Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

See the extracts in Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ii. p. 5.

The second volume, – especially important in regard to Evolution, – reached him in the autumn of 1832, as Prof. Judd has pointed out in his most interesting paper in Darwin and Modern Science. Cambridge, 1909.

Obituary Notice of C. Darwin, Proc. R. Soc. vol. 44. Reprinted in Huxley's Collected Essays. See also Life and Letters of C. Darwin, ii. p. 179.

See the extracts in the Life and Letters, ii. p. 5.

Life and Letters, i. p. 82.

Obituary Notice, loc. cit.

Darwin and Modern Science.

Huxley, Obituary, p. xi.

In this citation the italics are mine.

Journal of Researches, Ed. 1860, p. 394.

F. Darwin’s Life of Charles Darwin (in one volume), 1892, p. 166.

Life and Letters, i. p. 83.

Life and Letters, ii. p. 8.

Avestruz Petise, i. e. Rhea Darwini.

A bird.

Life and Letters, i. p. 84.

It contains as a fact 231 pp. It is a strongly bound folio, interleaved with blank pages, as though for notes and additions. His own MS. from which it was copied contains 189 pp.

Life and Letters, ii. p. 116.

Life and Letters, ii. p. 10.

Life and Letters, ii. p. 146.

J. Linn. Soc. Zool. iii. p. 45.

It is evident that Parts and Chapters were to some extent interchangeable in the author’s mind, for p. 1 (of the MS. we have been discussing) is headed in ink Chapter I, and afterwards altered in pencil to Part I.

On p. 23 of the MS. of the Foundations is a reference to the “back of p. 21 bis”: this suggests that additional pages had been interpolated in the MS. and that it may once have had 37 in place of 35 pp.

Life and Letters, i. p. 153.

Life and Letters, i. p. 84.

In the footnotes to the Essay of 1844 attention is called to similar passages.

Life and Letters, ii. p. 15.

The passage is given in the Life and Letters, ii. p. 124.

The extract consists of the section on Natural Means of Selection, p. 87.

Life and Letters, i. p. 84.

Life and Letters, ii. p. 18.

Mrs Darwin’s brother.

After Mr Strickland’s name comes the following sentence, which has been erased, but remains legible. “Professor Owen would be very good; but I presume he would not undertake such a work.”

The words “several years ago, and” seem to have been added at a later date.

Life and Letters, ii. p. 9.

Evidently a memorandum that an example should be given.

The importance of exposure to new conditions for several generations is insisted on in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 7, also p. 131. In the latter passage the author guards himself against the assumption that variations are “due to chance,” and speaks of “our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.” These statements are not always remembered by his critics.

Cf. Origin, Ed. i. p. 10, vi. p. 9, “Young of the same litter, sometimes differ considerably from each other, though both the young and the parents, as Müller has remarked, have apparently been exposed to exactly the same conditions of life.”

This is paralleled by the conclusion in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 8, that “the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception.”

The meaning seems to be that there must be some variability in the liver otherwise anatomists would not speak of the ‘beau ideal’ of that organ.

The position of the following passage is uncertain. “If individuals of two widely different varieties be allowed to cross, a third race will be formed – a most fertile source of the variation in domesticated animals. «In the Origin, Ed. i. p. 20 the author says that “the possibility of making distinct races by crossing has been greatly exaggerated.”» If freely allowed, the characters of pure parents will be lost, number of races thus «illegible» but differences «?» besides the «illegible». But if varieties differing in very slight respects be allowed to cross, such small variation will be destroyed, at least to our senses, – a variation [clearly] just to be distinguished by long legs will have offspring not to be so distinguished. Free crossing great agent in producing uniformity in any breed. Introduce tendency to revert to parent form.”

The swamping effect of intercrossing is referred to in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 103, vi. p. 126.

A discussion on the intercrossing of hermaphrodites in relation to Knight’s views occurs in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 96, vi. p. 119. The parallelism between crossing and changed conditions is briefly given in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 267, vi. p. 391, and was finally investigated in The Effects of Cross and Self-Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom, 1876.

There is an article on the vis medicatrix in Brougham’s Dissertations, 1839, a copy of which is in the author’s library.

This is the classification of selection into methodical and unconscious given in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 33, vi. p. 38.

This passage, and a similar discussion on the power of the Creator (p. 6), correspond to the comparison between the selective capacities of man and nature, in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 83, vi. p. 102.

i. e. they are individually distinguishable.

See Origin, Ed. i. p. 133, vi. p. 165.

