence after them. I n that
case all the beautiful facts of morphology are a delusion &
a snare, as m u c h so as fossils would be were they really not
the remains of living things but chance imitations of them.
The n a t u r a l inference of an unprejudiced person how-
ever would be that both are true records of the progress of
the organic world. N a t u r e seems to tell us that as organs
are occasionally changed & modified now, in individual plants,
we m a y learn how the actual changes have taken place in
the species of plants. A key is offered us to a mystery we
could otherwise never have laid open, w h y should we refuse
to use it? 7s
Sometime during these musings, Wallace wrote out his "Note

on the Theory of P e r m a n e n t and Geographical Varieties," fol-
lowing up an interest expressed m a n y years earlier to Bates,
and it was published early in 1858. Although he h a d been
pondering a wide range of subjects, he limited the "Note" to
showing the logical inconsistency in the suggestion that geo-
graphical varieties h a d p e r m a n e n t characters. If varieties
differ from species only in the minuteness of the p e r m a n e n t
characters, then the difference between them is merely a quan-
titative one and the dividing line becomes very difficult to dis-
tinguish. The only qualitative difference that Wallace could dis-
cover was that of the p e r m a n e n c e vs. the i m p e r m a n e n c e of
variations. But this was no better, for some groups so formed
were called special creations and others not. "Strange that such
widely different origins produce such identical results." 79 If
varieties are k n o w n to be produced by ordinary generation,
w h y should species only slightly different be produced by spe-
cial creation? "If there is no other character [than one of mere
77. G a v i n de Beer, ed., "'Darwin's Notebooks on T r a n s m u t a t i o n of
Species," Bull. Brit. M u s . ( N a t . Hist.), Hist. Ser., 2 ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 61. D a r w i n ' s
first n o t e b o o k w a s w r i t t e n b e t w e e n J u l y 1837 a n d F e b r u a r y 1838.
78. Wallace, "'Notebook," pp. 97-100.
79. Wallace, "Note," p. 5888. See also A p p e n d i x , 3.
2 8 8
d e g r e e o f d i f f e r e n c e ] , t h a t f a c t is o n e o f t h e s t r o n g e s t a r g u -
m e n t s a g a i n s t t h e i n d e p e n d e n t c r e a t i o n o f species." so
IV. A N D D A R W I N
[Darwin] is now preparing for publication his great work on species and
varieties, for which he has been collecting information twenty years.
He may save me the trouble of writing the second part of my hypothesis
by proving that there is no difference in nature between the origin of
species and varieties, or he may give me trouble by arriving at another
conclusion, but at all events his facts will be given me to work upon.
Wallace to Bates, 4 January 1858, from Marcbant, Alfred Russel Wallace
Eighteen hundred and fifty-eight was the year in which the
c a r e e r s o f W a l l a c e a n d D a r w i n collided. W a l l a c e h a d i n i t i a t e d
t h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n t h e m w h e n h e w r o t e h i s first l e t t e r
to D a r w i n i n O c t o b e r 1856 [8]. sl W h y h e w r o t e is n o t k n o w n ;
p e r h a p s , as s u g g e s t e d e a r l i e r , h e h o p e d t h a t D a r w i n w o u l d
be interested in his speculations on the Galapagos Islands puz-
zle. A l t h o u g h it w a s W a l l a c e ' s t h i r d l e t t e r to D a r w i n t h a t
b r o u g h t w i t h it W a l l a c e ' s d i s c o v e r y o f t h e t h e o r y o f n a t u r a l
s e l e c t i o n , e v e n t h i s first o n e m a y h a v e b e e n d i s q u i e t i n g .
The contents of Wallace's letter can be partially surmised
f r o m D a r w i n ' s a n s w e r w r i t t e n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g M a y [11]: t h e
paper in the Annals, domestic versus wild varieties (a crucial
point in the development of Wallace's ideas), hybrid sterility,
a n d t h e e f f e c t s o f c l i m a t i c c h a n g e s . A s to t h e p a p e r , D a r w i n
a g r e e d "to t h e t r u t h of a l m o s t e v e r y w o r d " ; h e h a d , i n f a c t ,
already pondered the same problems--classification, extinction
and creation, and rudimentary organs--as can be seen from
h i s o w n n o t e b o o k s a n d h i s e s s a y w r i t t e n i n 1844. T h e r e w a s
less a g r e e m e n t , h o w e v e r , o n o t h e r s u b j e c t s .
Darwin later wrote Lyell (June 1858) that he and Wallace
d i f f e r e d o n l y i n " t h a t I w a s l e d to m y v i e w s f r o m w h a t a r t i f i c i a l
s e l e c t i o n h a s d o n e f o r d o m e s t i c a n i m a l s [23]." B u t t h e y b o t h
made use of domesticated animals, although for different ends:
D a r w i n to s h o w t h a t v a r i a t i o n e x i s t e d a n d c o u l d b e c h a n n e l e d ,
W a l l a c e to s h o w t h a t t h e u s u a l d e f i n i t i o n o f s p e c i e s , b a s e d o n
d o m e s t i c a t e d a n i m a l s , d i d n o t a p p l y to w i l d a n i m a l s . ( A n d , as
W a l l a c e w r o t e m a n y y e a r s l a t e r , "it h a s a l w a y s b e e n c o n s i d e r e d
a weakness in Darwin's work that he based his theory, pri-
m a r i l y , o n t h e e v i d e n c e of v a r i a t i o n i n d o m e s t i c a t e d a n i m a l s
a n d c u l t i v a t e d p l a n t s . " ) s2 N o r d i d W a l l a c e a n d D a r w i n e v e r
a g r e e o n t h e t h o r n y p r o b l e m of t h e s t e r i l i t y o f h y b r i d s .
80. Ibid., p. 5888.
81. See also Appendix, 69 and notes 43 and 162.
82. Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwinism: A n Exposition of the Theory of
Natural Selection, w i t h Some of its Applications (New York: Humboldt,
1889), p. iv.
289
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
There was also a difference of opinion on the effect of cli-

matic changes. In 1844 Darwin had written "that probably such
changes of external conditions would, f r o m acting on the re-
productive system, cause the organization of the beings most
affected to become, as u n d e r domestication, plastic." 83 He
h a d since modified his opinion, and in his letter to Wallace he
agreed "on the little effect of 'clLmatal conditions.'" Wallace,
however, never did ascribe any such direct influence to cli-
matic conditions in causing variations. Nevertheless, in spite
of some disagreement it was plain, as Darwin said, that they
had thought m u c h alike.
Darwin received Wallace's first letter late in April 1857. He
was then deep in writing "his great work on species and vari-
eties," h a v i n g started almost exactly a year earlier at the urg-
ing of Lye]l, with the strong support of the botanist Joseph
Hooker [5, 6, 7]. As Lyell wrote not long afterward, "Part of
the MS. of [Darwin's] projected work was read to Dr. Hooker
as early as 1844, and some of the principal results were com-
m u n i c a t e d to me on several occasions. Dr. Hooker and I h a d
repeatedly urged h i m to publish without delay." 84 It has re-
cently been proposed, on evidence from Lyell's own notebooks,
that it was actually Wallace's paper in the A n n a l s that prompted
Lyell to reconsider the subject of species and to prod Darwin
to publication, and, furthermore, that it was at this time that
Darwin explained his theory to Lyell. s5
Darwin had protested to LyeU that he did not like writing
for priority, but h a d admitted that he "certainly should be
vexed if any one were to publish m y doctrines before me [5]";
and to his cousin, W. D. Fox, he had confided that he wished
he "could set less value on the bauble f a m e [10]." By 31 March
1857, he h a d completed six chapters of the projected work,
and he m a y already have been at work on the seventh, com-
paring species and varieties, when Wallace's first letter arrived
in late April. The coincidence in their thinking m a y have put
Darwin on his guard.
On 1 May 1857, Darwin wrote in answer (to some specula-
tions by W a l l a c e ? ) that he h a d been working for nearly twenty
years "on the question how and in what way do species and
varieties differ f r o m each other [11]." He did not elaborate on
83. Darwin and Wallace, Evolution, p. 119. Text differs slightly from
that in joint papers; see note 133.
84. Charles Lyell, The Geological Evidences of the A n t i q u i t y of Man,
~ i t h Remarks on Theories of the Origin of Species by Variation, 1st ed.
(London: Murray, 1863), p. 408.
85. McKirmey, "Wallace and Natural Selection," pp. 350-352.
290
the point, however, and left it up in the air. (Wallace h a d not

yet written his own "Note" on the subject, and it is not k n o w n
whether Darwin ever did see it.)
As was his usual practice, Darwin included several requests
for information, asking Wallace, a m o n g other things, to let
h i m know "'ff you should, after receiving this, stumble on any
curious domestic breed" of poultry. 86 Perhaps as a result of
this inquiry, Wallace m a d e a few notes in his "Notebook," some
time before N o v e m b e r 1857, on u n u s u a l breeds of ducks, s7
This small point will be brought up later in connection with
Wallace's recollections of the beginning of his correspondence
with Darwin.
More i m p o r t a n t at the m o m e n t is Darwin's protestation that
"it is really impossible to explain m y views (in the compass
of a letter) on the causes and m e a n s of variation in a state of
nature." Was it really impossible?
Two years earlier, in April 1855, Darwin h a d b e g u n to cor-
respond with the noted American botanist Asa Gray, w h o m he
h a d once met briefly at Kew, and Gray h a d been providing h i m
with m a n y valuable comments. On 20 July 1857, not long
after receiving his first letter f r o m Wallace, Darwin wrote
again to Gray, saying, "I should like to tell you ( a n d I do not
think I h a v e ) how I view m y work," condensing into a few
sentences the gist of his theory [12]. s8 A recent biographer
of Gray suggests that Darwin felt it necessary to let Gray in
on his secret to ensure the c o n t i n u a n c e of this useful cor-
respondence, but this does not seem to be a necessary assump-
tion. 89 More to the point, Darwin seemed rather to fear that
Gray would despise h i m and his crotchets, and in his next let-
ter (5 September) he confessed that he had been afraid that
Gray m i g h t think h i m "worth no more notice or assistance"
because of his u n o r t h o d o x views [14]. 9o ( E v e n in M a r c h 1860
Darwin considered Gray to be a convert to his views only "to
some extent.") 91
Along with this answer to Gray, Darwin sent a copy of an
outline that he h a d m a d e of his theory, "as you seem interested
in the subject." This is the f a m o u s extract published the fol-
86. The paragraph containing this request is published in Marchant,

Wallace, p. 108, but it w a s omitted ~rom the Darwin, Life and Letters, I,
454. See also note 87.
87. Wallace, "Notebook," p. 91. See also Appendix, 69, Marchant,
Wallace, p. 86, and notes 161 and 162.
89. A. Hunter Dupree, Asa Gray, 1810-1888 (Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1 9 5 9 ) , p. 244.
90. See also note 146. 91. Darwin, Life and Letters, II, 87.
291
lowing year as part of the D a r w i n - W a l l a c e joint papers. Dar-

win concluded his letter to Gray with the following request:
You will, perhaps, think it paltry in me, w h e n I ask you
not to m e n t i o n m y doctrine; the reason is, if any one, like
the author of the "Vestiges,' were to hear of them, he m i g h t
easily work them in, and then I should have to quote f r o m
a work perhaps despised by naturalists, and this would
greatly injure any chance of m y views being received by
those alone whose opinion I value [14]. 92
W h y did Darwin send this statement to Gray, who responded
that it was "grievously hypothetical [15, 17]" rather than to
Wallace ( w h o was hardly at this time, however, a scientific
peer), who would have understood? Was it Wallace rather than
Chambers of w h o m he was afraid? If so, a recent outline of
his views, including the important addition on divergence,
mailed to the eminent A m e r i c a n botanist might protect his
ideas. And, whatever his intentions m a y have been, this indeed
was the result.
Finally, on 29 November 1857, Darwin thanked Gray for his
help, r e m a r k i n g that "every criticism f r o m a good m a n is of
value to me [17]." s3 But the subject was apparently not pur-
sued, and this concludes the series of letters about Darwin's
theory.
Wallace was " m u c h gratified" by Darwin's first letter, as he
wrote Bates in J a n u a r y 1858, but he was no wiser than before
( h a d he asked?) about Darwin's opinion for or against a "dif-
ference in n a t u r e between the origin of species and varieties
[19]." 04 In any case, he h a d pretty well m a d e up his own m i n d
already.
Judging f r o m Darwin's next answer, Wallace in reply once
again brought up his paper in the A n n a l s and also remarked
on various problems relating to the geographical distribution
of animals. But the only piece on Wallace's side of this early
correspondence that is still in existence is a snippet f r o m his
answering letter of 27 September 1857, on the breeding habits
of jaguars and his plan for his book [16]. 95 For the rest, Wal-
92. This paragraph has been variously interpreted; see Dupree, Asa
Gray, p. 246 and Himmelfarb, Darwin, p. 207.
93. See note 146.
94. See also Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Century and the M e n W h o Discov-
ered It (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1958), p. 291, where he considers
this correspondence "stimulating'" to Wallace. But Wallace received no
such positive statement as was given to Gray.
95. Unpublished fragment in the Cambridge University Library; s e e
also note 60. For Darwin's methods of filing his letters, see notes 140--143.
292
lace's opinions m u s t be conjectured f r o m Darwin's letters to

him.
By the time Darwin answered Wallace's second letter on 22
December 1857, he h a d almost completed the n i n t h chapter
of his book, this one on hybridism. He assured Wallace that his
paper h a d not gone unnoticed, Lyell and the zoologist Edward
Blyth h a v i n g called it to his attention; none of these men,
however, had bothered to write Wallace about it. Darwin passed
up his second and last opportunity to tell Wallace about his
theory, saying that "though agreeing with you on your con-
clusions in that paper, I believe I go m u c h further t h a n you;
but it is too long a subject to enter on m y speculative no-
tions [18]." It seems unlikely, however, that Wallace received
this letter before the end of February 1858; most of the letters
exchanged by the two m e n took anywhere f r o m three to six
m o n t h s to reach the recipient.
I n the meantime, in his J a n u a r y 1858 letter to Bates, Wal-
lace told him of his plans, explaining that "I have prepared
the plan and written portions of an extensive work embracing
the subject in all its bearings and endeavouring to prove w h a t
in the paper [in the Annals] I only indicated." He did not seem
to be overly concerned about Darwin's conclusion on the origin
of species and varieties, r e m a r k i n g that Darwin m i g h t save
h i m the trouble of proving that there was no difference in their
n a t u r e [19].
It has been claimed that Wallace, "duly w a r n e d off" by Dax-
win's first letter, h a d nevertheless continued his own work on
the subjectP s It should be objected that this was no private pre-
serve of Darwin's. Many people were interested in it, as Wallace
was well aware. Darwin gave Wallace no hint of a solution
to the problem; why should he not continue with w h a t h a d
been a c o n s u m i n g interest for m a n y years? Bates himself, on
his r e t u r n home, wrote that one of their purposes in going to
the A m a z o n was to "gather facts, as Mr. Wallace expressed it
in one of his letters, 'towards solving the problem of the origin
of species,' a subject on which we h a d conversed and corres-
ponded m u c h together." 97 If Darwin h a d been working on
the problem for twenty years, Wallace h a d been working on
it for at least ten, the m a j o r difference being that Darwin h a d
long h a d a theory against which he was collecting facts, while
Wallace was still actively searching for one.
By now Wallace h a d concluded that there was no qualitative
difference in the origin of species and varieties and that they
96. Himmelfarb, Darwin, p. 236.
97. Bates, The Naturalist, p. iii; see also Appendix, 4 and note 17.
293
were f o r m e d gradually by n a t u r a l m e a n s with a relationship

in space and time to what h a d gone before, but without any
necessary progression. Only a short distance separated him
f r o m his goal, a "theory of the origin of species.'"
I n February 1858 the final step was taken. Wallace was ly-
Lug ill in Ternate in the Moluccas, mulling as usual over his
problem, when at last he f o u n d the key to the puzzle: the
theory of n a t u r a l selection. Much has been made of the fact
that the solution came to him while he was ill but, as he im-
patiently r e m a r k e d later, he "had no idea whatever of "dying,'
- - a s it was not a serious illness [69]." Indeed, he had frequently
been sick, and sometimes m u c h sicker. Although not iden-
tified at the time, the disease has recently been referred to as
malaria.g8
As soon as he was able, Wallace wrote out his theory with
the tire, "'On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely
f r o m the Original Type," and sent it to Darwin with the request
that it be shown to Lyell. 9° Had he chosen any other recipient,
the results would have been different. Gray's response to
Darwin's disclosure, for instance, h a d been that it was too
hypothetical. But to Darwin, Wallace's paper was little short
of a calamity.
I n his "Note," Wallace h a d been struggling with the sup-
posed distinction between p e r m a n e n t varieties and p e r m a n e n t l y
invariable species. N o w he saw his way clear. Belief in varia-
tion within strict limits and reversion to the original type was
based on domestic animals and then applied to wild animals.
But domestic animals are artificial and unable to m a i n t a i n
themselves without the help of man. If allowed to go wild,
they m u s t either r e t u r n to something similar to the original
type or become extinct. Wild animals, on the other hand, m u s t
be adapted to their environment. Their every faculty is con-
stanfly exercised in keeping themselves alive. Any improve-
m e n t in organization is quickly taken advantage of, and a new
variety is thus superior to its predecessor. Being superior, it
" c o u l d n o t return to the original form; for that form is an
inferior one, and could never compete with it for existence." 10o
Quite the opposite is true of domestic animals, which are in-
ferior f r o m the point of view of m a i n t a i n i n g themselves in the
wild. Thus varieties in n a t u r e tend to depart indefinitely f r o m
the original type.
98. Julian s. Huxley and H. B. D. Kettlewell, Charles Darwin and his
World (New York: Viking Press, 1965), p. 74.
99. Alfred Russel Wallace, "'On the Tendency of Varieties to depart
indefinitely from the Original Type," ]. Linn. Soc. London (Zooi.), 3
(1858), 53-62. 100. Ibid., p. 58. See also note 69.
294
Several years earlier, Wallace h a d f o u n d puzzling Lyell's

belief that the balance of species was preserved by plants,
insects, m a m m a l s , and birds adapted to the purpose, and he
h a d worried over this problem in his '¢Notebook":
This phrase is utterly without meaning. Some species are
very rare, others very a b u n d a n t - - w h e r e is the balance? Some
species exclude all others in particular t r a c t s - - w h e r e is the
b a l a n c e - - W h e n the locust devastates vast regions, & causes
the death of animals & m a n , w h a t is the m e a n i n g of saying
the balance is preserved . . . To h u m a n apprehension there
is no balance but a struggle in which one often exterminates
the o t h e r - - W h e n animals and plants become extinct, where
is the balance. If any state can be imagined proving a want
of balance, then a balance m a y perhaps be admitted, but
what state is that? T M
Now, two years later, Wallace h a d his answer. I n the "strug-
gle for existence," m a n y individuals m u s t perish annually.
Even the least f e c u n d species would soon overrun the earth
ff its n u m b e r s went unchecked. Those that survive are the ones
best adapted to obtain food and to withstand their enemies
and the seasonal changes in the weather; those that die are
the young, the old, and the sick. In applying this not only to
individuals but also to species, Wallace thought he h a d an
answer to w h y some species are rare while others are abundant.
Besides this, the animal population of a country c a n n o t in-
crease materially ff conditions r e m a i n the same. I n the "strug-
gle for existence," therefore, those individuals and species best
adapted to m a i n t a i n themselves survive.
It is well k n o w n that Wallace and Darwin both read Mal-
thus' f a m o u s Essay on the Principle of Population, Wallace
before leaving Leicester and Darwin after returning h o m e f r o m
his voyage. Malthus' interest was in the moral perfectibility of
m a n , and it was in this light that he discussed the checks to
population g r o w t h - - f a m i n e , war, disease, and v i c e - - b u t Wal-
lace and Darwin were both impressed by the implications of
these checks. The exact extent of Malthus' influence is h a r d
to determine and has been the subject of m u c h debate, but at
the least his forceful presentation was widely known.
Darwin read Malthus in the fall of 1838. There is no indica-
tion of this in the first edition of his Voyage of the Beagle,
101. W a l l a c e , "'Notebook," pp. 4 9 - 5 0 ; some commas added. See also

Lyell, Principles of Geology, 4th ed., III, 98-120, where he discusses the
"checks and counter-checks which nature h a s a p p o i n t e d to preserve the
balance of p o w e r a m o n g s t species."
295
however, because though published in 1839, the writing of it

was largely finished by June 1837. Darwin h a d tried vainly to
account for the extinction of so m a n y peculiar South American
forms that were related to the present inhabitants, concluding
only that:
On such grounds it does not seem a necessary conclusion,
that the extinction of species, more than their creation,
should exclusively depend on the nature (altered by physical
c h a n g e s ) of their country. All that at present can be said
with certainty, is that, as with the individual, so with the
species, the hour of life has r u n its course, and is spent. 1°2
This c o m m e n t was greatly enlarged for the second edition
( 1 8 4 5 ) and clearly shows the influence of Malthus:
Nevertheless, if we consider the subject under another
point of view, it will appear less perplexing. We do not
steadily bear in mind, how profoundly ignorant we are of
the conditions of existence of every animal; nor do we al-
ways remember, that some check is constantly preventing
the too rapid increase of every organized being left in a state
of nature. The supply of food, on an average, remains con-
stant; yet the tendency in every animal to increase by
propagation is geometrical; and its surprising effects have
nowhere been more astonishingly shown, than in the case
of the European animals r u n wild during the last few c e n -
turies in America. Every animal in a state of nature regu-
laxly breeds; yet in a species long established, any g r e a t i n -
crease in n u m b e r s is obviously impossible, and m u s t be
checked by some means. We are, nevertheless, seldom able
with certainty to tell in any given species, at what period
of life, or at w h a t period of the year, or whether only at
long intervals, the check falls; or, again, w h a t is the precise
n a t u r e of the check. Hence probably it is, that we feel so
little surprise at one, of two species closely allied in habits,
being rare and the other a b u n d a n t in the same district; or,
again, that one should be a b u n d a n t in one district, and an-
other, filling the same place in the economy of nature, should
be a b u n d a n t in a neighboring district, differing very little
in its conditions. If asked how this is, one immediately replies
that it is determined by some slight difference in climate,
food, or the n u m b e r of enemies: yet how rarely, ff ever, we
can point out the precise cause and m a n n e r of action of the
checkl We are, therefore, driven to the conclusion, that
102, Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle (1839), p. '212.
296
W a l l a c e , D a r w i n a n d the Theoryof N a t u r a l Selection
c a u s e s g e n e r a l l y quite i n a p p r e c i a b l e by us, d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r
a given species s h a l l be a b u n d a n t or s c a n t y in n u m b e r s .
• . . If then, as a p p e a r s p r o b a b l e , species first b e c o m e
r a r e a n d t h e n e x t i n c t ff the too r a p i d i n c r e a s e of every
species, even the m o s t f a v o u r e d , is s t e a d i l y checked, as we
m u s t a d m i t , t h o u g h h o w a n d w h e n it is h a r d to s a y - - a n d
if we see, w i t h o u t the s m a l l e s t surprise, t h o u g h u n a b l e to
a s s i g n the p r e c i s e r e a s o n , one species a b u n d a n t a n d a n o t h e r
closely-allied species r a r e in the s a m e d i s t r i c t - - w h y s h o u l d
we feel such great a s t o n i s h m e n t at the r a r i t y b e i n g c a r r i e d
a step f u r t h e r to e x t i n c t i o n ? 10a
W a l l a c e d i d n o t h a v e M a l t h u s with h i m , b u t he did h a v e
Darwin. F a m i l i a r as he a l r e a d y w a s w i t h the M a l t h u s i a n argu-
m e n t s , he m u s t h a v e n o t i c e d their i n c l u s i o n in the second
e d i t i o n of the Voyage of the Beagle. These p r i n c i p l e s , first sug-
gested in 1798, were n o w u s e d by W a l l a c e a n d D a r w i n in a
r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t context. But M a l t h u s alone was not enough. As
W a l l a c e j u s t l y p o i n t e d out m a n y y e a r s later, "along with Mal-
t h u s I h a d r e a d , a n d b e e n even m o r e d e e p l y i m p r e s s e d by, Sir
C h a r l e s Lyell's i m m o r t a l ' P r i n c i p l e s of Geology."" 104
The final a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t p o i n t of W a l l a c e ' s p a p e r w a s
the a p p l i c a t i o n of the c o n c e p t s he h a d developed to varieties.
E v e n slight v a r i a t i o n s would h a v e a n effect, e i t h e r f a v o r a b l e
or u n f a v o r a b l e , a n d u n d e r c h a n g e d p h y s i c a l conditions a better-
a d a p t e d v a r i e t y m i g h t survive its p a r e n t species. ( T h i s would
be true only of wild varieties, however, for d o m e s t i c a t e d a n i m a l s
t u r n e d wild are r a r e l y able to m a i n t a i n t h e m s e l v e s . ) This
process r e p e a t e d would l e a d to "progression and continued
divergence." lo~ At l a s t W a l l a c e h a d a m e c h a n i s m t h a t ex-
p l a i n e d the k n o t t y p r o b l e m of p r o g r e s s i o n w h i c h h a d so baffled
Lyell, a n d the e q u a l l y p u z z l i n g p r o b l e m of divergence; a n d it
could also r e p l a c e L a m a r c k ' s g e n e r a l l y d i s c r e d i t e d t h e o r y t h a t
p r o g r e s s i v e c h a n g e s were due to the wills of the a n i m a l s them-
selves.
D a r w i n ' s a p p r o a c h w a s a little different. Because W a l l a c e is