When the author wrote this sketch he seems not to have been so fully convinced of the general occurrence of variation in nature as he afterwards became. The above passage in the text possibly suggests that at this time he laid more stress on sports or mutations than was afterwards the case.

The author may possibly have taken the case of the woodpecker from Buffon, Histoire Nat. des Oiseaux, T. vii. p. 3, 1780, where however it is treated from a different point of view. He uses it more than once, see for instance Origin, Ed. i. pp. 3, 60, 184, vi. pp. 3, 76, 220. The passage in the text corresponds with a discussion on the woodpecker and the mistletoe in Origin, Ed. i. p. 3, vi. p. 3.

This illustration occurs in the Origin, Ed. i. pp. 90, 91, vi. pp. 110, 111.

See Origin, Ed. i. p. 83, vi. p. 102, where the word Creator is replaced by Nature.

Note in the original. “Good place to introduce, saying reasons hereafter to be given, how far I extend theory, say to all mammalia – reasons growing weaker and weaker.”

See Origin, Ed. i. pp. 62, 63, vi. p. 77, where similar reference is made to De Candolle; for Malthus see Origin, p. 5.

This may possibly refer to the amount of destruction going on. See Origin, Ed. i. p. 68, vi. p. 84, where there is an estimate of a later date as to death-rate of birds in winter. “Calculate robins” probably refers to a calculation of the rate of increase of birds under favourable conditions.

In the Origin, Ed. i. pp. 64, 65, vi. p. 80, he instances cattle and horses and certain plants in S. America and American species of plants in India, and further on, as unexpected effects of changed conditions, the enclosure of a heath, and the relation between the fertilisation of clover and the presence of cats (Origin, Ed. i. p. 74, vi. p. 91).

Origin, Ed. i. p. 74, vi. p. 91. “It has been observed that the trees now growing on … ancient Indian mounds … display the same beautiful diversity and proportion of kinds as in the surrounding virgin forests.”

The simile of the wedge occurs in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 67; it is deleted in Darwin’s copy of the first edition: it does not occur in Ed. vi.

In a rough summary at the close of the Essay, occur the words: – “Every creature lives by a struggle, smallest grain in balance must tell.”

Cf. Origin, Ed. i. p. 77, vi. p. 94.

This is a repetition of what is given at p. 6.

Compare Origin, Ed. i. p. 41, vi. p. 47. “I have seen it gravely remarked, that it was most fortunate that the strawberry began to vary just when gardeners began to attend closely to this plant. No doubt the strawberry had always varied since it was cultivated, but the slight varieties had been neglected.”

Here we have the two types of sexual selection discussed in the Origin, Ed. i. pp. 88 et seq., vi. pp. 108 et seq.

It is not obvious why the author objects to “chance” or “external conditions making a woodpecker.” He allows that variation is ultimately referable to conditions and that the nature of the connexion is unknown, i.e. that the result is fortuitous. It is not clear in the original to how much of the passage the two? refer.

The meaning is “That sterility is not universal is admitted by all.”

See Var. under Dom., Ed. 2, i. p. 388, where the garden forms of Gladiolus and Calceolaria are said to be derived from crosses between distinct species. Herbert’s hybrid Crinums are discussed in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 250, vi. p. 370. It is well known that the author believed in a multiple origin of domestic dogs.

The argument from gradation in sterility is given in the Origin, Ed. i. pp. 248, 255, vi. pp. 368, 375. In the Origin, I have not come across the cases mentioned, viz. crocus, heath, or grouse and fowl or peacock. For sterility between closely allied species, see Origin, Ed. i. p. 257, vi. p. 377. In the present essay the author does not distinguish between fertility between species and the fertility of the hybrid offspring, a point on which he insists in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 245, vi. p. 365.

Ackermann (Ber. d. Vereins f. Naturkunde zu Kassel, 1898, p. 23) quotes from Gloger that a cross has been effected between a domestic hen and a Tetrao tetrix; the offspring died when three days old.

No doubt the sexual cells are meant. I do not know on what evidence it is stated that the mule has bred.

The sentence is all but illegible. I think that the author refers to forms usually ranked as varieties having been marked as species when it was found that they were sterile together. See the case of the red and blue Anagallis given from Gärtner in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 247, vi. p. 368.

In the Origin, Ed. i. p. 258, where the author speaks of constitutional differences in this connexion, he specifies that they are confined to the reproductive system.

The sensitiveness of the reproductive system to changed conditions is insisted on in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 8, vi. p. 10.

The ferret is mentioned, as being prolific in captivity, in Var. under Dom., Ed. 2, ii. p. 90.