the focus of this study, d i s c u s s i o n h e r e will be l i m i t e d to the
two selections f r o m D a r w i n ' s writings t h a t b e c a m e p a r t of the
j o i n t p a p e r s in 1858. The first was a n e x t r a c t f r o m an essay
w r i t t e n in 1844. loo D a r w i n h a d r e m a r k e d there t h a t De Can-
103. Ibid., (1845), pp. 174--176.
104. Linnean Society of London, The Darwin-Wallace Celebration, p.
118.
105. Wallace, "'On the Tendency," p. 59. See also note 37.
106. Charles Darwin, "Extract from an Unpublished Work on Species,
by C. Darwin, Esq., consisting of a portion of a Chapter entitled 'On the
297
dolle's war of n a t u r e "is the doctrine of Malthus applied in

most cases with ten-fold force" lo7 (he was to use a similar
phrase in the Origin of Species). 1°8 Under these circumstances,
slight variations caused directly by c h a n g e d physical condi-
tions m i g h t lead to small improvements in organisms through
the n a t u r a l selection of those better adapted. 1°9 Darwin also
discussed sexual selection, another subject on which he and
Wallace were to differ strongly.
The brief abstract enclosed with the letter to Asa Gray sum-
marized Darwin's conclusions at this later date, 1857.11° Se-
lection of variations by m a n is recognized in the propagation
of domestic animals. Physical conditions are k n o w n to have
changed over a great length of time. These changed conditions
have caused variations to occur in organisms in a state of
nature, although Darwin was no longer certain that this was
the sole cause. Finally, there is a n a t u r a l power comparable
to that of m a n which selects those that survive in the struggle
for life, a power which Darwin called Natural Selection. I n
a country undergoing changes, these slight variations would
be selected and gradually accumulated, leading to new vari-
eties adapted to the new conditions.
At the end, Darwin added a p a r a g r a p h on his principle of
divergence. The solution to this p r o b l e m - - " t h a t the varying
offspring of each species will try (only few will succeed) to
seize on as m a n y and as diverse places in the e c o n o m y of
n a t u r e as possible" 111--had not occured to him until 1852,112
"long after I had come to Down,"lla and so was not yet a
part of a f o r m a l statement of his views. He knew f r o m Wal-
lace's paper in the Annals that he too was trying to solve this
problem.
V a r i a t i o n of O r g a n i c Beings i n a state of N a t u r e ; on the N a t u r a l M e a n s
of Selection; on the C o m p a r i s o n of D o m e s t i c Races a n d t r u e Species,""
]. Linn. Soc. L o n d o n (Zool.), 3 ( 1 8 5 8 ) , 46-50. See also n o t e 133.
107. Ibid., p. 47.
108. C h a r l e s D a r w i n , On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
( L o n d o n : M u r r a y , 1859; facsLrn.ile r e p r i n t , C a m b r i d g e ; H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y
Press, 1964), p. 63.
110. Charles D a r w i n , "'Abstract of a Letter f r o m C. D a r w i n , Esq., to
Prof. A s a Gray, Boston, U.S., dated D o w n , S e p t e m b e r 5th, 1857," ]. Linn.
Soc. London (Zool.), 3 ( 1 8 5 8 ) , 50-53. See also A p p e n d i x , 14 a n d n o t e s
88-93.
111. Ibid., pp. 52-53. See also n o t e 37.
112. G a v i n de Beer, Charles Darwin: a Scientific Biography ( G a r d e n
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964), p. 140.
113. D a r w i n , Life a n d Letters, I, 69.
298
W a l l a c e , D a r w i n a n d the T h e o r y of N a t u r a l Selection
V. T H E J O I N T PAPERS
I was not aware before that your father had been so distressed--or
rather disturbed--by my sending him my essay from T e r n a t e . . .
Wallace to Francis Darwin, 20 November 1887
"June 14th Pigeons ( i n t e r r u p t e d ) . " 114 Such is the cryptic
note in D a r w i n ' s "Journal" i n d i c a t i n g the r e c e i p t of W a l l a c e ' s
p a p e r on 18 J u n e 1858. By this time he h a d c o m p l e t e d twelve
c h a p t e r s of his book a n d was at work on the t h i r t e e n t h , a n d
his distress at b e i n g t h u s f o r e s t a l l e d c a n easily be i m a g i n e d .
The story of this m o s t d r a m a t i c m o m e n t h a s often b e e n re-
counted. But, as Hooker observed, the details s t e m e n t i r e l y
f r o m some of the letters w r i t t e n at the time by D a r w i n to
h i m s e l f a n d to Lyell [22-26, 29, 33-36]; 115 all other docu-
m e n t a r y evidence, the letters f r o m W a l l a c e , Lyell, a n d Hooker
to D a r w i n , as well as the m a n u s c r i p t of W a l l a c e ' s p a p e r , h a s
d i s a p p e a r e d . T h e facts, c o n s e q u e n t l y , are difficult to d e t e r m i n e ,
a n d the c i r c u m s t a n c e s h a v e b e e n v a r i o u s l y i n t e r p r e t e d .
T h e r e is no w a y of a s c e r t a i n i n g e x a c t l y w h y W a l l a c e sent
his p a p e r to D a r w i n ; c e r t a i n l y he could n o t h a v e a n t i c i p a t e d
the result. W i t h no h i n t f r o m D a r w i n , he could n o t h a v e re-
alized t h a t he h a d s t u m b l e d onto the very f o u n d a t i o n of Dar-
win's work. D a r w i n , on the other h a n d , m u s t h a v e h a d a f a i r
n o t i o n of W a l l a c e ' s p r o g r e s s f r o m his p u b l i s h e d p a p e r s a n d
p e r h a p s a w a r n i n g of this d i s a s t e r f r o m his letters, the first
of w h i c h m a y i n d e e d h a v e p r e c i p i t a t e d the sketch sent to Gray.
W a l l a c e , who h a d b e e n a w a y f r o m E n g l a n d for m a n y years,
was a s e l f - e d u c a t e d collector f r o m outside the r e g u l a r establish-
m e n t , a n d he h a d few p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t s a m o n g the scientific
elite. By d i n t of his own efforts, he h a d finally e s t a b l i s h e d a
c o r r e s p o n d e n c e with one of its m e m b e r s , Charles Darwin. He
m a y well h a v e h o p e d for some u s e f u l c r i t i c i s m f r o m D a r w i n
a n d Lyell, b u t he could h a r d l y h a v e e x p e c t e d to be c a t a p u l t e d
into the f r o n t r a n k s himself.
F r o m the evidence, it a p p e a r s t h a t W a l l a c e sent his p a p e r
to D a r w i n with the r e q u e s t t h a t it be f o r w a r d e d to Lyell,
"should he t h i n k it sufficiently novel a n d i n t e r e s t i n g [20]." 116
D a r w i n ' s own l e t t e r to Lyell, w r i t t e n on 18 June, said only
114. Gavin de Beer, ed., "'Darwin's Journal," Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat, Hist.),
Hist. Ser., 2 (1959), 14. 14 June 1858 was the clay on which Darwin
began this chapter.
116. Charles Lyell and Joseph D. Hooker, "'[Letter communicating the
Darwin-Wallace Papers to the Linnean Society]," 30 June 1858, ]. L i n n .
Soe. L o n d o n (Zool.), 3 (1858), 46.
299
that Wallace "has to-day sent m e the enclosed, and asked me

to forward it to you [22]." Lyell's recollection later was that the
paper h a d been brought to him by Hooker, who then sug-
gested some sort of joint p u b l i c a t i o n . 117 In Leonard Huxley's
biography of Hooker, it is stated that Darwin "had first con-
fided Wallace's unexpected letter" to him, and that he first
suggested joint publication and also the getting of LyeU's
opinion. 11s Whatever the precise details, Hooker, Darwin's
"most intimate friend," accepted the larger share of the re-
sponsibility for what happened.
Darwin was now in a dilemma: "He does not say he wishes
m e to publish, but I shall, of course, at once write and offer
to send to any journal. So all m y originality, whatever it m a y
a m o u n t to, will be smashed [22]." I n fact, Darwin did start a
letter to Wallace giving up his claims to priority, but he never
finished it, for his old friends, Hooker and LyeU, suggested a
compromise. If Darwin's and Wallace's roles h a d been reversed,
as they could have been, Wallace would have h a d no one to
help him resolve the difficulty.
A week later, on 25 and 26 June, Darwin wrote Lyell again.
A joint publication of some kind h a d apparently been proposed,
although "Wallace says nothing about publication" and Dar-
win was properly hesitant about the proprieties involved. He
mentioned a copy of his sketch sent to Gray "about a year
ago . . . (owing to correspondence on several points)." ("Cor-
respondence" here probably m e a n s actual letter-writing rather
t h a n agreement, because the sketch "gives most imperfectly
only the m e a n s of change," a subject new to Gray.) He also
enclosed the letter f r o m Wallace and requested that Lyell get
Hooker's opinion; some of the confusion on this point has
already been mentioned [20, 9.3, 24, 26]. By 29 June, Darwin
h a d their answers. He was to send to Hooker both Wallace's
paper ( w h i c h Lyell m u s t already have returned to h i m ) and his
own sketch sent to Asa Gray. Although they h a d apparently
not asked for it, he also sent along his m u c h more extensive
sketch (230 pages), written in 1844, to show by notes in Hook-
er's h a n d w r i t i n g that he h a d read it [25, 26]. 119
Darwin's letters were usually written with an intensity of
feeling lacking in the more pedestrian efforts of m a n y of his
contemporaries. At this m o m e n t they were shrill with anxiety
and doubt. But Darwin was being sorely tried. He was troubled
not only by Wallace's c o m m u n i c a t i o n but also by severe illness
117. Lyell, Principles of Geology, 10th ed., II, 278.
118. L e o n a r d H u x l e y , ed., Life and Letters of Sir ]oseph Dalton H o o k e r
( L o n d o n : M u r r a y , 1 9 1 8 ) , II, 465. 119. See also n o t e 84.
300
in his family. An i n f a n t son died of scarlet fever on 28 June,