Lindley’s remark is quoted in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 9. Linnæus’ remark is to the effect that Alpine plants tend to be sterile under cultivation (see Var. under Dom., Ed. 2, ii. p. 147). In the same place the author speaks of peat-loving plants being sterile in our gardens, – no doubt the American bog-plants referred to above. On the following page (p. 148) the sterility of the lilac (Syringa persica and chinensis) is referred to.

The author probably means that the increase in the petals is due to a greater food supply being available for them owing to sterility. See the discussion in Var. under Dom., Ed. 2, ii. p. 151. It must be noted that doubleness of the flower may exist without noticeable sterility.

I have not come across this case in the author’s works.

For the somewhat doubtful case of the cheetah (Felis jubata) see Var. under Dom., Ed. 2, ii. p. 133. I do not know to what fact “pig in India” refers.

This sentence should run “on which depends their incapacity to breed in unnatural conditions.”

This sentence ends in confusion: it should clearly close with the words “refused to breed” in place of the bracket and the present concluding phrase.

The author doubtless refers to the change produced by the summation of variation by means of selection.

The meaning of this sentence is made clear by a passage in the MS. of 1844: – “Until man selects two varieties from the same stock, adapted to two climates or to other different external conditions, and confines each rigidly for one or several thousand years to such conditions, always selecting the individuals best adapted to them, he cannot be said to have even commenced the experiment.” That is, the attempt to produce mutually sterile domestic breeds.

This passage is to some extent a repetition of a previous one and may have been intended to replace an earlier sentence. I have thought it best to give both. In the Origin, Ed. i. p. 141, vi. p. 176, the author gives his opinion that the power of resisting diverse conditions, seen in man and his domestic animals, is an example “of a very common flexibility of constitution.”

In the Origin, Ed. i. Chs. I. and V., the author does not admit reproduction, apart from environment, as being a cause of variation. With regard to the cumulative effect of new conditions there are many passages in the Origin, Ed. i. e.g. pp. 7, 12, vi. pp. 8, 14.

As already pointed out, this is the important principle investigated in the author’s Cross and Self-Fertilisation. Professor Bateson has suggested to me that the experiments should be repeated with gametically pure individuals.

In the Origin a chapter is given up to “difficulties on theory”: the discussion in the present essay seems slight even when it is remembered how small a space is here available. For Tibia &c. see p. 48.

This may be interpreted “The general structure of a bat is the same as that of non-flying mammals.”

That is truly winged fish.

The terrestrial woodpecker of S. America formed the subject of a paper by Darwin, Proc. Zool. Soc., 1870. See Life and Letters, vol. iii. p. 153.

The same proviso occurs in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 207, vi. p. 319.

The tameness of the birds in the Galapagos is described in the Journal of Researches (1860), p. 398. Dogs and rabbits are probably mentioned as cases in which the hereditary fear of man has been lost. In the 1844 MS. the author states that the Cuban feral dog shows great natural wildness, even when caught quite young.

In the Origin, Ed. i. p. 207, vi. p. 319, he refuses to define instinct. For Lord Brougham’s definition see his Dissertations on Subjects of Science etc., 1839, p. 27.

See James Hogg (the Ettrick Shepherd), Works, 1865, Tales and Sketches, p. 403.

This refers to the tailor-bird making use of manufactured thread supplied to it, instead of thread twisted by itself.

Often lost applies to instinct: birds get wilder is printed in a parenthesis because it was apparently added as an after-thought. Nest without roof refers to the water-ousel omitting to vault its nest when building in a protected situation.

In the MS. of 1844 is an interesting discussion on faculty as distinct from instinct.

At this date and for long afterwards the inheritance of acquired characters was assumed to occur.

Part II. is here intended: see the Introduction.

The meaning is that the attitude assumed in shamming is not accurately like that of death.

This refers to the transandantes sheep mentioned in the MS. of 1844, as having acquired a migratory instinct.

In the Origin, Ed. i. p. 209, vi. p. 321, Mozart’s pseudo-instinctive skill in piano-playing is mentioned. See Phil. Trans., 1770, p. 54.

100

In the discussion on bees’ cells, Origin, Ed. i. p. 225, vi. p. 343, the author acknowledges that his theory originated in Waterhouse’s observations.

101

The hawfinch-and Sylvia-types are figured in the Journal of Researches, p. 379. The discussion of change of form in relation to change of instinct is not clear, and I find it impossible to suggest a paraphrase.

102

I should interpret this obscure sentence as follows, “No such opposing law is known, but in all works on the subject a law is (in flat contradiction to all known facts) assumed to limit the possible amount of variation.” In the Origin, the author never limits the power of variation, as far as I know.