and a d a u g h t e r was seriously ill with diphtheria.
Finding a suitable f o r u m for the papers at this time of year
would ordinarily have presented still another problem. But both
Hooker and Lyell, as Fellows of the L i n n e a n Society of London,
knew that one h a d unexpectedly become available. Robert
Brown, a leading botanist, f o r m e r President and then Council
Member of the Society, h a d died on 10 June. Out of respect,
the last meeting of the old session, held on 17 June, was ad-
journed before the reading of the scheduled papers. But Brown
h a d to be replaced on the Council within three months, and,
as the new session would not start until November, it was
decided to hold the extra meeting on 1 July. Without consulting
anyone else, Hooker and Lyell transmitted their selections to
the Secretary of the Society on 30 June, to be read by him the
next day. As Hooker said in 1908 :
It c a n n o t fail to be noticed that all these inter-communica-
tions between Mr. Darwin, Sir Charles Lyell, and myself
were conducted by correspondence, no two of us having met
in the interval between June the 18th and July the 1st,
when I m e t Lyell at the evening meeting of the L i n n e a n
Society; and no fourth individual had any cognisance of our
proceedings. 120
This was not an occasion of " m u t u a l nobility," 121 nor was
it "a m o n u m e n t to the natural generosity of both the great
biologists," 122 as is so often claimed. It was clearly not mu-
tual because Wallace's paper was read without his knowledge
or consent, and he knew nothing about it until October. Nor
does it seem to have been particularly noble. However just
Darwin's claims to priority, he was a gainer, not a loser, f r o m
the decision. Wallace h a d no opportunity to be either noble
or generous.
Wallace, "a gentleman attached to the study of N a t u r a l His-
tory," was not u n k n o w n to the L i n n e a n Society. The first two
volumes of the Society's 1ournal (Zoology) were largely taken
up with descriptions (written by others) of the collections of
insects he had sent h o m e f r o m Singapore, Malacca, and Sara-
wak. The Society was later to publish some of Wallace's most
120. L i n n e a n Society of L o n d o n , The Darwin-Wallace Celebration, p. 15.
T h i s a n d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n of B r o w n (Ibid., pp. 1 4 - 1 5 ) w e r e o m i t t e d i n
M a r c h a n t , Wallace, p. 98.
121. Eiseley, Darwin's Century, p. 292.
122. J u l i a n S. H u x l e y , "'Alfred R u s s e l W a l l a c e , " Dictionary of National
Biography, S u p p l e m e n t 1 9 1 2 - 1 9 2 1 ( L o n d o n : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press,
1 9 2 7 ) , p. 547.
301
i m p o r t a n t p a p e r s , b u t he h i m s e l f w a s n o t elected a F e l l o w
u n t i l 1872. D a r w i n , o n the o t h e r h a n d , w a s a l r e a d y a Fellow,
a n d h a d j u s t b e e n elected to the C o u n c i l i n May.
Some t h i r t y people, p e r h a p s m o r e , o u t of a m e m b e r s h i p of
over f o u r h u n d r e d w e r e p r e s e n t at the m e e t i n g . A l t h o u g h
s o m e of t h e i r n a m e s m i g h t n o t b e r e c o g n i z e d today, f u l l y h a l f
of those listed i n the M i n u t e s as a t t e n d i n g h a v e r a t e d n o t i c e s
i n B r i t a i n ' s r e n o w n e d Dictionary of National Biography, cer-
t a i n l y a d i s t i n g u i s h e d a u d i e n c e . 123
T h e e v e n i n g w a s a f u l l one. T h e b u s i n e s s of the m e e t i n g
w a s t r a n s a c t e d , a n d t h e n c a m e t h e r e a d i n g of the p a p e r s , the
j o i n t p a p e r s b y D a r w i n a n d W a l l a c e followed b y five of the
six p r e v i o u s l y s c h e d u l e d for 17 J u n e . T h e j o i n t p a p e r s were
i n t r o d u c e d b y a letter f r o m Lyell a n d H o o k e r e x p l a i n J n g w h a t
t h e y h a d d o n e a n d why. T h e first s e l e c t i o n w a s f r o m D a r w i n ' s
e s s a y of 1844, a n " E x t r a c t f r o m a n u n p u b l i s h e d W o r k o n
Species, b y C. D a r w i n , Esq., c o n s i s t i n g of a p o r t i o n of a C h a p -
ter e n t i t l e d ' O n the V a r i a t i o n of O r g a n i c B e i n g s i n a state of
N a t u r e ; o n the N a t u r a l M e a n s of Selection; o n the C o m p a r i s o n
of D o m e s t i c R a c e s a n d t r u e S p e c i e s . ' " D a r w i n a p p e n d e d to
the p u b l i s h e d v e r s i o n a n o t e t h a t "this MS. work w a s n e v e r
i n t e n d e d for p u b l i c a t i o n , a n d t h e r e f o r e w a s n o t w r i t t e n w i t h
care." T h i s w a s n o h a s t i l y w r i t t e n s u m m a r y , h o w e v e r , for
D a r w i n h a d h a d it copied a n d b o u n d , a n d h e h a d also left
i n s t r u c t i o n s to his wife for its p u b l i c a t i o n i n the e v e n t of his
p r e m a t u r e death. 124
S e c o n d l y c a m e the " A b s t r a c t of a L e t t e r f r o m C. D a r w i n ,
123. Listed in the minutes of the meeting, in the Society's Darwin-
Wallace Celebration, pp. 81-86. The following can be found in the D.N.B.:
Baird, William (1803-1872), zoologist; Ball, John (1818-1889), botanist;
Baly, William (1814-1861), physician (visitor); Bell, Thomas (1792-
1880), dental surgeon and zoologist (President); Bennett, John Joseph
(1801-1876), botanist (Sole Secretary), not listed as present, although
he presumably read the papers; Bentham, George (1800--1884), botanist;
Burchell, William John (1782?-1863), explorer and naturalist; Busk,
George (1807-1886), physician and scientist (Under- (Zoological) Secre-
tary), not listed as present, although Hooker later recalled that he was;
Carpenter, William Benjamin (1813-1885), naturalist and physician;
Currey, Frederick (1819-1881), mycologist; Fitton, William (1780-1861),
physician and geologist; Henfrey, Arthur (1819--1859), botanist; Hooker,
Joseph Dalton (1817-1911), botanist; Lyell, Charles (1797-1875), geol-
ogist; Salter, John William (1820-1869), geologist; Seeman, Berthold
Carl (1825--1871), botanist and traveler; Ward, Nathaniel Bagshaw
(1791-1868), botanist and physician. Others may have been present as
the list ends with "etc., etc."
124. The date is incorrectly given as 1842 in the published papers.
Darwin further confused the issue by using the date 1839 in a letter to
Wallace; see Appendix, 43. For details of Darwin's plans, see Himmelfarb,
Darwin, pp. 190-191.
302
Esq., to Prof. Asa Gray, Boston, U.S., dated Down, September 5th,
1857," the outline of his theory of n a t u r a l selection t h a t Dar-
win h a d sent to Gray. Francis D a r w i n was later of the opinion
that the r e a s o n for the inclusion of this note was the discussion
of the "principle of divergence," a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t of Darwin's
theory not included in the 1844 essay. 125 Hooker was a w a r e
t h a t D a r w i n gave divergence equal p r o m i n e n c e with n a t u r a l
selection as "the keystone of m y book [21]," although he appar-
ently did not u n d e r s t a n d the connection between them. In his
o w n essay, "On the Flora of Australia," published at almost
the s a m e time as Darwin's Origin of Species, Hooker wrote
t h a t "the tendency of varieties, both in n a t u r e and u n d e r culti-
vation, w h e n f u r t h e r varying, is r a t h e r to depart m o r e and
m o r e widely f r o m the original type t h a n to revert to it." z26
D a r w i n objected t h a t this was "without selection doubtful." z27
Third and last was Wallace's paper, "On the T e n d e n c y of
Varieties to depart indefinitely f r o m the Original Type." But
no note was added to indicate t h a t Wallace h a d not written
for publication either.
It was Hooker's recollection twenty-eight years later ( w h e t h e r
accurately or no; certainly public reaction to the publication of
the p a p e r s was almost nil) t h a t the interest was intense, al-
though there was no discussion. T h o m a s Bell, the President,
though a personal friend of Darwin's, "was hostile to the end
of his life." Neither of the Secretaries, George Busk and J o h n
J. Bennett, said anything, nor did the botanist George Bent-
h a m [67]. ( T h o m a s Huxley, later to be '~Darwin's bulldog," was
not present, not being elected a Fellow until D e c e m b e r 1858.)
B e n t h a m m a y h a v e been silent, but his feelings were those
of "severe p a i n a n d disappointment." His was the only one
of the six previously scheduled p a p e r s t h a t was not read. M a n y
years later he recalled the events in a letter to Francis Darwin:
On the day t h a t his [C. Darwin's] celebrated p a p e r was r e a d
at the L i n n e a n Society, July 1st, 1858, a long p a p e r of m i n e
h a d b e e n set d o w n for reading, in which, in c o m m e n t i n g
on the British Flora, I h a d collected a n u m b e r of observa-
tions and f a c t s illustrating w h a t I t h e n believed to be a
fixity in species, however difficult it m i g h t be to assign their
limits, and showing a tendency of a b n o r m a l f o r m s produced
by cultivation or otherwise, to w i t h d r a w within those orig-
125. D a r w i n a n d W a l l a c e , Evolution, p. 34. See also n o t e 37.
126. Q u o t e d i n F r a n c i s D a r w i n , ed., More Letters of Charles D a r w i n : a
Record of his W o r k in a Series of Hitherto U n p u b l i s h e d Letters ( N e w
York: A p p l e t o n , 1 9 0 3 ) , I, 134.
127. Ibid.
303
BAIIBABA G. B E D D A L L
inal limits w h e n left to themselves. Most fortunately m y

paper h a d to give way to Mr. Darwin's and when once that
was read, I felt bound to defer mine for reconsideration; I
began to entertain doubts on the subject, and on the appear-
ance of the 'Origin of Species,' I was forced, however re-
luctantly, to give up m y long-cherished convictions, the
results of m u c h labour and study, and I cancelled all that
part of m y paper which urged original fixity, and published
only portions of the remainder in another form, chiefly in
the 'Natural History Review.' I have since acknowledged on
various occasions m y full adoption of Mr. Darwin's views,
and chiefly in m y Presidential Address of 1863 [to the Lin-
n e a n Society], and in m y thirteenth and last address, issued
in the form of a report to the British Association at its
meeting at Belfast in 1874 [66].
B e n t h a m had not given in easily; even in his Presidential
Address in 1862 he was still struggling against the new doc-
trine :
I do not refer to those speculations on the origin of species,
which have excited so m u c h controversy; for the discussion
of that question, w h e n considered only with reference to
the comparative plausibility of opposite hypothesis, is be-
yond the province of our Society. Attempts to bring it for-
ward at our meetings were very judiciously checked by m y
predecessor [Bell] in this Chair, and I certainly should
be sorry to see our time taken up by theoretical arguments
not accompanied by the disclosure of new facts or observa-
tions.12s
Bell was a dental surgeon and zoologist, but "as a naturalist
he was more at home in his study than in the field, and he
m a d e few original contributions of special value to zoology.
As a writer, his chief merit is that of agreeable compilation." 120
I n his own Presidential Address in 1859, he dismissed the joint
papers altogether:
The year which has passed . . . has not been unproductive
in contributions of interest and value, in those sciences to
which we are professedly more particularly addicted, as well
as in every other walk of scientific research. It has not,
indeed, been m a r k e d by any of those striking discoveries
which at once revolutionize, so to speak, the d e p a r t m e n t of
128. Proc. L i n n . Soc. L o n d o n (1 November 1860-19 June 1862), p.
lxxxi.
129. G. Y. Bettany, "Thomas Bell," D.N.B., II, 175.
304
science on which they bear; it is only at remote intervals

that we c a n reasonably expect any sudden and brilliant in-
novation which shall produce a m a r k e d and p e r m a n e n t im-
press on the character of any b r a n c h of knowledge, or confer
a lasting and i m p o r t a n t service on mankind. A Bacon or a
Newton, an Oersted or a Wheatstone, a Davy or a Daguerre,
is an occasional p h e n o m e n o n , whose existence and career
seem to be especially appointed by Providence, for the pur-
pose of effecting some great i m p o r t a n t change in the condi-
tion or pursuits of man, 130
Darwin's immediate reaction to WaUace's paper was, hu-

m a n l y enough, great distress, followed by relief at the solution
worked out by Hooker and Lyell. "But," he wrote to Hooker,
"in truth it shames m e that you should have lost time on a
mere point of priority." ( I f it was not a point of priority, what,
indeed, was the h u r r y ? ) Although he was not yet clear on
exactly which of his papers h a d been read at the L i n n e a n
Society meeting, he was glad that Hooker planned to write
Wallace about the affair, "as it would quite exonerate me [29]."
Darwin was "more than satisfied" w h e n he discovered w h a t
had been done: the strictly chronological ( a n d alphabetical)
a r r a n g e m e n t of the papers m e a n t that his preceded Wallace's
(as does his n a m e in the references to the published papers),
when "I h a d t h o u g h t that your letter and mine to Asa Gray
were to be only an appendix to WaUace's paper [33]." lal
On 13 July Hooker and Darwin both sent letters to Wallace
explaining the turn of events [31, 32]. Unhappily, these letters
are missing, although Wallace carefully saved most of Dar-
win's letters to h i m ( a n d it is f r o m them that we know of
Wallace's early letters to Darwin). A few days later Darwin
also thanked Lyell for his part, again expressing himself as
"far more t h a n satisfied [34]." He was pleased to have the public
backing of m e n like Lyell and Hooker. It was only after some
years of struggle, however, that LyeU became a "convert," while
Hooker, although convinced of the action of n a t u r a l selection,
nevertheless vacillated on its importance. Even Darwin hedged
as time went on. Of the four men, Wallace was to be the most
steadfast, m a i n t a i n i n g to the end his belief in "the overwhelm-
130. J. L i n n . Soc. L o n d o n (Zool.), 4 ( 1 8 5 9 ) , viii-ix.

131. T h e collective title f o r the j o i n t p a p e r s a n d the a c c o m p a n y i n g
letter is e n t e r e d as f o l l o w s : C h a r l e s D a r w i n a n d Alfred R u s s e l Wallace,
" O n the T e n d e n c y of Species to f o r m Varieties; a n d o n the P e r p e t u a t i o n
of Varieties a n d Species by N a t u r a l M e a n s of Selection," J. L i n n . Soc.
L o n d o n (Zool.), 3 ( 1 8 5 8 ) , 45-62.
305
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
Lug i m p o r t a n c e of N a t u r a l Selection over all other agencies

in the production of new species." 132
By 20 July D a r w i n h a d received the proof sheets, and he
r e t u r n e d t h e m to Hooker the n e x t day, with "only a f e w cor-
rections in the style [35]." I n fact, judging f r o m the original
texts as published in Evolution by Natural Selection and the
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, several h u n d r e d changes
were m a d e in both the 1844 sketch and the letter to Asa Gray,
not only in the p u n c t u a t i o n and wording but even in whole
phrases. 1~3 To h a v e b e e n scrupulously fair, it would seem that
no changes should h a v e b e e n m a d e at all. D a r w i n complained
to Hooker that he h a d not been writing for publication [36],
and a note to this effect was inserted in the Journal, as already
mentioned.
Wallace did not h a v e these opportunities. It is not k n o w n
who r e a d the proof of his p a p e r nor w h a t b e c a m e of his m a n u -
script. I n later reprintLugs he added phrases in footnotes that
he would h a v e inserted in the text, but he m a d e no corrections
then because of the historical i m p o r t a n c e of the document. 134
The joint papers were published on 20 August 1858 in No. 9
of the third volume of the LLunean Society's ]ournal (Zoology).
The sudden confrontation with D a r w i n threw Wallace into
the limelight. But he h a d not stumbled u p o n the theory of
n a t u r a l selection by accident; he was to be neither a hanger-on
nor a blind follower of Darwin's, and he was to m a k e m a n y
valuable and original contributions of his own to evolutionary
theory. His interests often paralleled those of Darwin, but his
point of view frequently differed. Because of Darwin's illness
a n d isolation at Down, their long and fruitful association is
recorded in a correspondence t h a t continued until Darwin's
death. 135
Wallace's first i n t i m a t i o n of w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d c a m e w h e n
132- Wallace, Darwinism, p. iv.

133. C o m p a r e the text of the j o i n t p a p e r s w i t h the 1844 e x c e r p t i n
D a r w i n a n d Wallace, Evolution, pp. 116-121, a n d the letter to Asa Gray
i n D a r w i n , Life and Letters, I, 479-482. See also n o t e s 83, 138, 150, a n d
158.
134. W a l l a c e added two footnotes i n the first r e p r i n t i n g i n h i s Contri-
butions to the Theory of Natural Selection ( L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n , 1870);
h e omitted these a n d added a third i n the second r e p r i n t i n g i n Natural
Selection and Tropical Nature ( L o n d o n : M a c m i l l a n , 1891), p. 27n, w i t h
the c o m m e n t t h a t "'it m u s t be r e m e m b e r e d t h a t the w r i t e r h a d no opportu-
n i t y of correcting the p r o o f s of this paper.'"
135. T h e c o m p l e t e e x t a n t c o r r e s p o n d e n c e is i n M a r c h a n t , Wallace,
pp. 107-262. T h e texts differ s o m e w h a t f r o m those i n D a r w i n , Life and
Letters, besides the p u b l i c a t i o n of sections omitted there. See also n o t e
158.
306
he received the letters f r o m Hooker and Darwin in early Octo-

ber 1858. At last he h a d aroused a t t e n t i o n - - a t t e n t i o n that
assured him, as he wrote his mother, "the acquaintance and
assistance of these eminent men" on his r e t u r n home. What-
ever else Darwin's letter conveyed to Wallace, it was not the
pain and anguish of those two final weeks in June. Wallace,
u n a w a r e of the flurry he h a d aroused, told his m o t h e r that
he was "highly gratified . . . I sent Mr. Darwin an essay on
a subject on which he is now writing a great work. He showed
it to Dr. Hooker and Sir C. LyeU, who thought so highly of
it that they immediately read it before the L i n n e a n Society [37]."
And to an old boyhood friend, George Silk, Wallace crowed:
"if you have any a c q u a i n t a n c e who is a fellow of the L i n n e a n
Society, borrow the Journal of Proceedings for August last,
and in the last article you will find some of m y latest lucubra-
tions, and also some complimentary remarks thereon by Sir
Charles Lyell and Dr. Hooker, which (as I know neither of
t h e m ) I am a little proud of [42]." Almost thirty years passed
before Wallace learned some of the details of Darwin's side of
the story.
Darwin, who received Wallace's answering letter in J a n u a r y
1859, was "extremely m u c h pleased" with it; he h a d been
"anxious to hear what your impression would be." He incor-
rectly referred to his own extracts as h a v i n g been written in
1839, w h e n in fact the first was written in 1844 and the second,
the letter to Asa Gray, had been written in 1857, only a year
and a half before [38, 43].
By November 1858 Wallace h a d received a copy of the
]ournal containing the papers and could read for himself Dar-
win's "distinct and tangible idea." The tenor of Wallace's com-
m e n t s c a n be judged f r o m Darwin's answer in the following
April. Darwin agreed that Wallace was right in "that I came
to the conclusion that selection was the principle of c h a n g e
from study of domesticated productions; and then, reading
Malthus, I saw at once how to apply this principle. Geographi-
cal distribution and geographical relations of extinct to recent
inhabitants of South America first led me to the subject: espe-
cially the case of the Galapagos Islands [41, 45]." (But the
letter in which this latter statement appeared was not published
until 1903. )
Again Darwin expressed his admiration for the m a n n e r in
which Wallace h a d taken the publication of the papers, Actu-
ally, it is h a r d to imagine w h a t else Wallace could have done.
Whatever reservations he m i g h t have had ( a n d there is no
indication that he h a d a n y ) , he was the forestaller, not the
307
BARBARAG. BEDDALL
forestalled, and he h a d at last achieved recognition f r o m "two

of the most eminent naturalists in England," a remarkable
accomplishment for a self-educated collector.
Darwin h a d set to work again almost immediately after the
publication of the papers, m a k i n g an "Abstract of Species
book," and by November 1859 he could write Wallace that his
publisher was sending h i m a copy of the Origin of Species,
adding that "I do not think your share in the theory will be
overlooked by the real judges, as Hooker, Lye]l, Asa Gray,
etc. [47]." 136 Darwin h a d hoped that Wallace would feel that
his L i n n e a n paper was "fairly noticed" in the short Introduction
and added that he would "allude" to the paper in the Annals
in the body of the work [45]--this he did, but without giving
either its title or the date (he always thought of this work as
an abstract of the one he intended to write, and consequently
he never gave proper references). 13~ But Darwin has never
been accused of being overgenerous in his credits, particularly
in the "Historical Sketch" later appended to the Origin of Species,
and it m a y be that Wallace was too modest in his claims.
Wallace wrote to congratulate Darwin on his book in Febru-
ary 1860 [49], and Darwin sent the letter on to Lyell, remarking
on "how admirably free [he was] from envy or jealousy. He
m u s t be a good fellow [53]." This letter is a m o n g those missing,
and so for Wallace's opinions it is necessary to turn to letters
written to Bates in December 1860 and to his brother-in-law,
T h o m a s Sims, in the following April.
Perhaps better t h a n anyone else, Wallace could appreciate
the extraordinary a m o u n t of work involved, and he wrote Bates
that he was thankful it h a d not been left for him to do. "Mr.
Darwin has created a new science and a new philosophy,
and I believe that never has such a complete illustration of
a new b r a n c h of h u m a n knowledge been due to the labours
and researches of a single m a n [55]."
The letter to Sims is both a defense of Darwin and an ex-
planation. Sims h a d apparently taken exception to Darwin's
references to Wallace, and Wallace reproved him :
You quite m i s u n d e r s t a n d Mr. D.'s statement in the preface
and his sentiments. I have, of course, been in correspon-
dence with him since I first sent h i m m y little essay. His
conduct has been most liberal and disinterested. I think any-
one who reads the L i n n e a n Society papers and his book will
136. Darwin had sent copies of the joint papers to Wallace the preced-
ing year; see Appendix, 40.
137. Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., pp. 1-2, 355.
308
see it. I do back him up in his whole r o u n d of conclusions

and look u p o n him as the Newton of Natural History.
Sims objected not only to the contents of the Origin of Spe-
cies but even to its title. After explaining that Darwin h a d
originally given h i m a different title ( p r e s u m a b l y in the letter
of 13 July 1858), Wallace went on to give his own j u d g m e n t
of Darwin's a c c o m p l i s h m e n t : "It is the vast chaos of facts,
w h i c h are explicable and fall into beautiful order on the one
theory, which are inexplicable and r e m a i n a chaos on the other,
which I think m u s t ultimately force Darwin's views on any
and every reflecting mind." The letter is worth reading care-
fully because, in trying to convince Sims, Wallace showed
himself a strong and articulate c h a m p i o n of these views [56].
It is a pity that Wallace was not at h o m e to take an active
part in the controversy over the Origin of Species. He would
have enjoyed the dispute which Darwin f o u n d so distasteful.
But by the time he returned to E n g l a n d in 1862 the first heat
of the battle was past. Darwin, at any rate, was pleased with
Wallace's enthusiasm, and he t h a n k e d h i m for his "too high
approbation of m y book . . . most persons would in your posi-
tion have felt bitter envy and jealousy [54]." 13s
But the d o c u m e n t a t i o n of this f a m o u s episode leaves some-

thing to be desired. There are gaps in the record that not only
are rarely noticed but also are being gradually obliterated in
the frequent retelling of this episode. Most people agree with
M a r c h a n t that Darwin's letters tell the whole story, but they
f o r m only part of the evidence. Missing are all the letters
(except for one f r a g m e n t ) that Wallace sent to Darwin f r o m
the Malay Archipelago, Wallace's manuscript, the letters writ-
ten to Darwin by Hooker and Lyell during those hectic weeks
in June 1858, and the pertinent letters f r o m Asa Gray. 1~9
The evidence on the disposition of the letters to Darwin is
contradictory. Francis Darwin later recalled that his father
"made a rule of keeping all letters that he received; this was
a habit which he learnt f r o m his father, and which he said
h a d been of great use to him." 14o But, in describing his own
work in compiling the Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, he
gave a different account :
138. "Bitter e n v y " c h a n g e d to " s o m e e n v y " i n D a r w i n , Life and Letters;
see also n o t e 150.
139. T h e m i s s i n g l e t t e r s a r e n o s . 8, 13, 15, 20, 27, 28, 30, 38, 39, 41,
44, 48, 49, m a r k e d w i t h a n a s t e r i s k i n t h e A p p e n d i x . L e t t e r s nos. 31 a n d
32 f r o m D a r w i n a n d H o o k e r to W a l l a c e a r e also m i s s i n g .
140. D a r w i n , Life and Letters, I, 97.
309
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
Of letters addressed to m y father I have not made m u c h

use. It was his custom to file all letters received, and when
his slender stock of files ("spits" as he called t h e m ) was ex-
hausted, he would b u r n the letters of several years, in order
that he m i g h t make use of the liberated "spits." This process,
carried on for years, destroyed nearly all letters received
before 1862. After that date he was persuaded to keep the
more interesting letters, and these are preserved in an ac-
cessible form. 141
Many of the letters received before 1862 do exist, however, as
can easily be checked in the published collections of Darwin's
letters and in the list of unpublished material in the Cambridge
University Library. 142
Another version of what happened to the letters is given
in a biography of Hooker:
I n one of his letters Darwin makes special m e n t i o n of pre-
serving his friend's [i.e. Hooker's] letters. The answers to
scientific questions are detached and placed a m o n g the
m e m o r a n d a of that subject; the other parts are put away
a m o n g his general correspondence, so that it would only
be a matter of half an hour to rearrange them in case of
need. I n spite of his care, however, a large n u m b e r of the
earlier letters f r o m Hooker have disappeared wholly or in
part.14a
The one snippet from Wallace's letter of 27 September 1857
shows that Darwin m u s t have followed this practice with his
letters also, at least at first [16]. But Darwin was meticulous
(indeed, it is f r o m his own care in answering Wallace that
the dates of Wallace's letters to h i m c a n be so easily deter-
m i n e d ) . It seems surprising that all the material relating to
the most dramatic (not to say t r a u m a t i c ) m o m e n t in his life
should disappear.
The dating of Darwin's own letters presents still another
problem. As his son observed:
He rarely dated his letters, so that but for the Diary [Jour-
nal] it would have been all but impossible to unravel the
history of his books. It has also enabled m e to assign dates
to m a n y letters which would otherwise have been shorn of
half their value, 144 [and]
141. Ibid., xviii-xix.
142. Cambridge University Library, H a n d l i s t o f D a r w i n Pape r s at t h e
U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , C a m b r i d g e (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1960).
143. L. Huxley, L i f e a n d L e t t e r s . . . Hooher, I, 436.
144. Darwin, L i f e a n d Letters, I, xvi.i.i.
310
Mr. Darwin, who was careful in other things, generally

omitted the date in familiar correspondence, and it is often
only by treating a letter as a detective studies a crime that
we can make sure of its date. Fortunately, however, Sir
Joseph Hooker and others of Darwin's correspondents were
accustomed to a d d t h e d a t e o n w h i c h t h e l e t t e r s w e r e r e -
ceived.145
Some of the crucial letters on the theory of natural selection

from Darwin to Asa Gray have recently been redated by Du-
pree in a different connection, a redating that can be sup-
ported by an examination of the texts. These letters have
appeared in different collections of Darwin's letters and have
b e e n d a t e d 1 8 5 6 [12], 1 8 5 7 [14], a n d 1 8 5 9 [17], r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
but they seem all to have been written in 1857, after Darwin
r e c e i v e d W a l l a c e ' s f i r s t l e t t e r . P u t t o g e t h e r a n d r e a d i n se-
quence, they seem to form a natural unit, lending support to
t h e t h e o r y t h a t t h e r e v e l a t i o n t o G r a y w a s i n d u c e d b y W a l l a c e . 145
VI. E P I L O G U E
I feel m u c h satisfaction i n h a v i n g thus aided i n b r i n g i n g about the
publication of this celebrated book, a n d with the ample recognition by
D a r w i n himself of m y i n d e p e n d e n t discovery of " n a t u r a l selection."
Wallace, Natural Selection and Tropical Nature
To a large extent the world has accepted at face value both

Wallace's and Darwin's rather pious recollections of their close
145. Darwin, More Letters, I, x.