103

In Var. under Dom. Ed. 2, ii. p. 263, the Dahlia is described as showing sensitiveness to conditions in 1841. All the varieties of the Dahlia are said to have arisen since 1804 (ibid. i. p. 393).

104

In the original MS. the heading is: Part III.; but Part II. is clearly intended; for details see the Introduction. I have not been able to discover where § IV. ends and § V. begins.

105

This passage corresponds roughly to the conclusion of the Origin, see Ed. i. p. 482, vi. p. 661.

106

A similar passage occurs in the conclusion of the Origin, Ed. i. p. 481, vi. p. 659.

107

See Origin, Ed. i. p. 312, vi. p. 453.

108

See Origin, Ed. i. pp. 280, 281, vi. p. 414. The author uses his experience of pigeons for examples for what he means by intermediate; the instance of the horse and tapir also occurs.

109

The absence of intermediate forms between living organisms (and also as regards fossils) is discussed in the Origin, Ed. i. pp. 279, 280, vi. p. 413. In the above discussion there is no evidence that the author felt this difficulty so strongly as it is expressed in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 299, – as perhaps “the most obvious and gravest objection that can be urged against my theory.” But in a rough summary written on the back of the penultimate page of the MS. he refers to the geological evidence: – “Evidence, as far as it does go, is favourable, exceedingly incomplete, – greatest difficulty on this theory. I am convinced not insuperable.” Buckland’s remarks are given in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 329, vi. p. 471.

110

That the evidence of geology, as far as it goes, is favourable to the theory of descent is claimed in the Origin, Ed. i. pp. 343-345, vi. pp. 490-492. For the reference to net in the following sentence, see Note 1, p. 48, {Link: Note 161} of this Essay.

111

See Origin, Ed. i. p. 288, vi. p. 422. “The remains that do become embedded, if in sand and gravel, will, when the beds are upraised, generally be dissolved by the percolation of rain-water.”

112

The position of the following is not clear: – “Think of immense differences in nature of European deposits, – without interposing new causes, – think of time required by present slow changes, to cause, on very same area, such diverse deposits, iron-sand, chalk, sand, coral, clay!”

113

The paragraph which ends here is difficult to interpret. In spite of obscurity it is easy to recognize the general resemblance to the discussion on the importance of subsidence given in the Origin, Ed. i. pp. 290 et seq., vi. pp. 422 et seq.

114

See Note 3, p. 27.

115

Compare Origin, Ed. i. p. 298, vi. p. 437. “We shall, perhaps, best perceive the improbability of our being enabled to connect species by numerous, fine, intermediate, fossil links, by asking ourselves whether, for instance, geologists at some future period will be able to prove that our different breeds of cattle, sheep, horses, and dogs have descended from a single stock or from several aboriginal stocks.”

116

The sudden appearance of groups of allied species in the lowest known fossiliferous strata is discussed in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 306, vi. p. 446. The gradual appearance in the later strata occurs in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 312, vi. p. 453.

117

Compare Origin, Ed. i. p. 307, vi. p. 448.

118

I have interpreted as Sandstone a scrawl which I first read as Sea; I have done so at the suggestion of Professor Judd, who points out that “footprints in the red sandstone were known at that time, and geologists were not then particular to distinguish between Amphibians and Reptiles.”

119

This refers to Cuvier's discovery of Palæotherium &c. at Montmartre.

120

This simile is more fully given in the Origin, Ed. i. p. 310, vi. p. 452. “For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations.” Professor Judd has been good enough to point out to me, that Darwin’s metaphor is founded on the comparison of geology to history in Ch. i. of the Principles of Geology, Ed. i. 1830, vol. i. pp. 1-4. Professor Judd has also called my attention to another passage, —Principles, Ed. i. 1833, vol. iii. p. 33, when Lyell imagines an historian examining “two buried cities at the foot of Vesuvius, immediately superimposed upon each other.” The historian would discover that the inhabitants of the lower town were Greeks while those of the upper one were Italians. But he would be wrong in supposing that there had been a sudden change from the Greek to the Italian language in Campania. I think it is clear that Darwin’s metaphor is partly taken from this passage. See for instance (in the above passage from the Origin) such phrases as “history … written in a changing dialect” – “apparently abruptly changed forms of life.” The passage within [] in the above paragraph: – “Lyell’s views as far as they go &c.,” no doubt refers, as Professor Judd points out, to Lyell not going so far as Darwin on the question of the imperfection of the geological record.

<1...4 5 6 7 8 >

На страницу:

Перейти

6 из 8