146. There are two ways to date the letters to Gray. One is by the
sequence i n the Darwin-Gray correspondence, a n d the other is f r o m
i n t e r n a l evidence. Both indicate t h a t no. 12 was written in 1857. In par-
ticular, D a r w i n refers to a chapter on the continuous distribution of
species, w h i c h "Hooker kindly read . . . over." According to Darwin's
"'Journal," h e finished this section on 13 October 1856, h a v i n g asked
Hooker on 13 July 1856 if h e would read it for ]aim (Darwin, More
Letters, I, 95). See also note 88.
Although there is no question about the year (1857) of no. 14, D a r w i n
did not date the copy h e kept, a n d h e t h o u g h t h e h a d sent it i n October
(Darwin, Life and Letters, I, 4 7 7 n ) . The date is given as October i n the
letter of t r a n s m i t t a l to the L i n n e a n Society b u t as 5 September 1857 on the
letter itself. See also note 90.
N u m b e r 17 was probably p u t i n 1859 because it concerns n a t u r a l selec-
tion. But Darwin's book was published on 24 November, a n d Gray could
not h a v e received a copy, r e a d it, a n d given D a r w i n his opinion i n 5 days.
Again, the sequence of letters shows t h a t it belongs i n 1857. It is followed
by two others t h a t h a v e also been dated 1859 b u t w h i c h should be dated
1858, one on 21 February (Darwin, Life and Letters, I, 4 6 3 - 4 6 4 ) a n d
another o n 4 April (ibid., 510). T h e latter refers to a just finished
chapter on i n s t i n c t that, according to Darwin's "Journal," was finished on
9 March 1858. See also note 93.
311
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
but not always unruffled relationship. The vet of Victorian

p r o p r i e t y t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e y c a m e to v i e w e a c h o t h e r h a s ,
h o w e v e r , o b s c u r e d s o m e o f t h e i r m o r e h u m a n r e a c t i o n s to
what must at times have been a trying entanglement.
Public recognition by Darwin of Wallace's achievement can
be d i v i d e d i n t o t w o p a r t s , b e f o r e a n d a f t e r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin i n 1887, t h e first p a r t
c o n s i s t i n g m a i n l y o f r e m a r k s i n t h e " H i s t o r i c a l S k e t c h " ap-
p e n d e d to t h e O r i g i n o f S p e c i e s . T h i s s k e t c h ( w h i c h h a s b e e n
c a l l e d "the m o s t u n r e l i a b l e a c c o u n t t h a t e v e r will b e w r i t -
t e n " ) 147 w a s a d d e d to t h e t h i r d e d i t i o n i n 1861 a n d e x p a n d e d
s o m e w h a t f o r t h e f o u r t h i n 1866.148 W a l l a c e a n d t h e L i n n e a n
papers were given one sentence, while Wallace's paper in the
A n n a l s w a s n o t m e n t i o n e d a t all a n d L y e l l w a s o m i t t e d alto-
g e t h e r . A m o n g t h e n a m e s a d d e d i n 1866 w e r e t h o s e o f P a t r i c k
M a t t h e w a n d W i l l i a m W e l l s , b o t h c o n t e n d e r s f o r t h e title o f
discoverer of the theory of natural selection.
M a t t h e w h a d w r i t t e n o n n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n i n 1831, a n d h e
p r e s s e d h i s c l a i m i n t h e G a r d n e r s " C h r o n i c l e i n 1860.149 D a r -
win publicly acknowledged his anticipation of the theory,
w r i t i n g to W a l l a c e t h a t 'the g i v e s m o s t c l e a r l y b u t v e r y b r i e f l y
• . . our view of Natural S e l e c t i o n [51, 52, 54]. ''15° W e l l s ' c l a i m
w a s m a d e i n 1865 b y a "Mr. R o w l e y , of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , "
for "an account of a female . . . part of whose skin resembles
t h a t of a n e g r o , " a p a p e r first r e a d b e f o r e t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y
i n 1813 a n d p u b l i s h e d p o s t h u m o u s l y i n 1818.151 W a l l a c e w a s
s u r p r i s e d "'that it s h o u l d h a v e s t r u c k n o o n e t h a t [his s u g g e s -
tion] w a s a g r e a t p r i n c i p l e o f u n i v e r s a l a p p l i c a t i o n i n N a -
t u r e [60] I"
S h o r t l y b e f o r e this, W a l l a c e h a d m o d e s t l y r e f e r r e d to "Mr.
D a r w i n ' s c e l e b r a t e d t h e o r y o f ' N a t u r a l S e l e c t i o n . ' " 152 D a r w i n
had demurred, but Wallace had insisted that he would "always
147. C. D. Darlington, "'The Origin of Darwinism," Sci. A m e r . , 200

(May 1959), 61.
148. Darwin, Origin of Species, 3rd ed., pp. v-xi; 4th ed., pp. xiii-xxi.
149. Patrick Matthew, N a v a l T i m b e r a n d A r b o r i c u l t u r e (Edinburgh:
Longman, 1831); "Nature's Law of Selection," Gard. Chron. Agricul. Gaz.,
20 (7 April 1860), pp. 312-313.
150. Darwin, L i f e a n d Letters, II, 95-96n. The remark on Patrick
Matthew was omitted from Darwin, L i f e a n d Letters; see also note 138.
151. William Wells, T w o Essays: one u p o n Single V i s i o n w i t h t w o Eyes;
t h e o t h e r o n D e w . A letter to . . . L o r d K e n y o n a n d a n A c c o u n t of a
F e m a l e . . . p a r t of w h o s e S k i n r e s e m b l e s t h a t of a N e g r o (London:
A. Constable, 1818).
152. Alfred Russel Wallace, "'The Origin of Human Races and the
Antiquity of Man deduced from Natural Selection," ]. A n t h r o p o l . Soc.
L o n d o n , 2 (1864), clix.
312
m a i n t a i n it to be actually yours, and yours only [57, 58]." And

yet in 1869 Wallace's reply to a request f r o m the anthropolo-
gist A. B. Meyer for his recollections of his part in the theory
was brusque. After stating that he "was led to it by Malthus'
views on population applied to animals," his terse account
ended with the r e m a r k that his paper "was printed without
m y knowledge, and of course without any correction of proofs.
I should, of course, like this fact to be stated [63]."
Wallace objected to being classed with Matthew and Wells,
"who m a d e no further use of that principle, and failed to see
its wide and immensely important applications," and he pub-
lished a collection of his papers in 1870 to m a k e the extent
of his own contribution clear. 15a But he did not then, nor
did he ever, claim that he h a d worked out the theory in the
detail that D a r w i n had. Darwin thanked Wallace in glowing
terms for the kind words in his preface, h a v i n g missed alto-
gether the point about Matthew and Wells [65].
Lyell, in the meantime, thought Darwin h a d given short
shrift not only to Wallace and himself, but also to Lamarck.
He was astonished to find no m e n t i o n of Wallace's paper in
the Annals in Darwin's "Historical Sketch" [61], and he dis-
cussed this "next important effort to determine the m a n n e r
in which new species m a y have originated" in some detail in
the n e w edition of his f a m o u s Principles of Geology, published
in 1867-1868. T M He h a d already credited Wallace with think-
ing out, "independently for himself, one of the most novel and
i m p o r t a n t of Mr. Darwin's theories," in discussing the joint
papers in his Antiquity of Man. ~55
And in his Principles of Geology, he now reprinted in its
entirety his original s u m m a r y of Lamarck, not to protest against
his theory of the t r a n s m u t a t i o n of species as before, but to
"show how nearly the opinions taught by h i m at the commence-
m e n t of this century resembled those now in vogue." ~58
As for himself, Lyell wrote in a letter to Ernst Haeckel in
November 1868 that he was obliged to h i m "for pointing out
[in his History of Creation] how clearly I advocated a law of
continuity even in the organic world, so far as possible without
adopting L a m a r c k ' s theory of t r a n s m u t a t i o n . . . I had cer-
tainly prepared the way in this country . . . for the reception
of Darwin's gradual and insensible evolution of species [62],"
and Huxley later agreed with him. T M I n 1870, apparently in
153. Wallace, Contributions, p. iv.
154. Lyell, Principles of Geoloyy, 10th ed., II, 276---281.
155. Lyell, Geological Evidences, 1st ed., pp. 408---409.
156. LyeU, Principles of Geology, 10th ed., II, 246n.
157. Darwin, Life and Letters, I, 543-544.
313
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
r e f e r e n c e to t h e p r e f a c e to W a l l a c e ' s c o m p i l a t i o n of h i s p a p e r s ,
L y e l l a g a i n s u p p o r t e d W a l l a c e , w r i t i n g h i m t h a t "it is h i g h
t i m e this m o d e s t a s s e r t i o n o f y o u r c l a i m s as a n i n d e p e n d e n t
o r i g i n a t o r o f N a t u r a l S e l e c t i o n s h o u l d b e p u b l i s h e d [64]."
N o t u n t i l t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e L i f e a n d L e t t e r s o f Charles
D a r w i n i n 1887, five y e a r s a f t e r D a r w i n ' s d e a t h , d i d W a l l a c e
r e c e i v e full p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n f o r h i s p a r t i n t h e t h e o r y of
n a t u r a l s e l e c t i o n . T h e l e t t e r s f r o m D a r w i n to H o o k e r , Lyell,
a n d W a l l a c e h i m s e l f w e r e t h e r e f o r all to r e a d ( a l t h o u g h nei-
t h e r t h e c o m p l e t e t e x t s n o r all of t h e e a r l y l e t t e r s f r o m D a r w i n
to W a l l a c e w e r e i n c l u d e d 15s); a n d as f u r t h e r p r o o f o f W a l -
l a c e ' s r o l e i n i n d u c i n g D a r w i n to p u b l i s h t h e Origin o f Species,
t h e r e w a s also D a r w i n ' s " A u t o b i o g r a p h y . " F o r t h e first t i m e ,
W a l l a c e l e a r n e d s o m e o f t h e d e t a i l s of t h o s e l o n g - a g o e v e n t s .
H e w a s s u r p r i s e d to f i n d t h a t D a r w i n ' ~ a d b e e n so d i s t r e s s e d - -
or r a t h e r d i s t u r b e d " b y h i s e s s a y , a n d h e w r o t e a p o l o g e t i c a l l y
to F r a n c i s D a r w i n t h a t h e h a d a l w a y s f e l t t h a t h e h a d r e c e i v e d
too m u c h c r e d i t "'for m y m e r e s k e t c h of a t h e o r y [68]."
D a r w i n ' s a t t i t u d e h a d also s o f t e n e d . N e a r l y t w e n t y y e a r s
after the event, in an autobiographical sketch written mainly
f o r t h e e y e s of h i s c h i l d r e n , h e c o u l d s a y t h a t h e " c a r e d v e r y
l i t t l e w h e t h e r m e n a t t r i b u t e d m o s t o r i g i n a l i t y to m e or W a l -
lace." 159 H e h a d w o r r i e d w h e t h e r W a l l a c e w o u l d c o n s i d e r
the whole proceeding justifiable (about which both he and
H o o k e r s e e m e d to h a v e s o m e l i n g e r i n g d o u b t s ) , n o t t h e n k n o w -
i n g '~how g e n e r o u s a n d n o b l e w a s h i s d i s p o s i t i o n . " 100 H e
m e n t i o n e d o n c e a g a i n t h a t h i s o w n p a r t s of t h e j o i n t p a p e r s
had not been intended for publication, while Wallace's was a
model of clarity. He never recognized in any way that Wal-
l a c e ' s w a s h a s t i l y w r i t t e n , t h a t it h a d n o t b e e n i n t e n d e d f o r
p u b l i c a t i o n e i t h e r , or t h a t W a l l a c e h a d h a d n o c h a n c e to p r o o f -
r e a d it, b u t h e d i d c r e d i t W a l l a c e w i t h g i v i n g h i m t h e i m p e t u s
t h a t p r o d u c e d t h e Origin o f Species.
N o w t h a t W a l l a c e ' s p o s i t i o n w a s s e c u r e , h e b e g a n to e m -
broider his own recollections. At the time he wrote his essay,
n e a r l y t h i r t y y e a r s b e f o r e , h e h a d h a d n o i d e a e i t h e r o f its
i m p o r t a n c e or o f its i m p a c t o n D a r w i n , a n d t h e e a r l i e s t re-
158. o f the first eight extant letters from Darwin to Wallace, six are
included in Darwin, Life and Letters (nos. 11, 18, 43, 46, 47, and 54),
but only one (47) is complete. The seventh (45) is in Darwin, More
Letters, and the eighth (50) is in Marchant, Wallace. Marehant includes
the complete extant text of all of them, but his book was not published
until 1916. The texts also differ slightly from those in Darwin, Life and
Letters. See also n o t e s 3, 87, 135, 1 3 8 - 1 4 3 , 146, 150, and 171.
159. Darwin, Life and Letters, I, 71. 160. Ibid., 69.
314
W a l l a c e , D a r w i n a n d th e T h e o r y of N a t u r a l S e l e c t i o n
q u e s t f o r h i s m e m o r i e s h a d c o m e f r o m M e y e r i n 1869. B u t
n o w t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h a t w e e k so l o n g ago a s s u m e d a
n e w i n t e r e s t . A l f r e d N e w t o n , o r n i t h o l o g i s t a n d zoologist, w r o t e
i n q u i r i n g f o r d e t a i l s to i n c o r p o r a t e i n h is r e v i e w o f t h e L i f e
a n d L e t t e r s o f Charles D a r w i n , a n d W a l l a c e o b l i g i n g l y re-
sponded.
B u t t h e l e t t e r to N e w t o n [69], w r i t t e n i n 1887, c o n t a i n s a
n u m b e r of questionable statements. Wallace was now uncer-
t a i n w h e t h e r h e h a d e v e n r e a d D a r w i n ' s V o y a g e o f t h e Beagle
at t h e t i m e , w h e n h e h a d i n f a c t r e a d b o t h e d i t i o n s a n d h a d
the second one with h i m in the Malay Archipelago; scattered
r e f e r e n c e s to D a r w i n i n h i s o w n e a r l y p u b l i s h e d w o r k s also
s h o w t h a t h e h a d r e a d h i m w i t h s o m e c ar e. H e t h o u g h t h e
had started the correspondence over some peculiar varieties
o f d u c k s . H o w e v e r , t h e l e t t e r i t s e l f s h o w s t h a t h e w a s con-
s u l t i n g t h e L i f e a n d L e t t e r s o f Charles D a r w i n to r e f r e s h h i s
m e m o r y , and the p a r a g r a p h containing the request for "any
c u r i o u s b r e e d " i n D a r w i n ' s first l e t t e r to h i m w a s o m i t t e d
t h e r e . E v i d e n c e f r o m W a l l a c e ' s " N o t e b o o k " also i n d i c a t e s t h a t
D a r w i n b r o u g h t t h e s u b j e c t u p first [11]. T M N o t i c e s i n t h e
A t h e n a e u m that D a r w i n was interested in species and varieties
s e e m i m p r o b a b l e . 162 W a l l a c e a g a i n p a i d h i s r e s p e c t s to Mal-
thus, f u r t h e r e n s h r i n i n g h i m in the annals of science. And
finally, h e r e f e r r e d to a " h o t fit" o f i n t e r m i t t e n t f e v e r , a l t h o u g h
h e l a t e r s a i d t h e i d e a h a d c o m e to h i m d u r i n g a "co l d fit."
Wallace had returned only a few months before from a
s p e a k i n g t o u r of t h e U n i t e d States. I n t e r e s t i n g l y e n o u g h , h e
had m e t Asa Gray during a month-long stay in Boston, and
G r a y h a d i n v i t e d h i m to a t t e n d a m e e t i n g o f t h e C a m b r i d g e
S c i e n t i f i c Club. T h e r e , G r a y s h o w e d h i s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e
w i t h D a r w i n b e f o r e t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e Origin o f Species,
161. See also notes 86 and 87.
162. No such notices located. Although it is possible that Wallace
heard of Darwin's interest through his agent, Stevens (who had been a
member with Darwin since 1837 of the Entomological Society), and he
could have used them as an opening for his first letter in 1856 (8), this
still would not account for the range of subjects he apparently discussed.
Darwin answered: "By your letter and even still more by your paper in
the Annals . . . ,'" indicating that the letter itself must have contained
some related remarks (11).
Sydney Smith has suggested (personal communication) that two letters
from Darwin to W. B. Tegetmeier, dated 21 Nov. and 29 Nov. 1857, show
that it was about the second date that Darwin received some poultry speci-
mens collected by Wallace. Since Wallace received Darwin's letter (11)
with this request in July (see 19), the shipment could have been in
response to that request. This would leave unaffected the first letter
Wallace wrote to Darwin in October 1856 (8), and the reason for it would
then remain an open question.
315
a n d W a l l a c e "related w h a t led h i m to his theory of N a t u r a l

Selection . . . The w r i t i n g s of Spencer, Vestiges of Creation,
L a m a r c k ? , b u t p a r t i c u l a r l y of M a l t h u s on p o p u l a t i o n suggested
his o w n view." 103 This also seems i n a c c u r a t e : W a l l a c e omit-
ted Lyell a n d a d d e d Spencer, whose First Principles he r e a d
after his r e t u r n f r o m the M a l a y A r c h i p e l a g o , in S e p t e m b e r
1862.184
At a n y rate, p e r h a p s h e a r t e n e d by the p u b l i c r e c o g n i t i o n he
h a d n o w received, W a l l a c e e x p a n d e d his series of lectures
into a book, p u b l i s h e d in 1889, to w h i c h he gave the title,
Darwinism: A n Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection.
To h i m the t e r m s were s y n o n y m o u s . F u r t h e r m o r e , he was still
c o n v i n c e d of the p r i m e i m p o r t a n c e of n a t u r a l selection, al-
t h o u g h D a r w i n h a d s t a g e d a g r a d u a l r e t r e a t f r o m this position.
Next, in the i n t r o d u c t o r y note to a c h a p t e r in a n e w com-
p i l a t i o n of his p a p e r s , Natural Selection and Tropical Nature,
W a l l a c e a d d e d f u r t h e r details of t h a t n o w never-to-be-forgotten
week, even to the t e m p e r a t u r e outside. A g a i n he c o n s u l t e d the
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, a n d a n o t h e r p r o b a b l e error
c r e p t into the story. F r o m the dates on w h i c h the first two
D a r w i n letters were written, W a l l a c e p r e s u m e d t h a t he h a d
received t h e m before s e n d i n g his p a p e r to D a r w i n , a n d he
quoted f r o m t h e m both. It is unlikely, however, t h a t the second
letter could h a v e r e a c h e d h i m so quickly. But he w a s n o w
satisfied, as c a n be seen f r o m his c o n c l u d i n g r e m a r k , "with
the a m p l e r e c o g n i t i o n by D a r w i n h i m s e l f . " ~5
W a l l a c e gave an even m o r e d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t in his own
a u t o b i o g r a p h y , w r i t t e n n e a r l y fifty y e a r s after the event, add-
ing, a m o n g other things, t h a t he h a d asked D a r w i n to show
his p a p e r to Lyell "who h a d t h o u g h t so h i g h l y of m y f o r m e r
p a p e r . " This a g a i n p r e s u m e s t h a t W a l l a c e h a d a l r e a d y re-
ceived D a r w i n ' s second letter, w h i c h is doubtful. This fre-
q u e n t l y quoted-from a c c o u n t should be t r e a t e d with caution. 166
In t h a n k i n g W a l l a c e for a copy of his Life, Hooker, n o w
eighty-eight y e a r s old, r e m a r k e d t h a t "your citation of m y let-
ters a n d their c o n t e n t s are like d r e a m s to me; b u t to tell you
the truth, I a m getting dull of m e m o r y as well as of h e a r i n g ,
a n d w h a t is worse, in r e a d i n g : w h a t goes in at one eye goes
out at the o t h e r " - - p e r h a p s a n h o n e s t e v a l u a t i o n t h a t could
be a p p l i e d to m o s t o c t o g e n a r i a n s , i n c l u d i n g Wallace. 167
163. Cambridge Scientific Club, "'Record Book," 17 November 1886,
MS, Harvard University Archives; quoted with the permission of Harvard
University. See also Dupree, Asa Gray, pp. 380, 473 n52.
164. Marchant, WaUace, p. 122.
165. Wallace, Natural Selection, pp. 20-21.
166. Wallace, My Life, I, 357-363.
167. Marchant, Wallace, p. 332.
316
On 1 July 1908, the L i n n e a n Society held a jubilee to com-

m e m o r a t e the reading of the joint papers fifty years before.
It seems extraordinary that two of the protagonists, Wallace
and Hooker, were still alive and able to participate. (LyeU h a d
died in 1875 and Darwin in 1882.) Wallace, the first of the
two to speak, repeated his story with some new elaborations,
helping to perpetuate the (perhaps fictitious) report that his
paper h a d come to Darwin 'like a thunderbolt f r o m a cloud-
less sky," but his account was modest and self-effacing. ~6s
He was, after all, a modest man. He h a d refused some of the
honors offered him and h a d accepted others ( s u c h as an honor-
ary degree f r o m Oxford and a Fellowship in the Royal Society)
only after strong urging. He had long since received the credit
he felt due him as an independent originator of the theory of
natural selection.
In the published report of the proceedings, Wallace added
some selections f r o m the sixth edition of Malthus that he
thought might have influenced him, remarking, however, that
it was the over-all effect r a t h e r t h a n particular details that he
remembered. He concluded with a well-deserved tribute to
Lyell who had, as he said, impressed him even more deeply
than Malthus. 189
T h e n it was Hooker's turn. It is startling to discover that
Hooker's first biographer, Leonard Huxley, referred to Hooker
as the "sole survivor of those immediately concerned," dismiss-
ing Wallace altogether ( a n oversight repeated by his latest bi-
o g r a p h e r ) , 179 and he mentioned just as casually that "one or
two of the letters that then passed were missing." 1~1 But Hooker,
in accepting the invitation to speak, was r a t h e r anxious not
only about the expediency and propriety of telling the public
what he h a d done, but also about the accuracy of his recol-
lections. He appealed to Sir Francis Darwin and to Sir Leonard
Lyell, Sir Charles's nephew, for help in Finding additional docu-
m e n t a r y evidence. But none could be found, and he was forced
to rely entirely on the partial story in the Life and Letters of
Charles Darwin. He carefully noted this in his speech, apologiz-
ing at the end for "the half-century-old real or fancied memories
of a nonagenarian." 17z
But Wallace had saved the early letters he received f r o m
168. L i n n e a n Society of London, T h e D a r w i n - W a l l a c e C e l e b r a t i o n , pp.
5-11.
16g. I b i d . , pp. 111-118.
170. Mea Allan, T h e H o o k e r s o f K e w , 1 7 8 5 - 1 9 1 1 ( L o n d o n : Michael
Joseph, 1967), p. 248.
171. L. Huxley, L i f e a n d L e t t e r s . . . H o o k e r , II, 465.
172. L i n n e a n Society of London, T h e D a r w i n - W a l l a c e Ce/ebr,,tion,
pp, 11-16.
317
BARBARA G. BEDDALL
Darwin (except for one), although the m a n u s c r i p t of his f a m o u s

paper was never found. On the outside of an envelope in
which he kept the letters, Wallace wrote:
The first 8 letters I received f r o m D a r w i n - - w h i l e in the
Malay Archipelago.
NB. The MSS. of m y Paper sent to Darwin and printed in
the Journal of the L i n n e a n Society, was not returned to me,
and seems to be lost. The proofs with the MSS. were per-
haps sent to Sir Charles Lyell, or to the Secretary of the
Linn. S o c . & m a y some day be found. It was written on
thin foreign note paper. 173
However, "neither Wallace's part of this correspondence, nor
the original MS. of his essay . . . has been discovered," as
M a r c h a n t wrote after Wallace's death. 174
And so the story rests, with some questions still unanswered.
W h y did Wallace first write to Darwin? W h y did Darwin send
the outline of his theory of n a t u r a l selection to Asa Gray?
W h a t became of the letters Darwin received f r o m Wallace,
Lyell, Hooker, and Gray? Where is Wallace's m a n u s c r i p t ? The
answers are in the missing material, and what really hap-
pened m u s t r e m a i n speculation. The fact that m u c h other ma-
terial is also missing does not invalidate the point that evidence
to support some c o m m o n l y accepted explanations is inadequate
or lacking and that other explanations are clearly in error.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express m y appreciation to Dr. Ernst Mayr
for critically reading the manuscript, and to Dr. Everett Men-
delsohn for editorial help in preparing it for publication. I
would also like to t h a n k Miss Sandra Raphael, Librarian of
the L i n n e a n Society of London, for her kind assistance. Fi-
nally, I would like to acknowledge m y husband's encourage-
m e n t and financial support, without which this would not have
been done.
173. Marchant, Wallace, p. 106.
174. Ibid., p. 105.
318
APPENDIX • LETTERS
No.l F r o m - to Date2 Sources3 Comments
1. A.R. Wallace- 11 April 1846 W, 1 , 2 5 5 - 2 5 6 ; O m i s s i o n i n M.

H. W. B a t e s M, 21.
2. A. 1t. W a l l a c e - 9 Nov. [1847] W, 1 , 2 5 4 ; For dating, see

H. W. Bates M, 73. note 14.
3. A. It. W a l l a c e - 28 Dec. [1847] W, 1, 254-255; O m i s s i o n i n M; for

H. W. Bates M, 73-74. dating, see note 14.
4. A. 1t. W a l l a c e - [Eaxly 1848] W, 1 , 2 5 6 - 2 5 7 ; O m i s s i o n in Y.

H. W. Bates M, 74-75.
5. C. D a r w i n - 3 May [1856] DLL, 1 , 4 2 6 - 4 2 7 ;

C. Lye11 DLLE, 2, 67-68.
6. C. D a r w i n - 9 May [1856] DLL, 1,427--428;

J. D. Hooker DLLE, 2, 66-69.
7. C. D a r w i n - 11 May [1856] DLL, 1,428--430;

J. D. Hooker DLLE, 2, 69--71.
*8. A. 11. W a l l a c e - [10 Oct. 1856] Received late April

C. D a x w m 1857; see 11 a n d 69,
a n d notes 43, 81,
a n d 162.
9. H.W. Bates- 19 Nov. 1856 M, 52--53. Received July 1857;
A. 11. W a l l a c e see 19.
10. C. D a r w i n - 22 Feb. 1857 DLL, 1 , 4 5 2 ;

W. D. Fox DLLE, 2, 94-95.
11. C. D a r w i n - 1 May 1857 DLL, 1,452--454; A n s w e r to 8,

A. 11. W a l l a c e DLLE, 2, 95-96; received J u l y 1857;
M, 107-109. see 19. O m i s s i o n s i n
DLL; see notes 86,
87, a n d 162.
12. C. D a r w i n - 20 July [1857] DLL, 1, 437--438; See also 14 a n d 17.

A. Gray DLLE, 2, 78-80; For dating, see
Du, 244-245, 458 note 146.
n22.
"13. A. G r a y - [Aug. 1857] See 14.

C. Daxwin
319
Letters (continued)
No.l F r o m - to Date2 Sources3 Comments
14. C. D a r w i n - 5 Sept. [1857] JLZ, 3, 50-53; See also 12 a n d 17.

A. Gray DLL, I, 477-482; M a n y differences i n
DLLE, 2, 122--125; texts between JLZ
Du, 246, 4 5 8 - 4 5 9 a n d DLL. For dating,
n23. see note 146;
see also note 92.
"15. A. G r a y - [ A u t u m n 1857] See 17.
C. D a r w i n
16. A.R. Wallace- [27 Sept. 1857] CUL U n p u b l i s h e d frag-
C. D a r w i n m e n t of a n s w e r to 11.
Received Dec. 1857;
see 18. See also notes
60, 95, 142, a n d 143.
17. C. D a r w i n - 29 Nov [1857] DML, 1 , 1 2 6 - 1 2 7 ; Not p u b l i s h e d unt21
A. Gray Du, 247, 459 n24. 1903. See also 12 a n d
14. For dating,
see note 146.
18. C. D a r w i n - 22 Dec. 1857 DLL, 1,465--467; A n s w e r to 16.
A. R. Wallace DLLE, 2, 108-110; O m i s s i o n i n DLL.
M, 109-111.
19. A.R. Wallace- 4 & 25 Jan. 1858 W, 1 , 3 5 8 - 3 5 9 ; A n s w e r to 9.
H. W. Bates M, 53-55. O m i s s i o n s i n W, a n d
texts differ slightly;
h e r e quoted f r o m M.
See also note 94,
*20. A.R. Wallace- [Feb. 1858] Received 18 J u n e
C. D a r w i n 1858; see 22.
See also note 116.
21. C. D a x w i n - 8 J u n e [1858] DML, 1,109. Not p u b l i s h e d
J. D. Hooker u n t i l 1903.
22. C. D a r w i n - 18 J u n e [1858] DLL, 1,473;
C. Lyell DLLE, 2, 116-117.
23. C. D a r w i n - [25 J u n e 1858] DLL, 1 , 4 7 4 - 4 7 5 ;
C./,yell DLLE, 2, 117-118.
24. C. D a r w i n - 26 [June 1858] DLL, 1,475;
C. Lyell DLLE, 2, 118-119.
25. C. D a r w i n - [29 J u n e 1858] DLL, 1,476;
J. D. Hooker DLLE, 2, 119.
26. C. D a r w i n - [29 J u n e 1858] DLL, 1 , 4 7 6 - 4 7 7 ;
*27. C. L y e l l - [June 1858] See 25 a n d notes
C. D a r w i n 3, 139-143, a n d 171.
*28. J.D. Hooker- [June 1858] See 25 a n d 26, a n d

C. D a r w i n notes 3, 139-143,
a n d 171.
320
Letters (continued)
NO. 1 From -- t o Date2 Sources3 Comments
29. C. D a r w i n - 5 July [1858] DLL, 1,482--484;

*30. J . D . Hooker- [July 1858] See 33.
C. Darwin
"31. J.D. Hooker- [13? July 1858] Received early
A. R. Wallace October 1858;
see 33, 37, and 42.
*32. C. D a r w i n - [13 July 1858] Answer to 20,
A. R. Wallace received early
October 1858;
see 33, 37, and 42.
33. C. D a r w i n - [13 July 1858] DLL, 1,484--485;
34. C. D a r w i n - 18 July [1858] DLL, 1,485-486;
C. Lyell DLLE, 2, 129-130.
35. C. D a r w i n - 21 July [1858] DLL, 1,486--487;
36. C. D a r w i n - [5 Aug. 1858] DLL, 1,489--490;
37. A.R. wallace- 6 Oct. 1858 W, 1,365; Omissions in W.
his m o t h e r M, 57-58.
*38. A.R. Wallace- [Oct. 1858J Received [22] January
C. Daxwin 1859; see 43.
*39. A.R. W a l l a c e - [Oct. 1858] Received [22] J a n u a r y
J. D. Hooker 1859; see 43.
40. C. D a r w i n - 12 Oct. 1858 DLL, 1,494;
"41. A.R. Wallace- [30 Nov. 1858] Received 6 April
C. Darwin 1859; see 45.
42. A.R. Wallace- [Nov. 1858] W, 1,365-367.
G. Silk
43. C. D a r w i n - 25 Jan. [1859] DLL, 1,501-502; Answer to 38;
A. R. Wallace DLLE, 2, 145-147; omissions in DLL.
M, 111-112.
*44. A.R. Wallace- ? Received 7 August
45. C. D a r w i n - 6 April 1859 DML, 1,118-120; Answer to 41, but not
A. R. Wallace M, 112--114. published until 1903.
46. C. D a r w i n - 9 Aug. 1859 DLL, 1, 516--517; Answer to 44;
A. R. Wallace DLLE, 2, 161-162; omission in DLL.
M, 114-115.
47. C. D a r w i n - 13 Nov. 1859 DLL, 2, 16--17;
A. R. Wallace DLLE, 2, 220-221;
M, 115-116.
321
Letters (continued)
NO.I F r o m - to Date2 Sources3 Comments
*48. A.R. Wallace- ? Received March ?

*49. A.R. Wallace- [16Feb. 1860] Received 18 May
50. C. D a r w i n - 7 March 1860 M, 116. Answer to 48; not
A. R. Wallace published until 1916.
51. C. D a r w i n - 10 April [1860] DLL, 2, 93-95;
C. Lyell DLLE, 2, 300-301.
52. C. D a r w i n - [13 April 1860] DLL, 2, 95-96;
53. C. D a r w i n - 18 May [1860] DLL, 2, 101-102;
C. Lyell DLLE, 2, 308-309.
64. C. D a r w i n - 18 May 1860 DLL, 2, 102-103; Answer to 49.
A. R. Wallace DLLE, 2, 309-310; Omissions and
M, 117-118. changes i n DLL;
see notes 138, 150.
55. A.R. Wallace- 24 Dee. 1860 W, 1,373-375; Omissions in M.
H. W. Bates M, 59.
56. A . R . Wallace-- 15 March 1861 M, 59-67.
T. Sims
57. C. D a r w i n - 28 [May? 1864] DLL, 2, 271-273;
A. R. Wallace DLLE, 3, 89-91;
DML, 2, 32-34;
M, 127-128.
58. A . R . Wallace-- 29 May [1864] DML, 2, 34-37;
C. Darwin M, 128-131.
59. C. D a r w i n - [Oct. 1865] DLL, 2, 225;
60. A.R. Wallace- 19 Nov. 1866 M, 145-146.
C. Darwin
61. C. Lyell- 4 April 1867 M, 279-281.
A. R. Wallace
62. C. Lyell- 23 Nov. 1868 LLL, 2, 435--437.
E. Haeckel
63. A.R. Wallace- 22 Nov. 1869 Nat., 52 (1895), 415. Not published in its
A. B. Meyer entirety until 1895.
64. C. Lyell- 15 Feb. [1870?] M, 2 8 8 - 2 8 9 .
A. R. Wallace
65. C. Darwin- 20 April [1870] DLL, 2, 301-302;
A. R. Wallace DLLE, 3, 121;
M, 206-207.
66. G. B e n t h a m - 30 May 1882 DLL, 2, 87-88;
F. Darwin DLLE, 2, 293-294.
322
Letters (continued)
No.1 F r o m - to Date2 Sources3 Comments
67. J.D. Hooker- 22 Oct. 1886 HLL, 2, 300-302.

F. D a r w i n
68. A.R. Wallace- 20 Nov. 1887 M, 295.
F. D a r w i n
69. A.R. Wallace- 3 Dec. 1887 DAU, 200-201; See also notes 7,
A. N e w t o n DAUE, 189-190. 39--41, 43, 81, 86,
87, 161, a n d 162.
1. M i s s i n g letters, k n o w n to h a v e exSsted f r o m other correspondence,

are m a r k e d w i t h a n asterisk; see " C o m m e n t s " .
2. U n c e r t a i n dates of special i n t e r e s t here are d i s c u s s e d i n the notes;
see "'Comments".
3. Sources are a r r a n g e d chronologically. Most of t h e m are fully cited i n
the notes, the rest here. T h e y are abbreviated as follows:
CUL C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Library.
DAU F r a n c i s Darwin, ed., Charles Darwin: His Life Told in an Auto-
biographical Chapter and in a Selected Series of His Published
Letters ( N e w York: D. Appleton, 1892).
DAUE E n g l i s h edition of above ( L o n d o n : Murray, 1892).
DLL F. D a r w i n , Life and Letters of Charles Darwin.
DLLE E n g l i s h 3-volume edition of above ( L o n d o n : Murray, 1888).
DML F. Darwin, More Letters of Charles Darwin.
D u Dupree, Asa Gray.
HLL L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker.
ILZ Journal of the Linnean Society of London (Zoology).
LLL K. Lyell, Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell.
M M a r c h a n t , Alfred Russel Wallace.
Nat. Nature.
W Wallace, My Life.
323

Wallace, Darwin, and The Theory of Natural Selection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wallace, Darwin, and The Theory of Natural Selection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wallace, Darwin, and The Theory of Natural Selection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wallace, Darwin, and the Theory of

Hooker was troubled by the meagerness of the evidence, but

in 2 vols., New York, Basic Books, 1959); Linnean Society of London,

Two years later, in 1841, Wallace p u r c h a s e d his first book

w i n a g a i n , LyeU's Principles o f Geology, Vestiges o f the N a t u r a l

Late i n 1847, W a l l a c e a n d Bates r e a d a n " u n p r e t e n d i n g vol-

A m a z o n River. ( I t is worth noting that they h a d no benefactors,

implications of this statement are obvious, Wallace at this thne

to h i m as h a d Swainson's theories about the present geographi-

ciples, at first in protest against the pretension that species

32. Lyell, Principles of Geology, 1st ed. ( 1 8 3 2 ) , II,1; l O t h ed. ( 1 8 6 8 ) ,

geography of plants and animals appeared capricious in the

sea is concerned, the southern islands f r o m the n o r t h e r n

immortalized as "Wallace's Line"), probably indicating a n ear-

43. W a l l a c e , " N o t e b o o k , " p. 60. See also n o t e s 81, 103, a n d 162, a n d

p a r e d by the c o n t e m p l a t i o n of such f u t u r e revolutions to

individual, where a n individual was sufficient, a n d species

have almost destroyed every appearance of that gradation

The f o u r t h and final point of Wallace's p a p e r was another

I n the fall of 1857 Wallace sent off to the Zoologist a short

second p a r t concerned the distinction b e t w e e n species and vari-

firmly convinced of the fixity of species and of strict limita-

progressing after other groups have b r a n c h e d f r o m it." 0a LyeU's

that time might bring about any metamorphosis, but only ff

are r e m a i n s of real animals while those which are not like

immediately on their being raised f r o m the ocean, & they

time to c h a n g e ( i f they c h a n g e d at all). Wallace agreed t h a t

I n the m e a n t i m e , Wallace was reading as widely as circum-

Darwin in his own "Notebook" says, 'Won Buch distinctly states

case independently created as such, it is absurd to say they

Sometime during these musings, Wallace wrote out his "Note

There was also a difference of opinion on the effect of cli-

the point, however, and left it up in the air. (Wallace h a d not

86. The paragraph containing this request is published in Marchant,

lowing year as part of the D a r w i n - W a l l a c e joint papers. Dar-

lace's opinions m u s t be conjectured f r o m Darwin's letters to

were f o r m e d gradually by n a t u r a l m e a n s with a relationship

Several years earlier, Wallace h a d f o u n d puzzling Lyell's

101. W a l l a c e , "'Notebook," pp. 4 9 - 5 0 ; some commas added. See also

however, because though published in 1839, the writing of it

102, Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle (1839), p. '212.

D a r w i n ' s a p p r o a c h w a s a little different. Because W a l l a c e is

dolle's war of n a t u r e "is the doctrine of Malthus applied in

that Wallace "has to-day sent m e the enclosed, and asked me

in his family. An i n f a n t son died of scarlet fever on 28 June,

inal limits w h e n left to themselves. Most fortunately m y

science on which they bear; it is only at remote intervals

Darwin's immediate reaction to WaUace's paper was, hu-

130. J. L i n n . Soc. L o n d o n (Zool.), 4 ( 1 8 5 9 ) , viii-ix.

Lug i m p o r t a n c e of N a t u r a l Selection over all other agencies

132- Wallace, Darwinism, p. iv.

he received the letters f r o m Hooker and Darwin in early Octo-

forestalled, and he h a d at last achieved recognition f r o m "two

see it. I do back him up in his whole r o u n d of conclusions

But the d o c u m e n t a t i o n of this f a m o u s episode leaves some-

Of letters addressed to m y father I have not made m u c h

Mr. Darwin, who was careful in other things, generally

Some of the crucial letters on the theory of natural selection

To a large extent the world has accepted at face value both