More Letters of Charles Darwin — Volume 2

LETTER 759. TO H. VOCHTING. Down, December 16th, 1880.

Absence from home has prevented me from sooner thanking you for your kind present of your several publications. I procured some time ago your "Organbilding" (759/1. "Organbildung im Pflanzenreich," 1878.) etc., but it was too late for me to profit by it for my book, as I was correcting the press. I read only parts, but my son Francis read the whole with care and told me much about it, which greatly interested me. I also read your article in the "Bot. Zeitung." My son began at once experimenting, to test your views, and this very night will read a paper before the Linnean Society on the roots of Rubus (759/2. Francis Darwin, "The Theory of the Growth of Cuttings" ("Linn. Soc. Journ." XVIII.). {I take this opportunity of expressing my regret that at page 417, owing to neglect of part of Vochting's facts, I made a criticism of his argument which cannot be upheld. — F.D.}.), and I think that you will be pleased to find how well his conclusions agree with yours. He will of course send you a copy of his paper when it is printed. I have sent him your letter, which will please him if he agrees with me; for your letter has given me real pleasure, and I did not at all know what the many great physiologists of Germany, Switzerland, and Holland would think of it {"The Power of Movement," etc.}. I was quite sorry to read Sachs' views about root-forming matter, etc., for I have an unbounded admiration for Sachs. In this country we are dreadfully behind in Physiological Botany.

LETTER 760. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 24th, 1881.

It was extremely kind of you to write me so long and valuable a letter, the whole of which deserves careful consideration. I have been particularly pleased at what you say about the new terms used, because I have often been annoyed at the multitude of new terms lately invented in all branches of Biology in Germany; and I doubted much whether I was not quite as great a sinner as those whom I have blamed. When I read your remarks on the word "purpose" in your "Phytographie," I vowed that I would not use it again; but it is not easy to cure oneself of a vicious habit. It is also difficult for any one who tries to make out the use of a structure to avoid the word purpose. I see that I have probably gone beyond my depth in discussing plurifoliate and unifoliate leaves; but in such a case as that of Mimosa albida, where rudiments of additional leaflets are present, we must believe that they were well developed in the progenitor of the plant. So again, when the first true leaf differs widely in shape from the older leaves, and resembles the older leaves in allied species, is it not the most simple explanation that such leaves have retained their ancient character, as in the case of the embryos of so many animals?

Your suggestion of examining the movements of vertical leaves with an equal number of stomata on both sides, with reference to the light, seems to me an excellent one, and I hope that my son Francis may follow it up. But I will not trouble you with any more remarks about our book. My son will write to you about the diagram.

Let me add that I shall ever remember with pleasure your visit here last autumn.

LETTER 761. TO J. LUBBOCK (Lord Avebury). Down, April 16th {1881}.

Will you be so kind as to send and lend me the Desmodium gyrans by the bearer who brings this note.

Shortly after you left I found my notice of the seeds in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," which please return hereafter, as I have no other copy. (761/1. "Note on the Achenia of Pumilio argyrolepis." "Gardeners' Chronicle," 1861, page 4.) I do not think that I made enough about the great power of absorption of water by the corolla-like calyx or pappus. It seems to me not unlikely that the pappus of other Compositae may be serviceable to the seeds, whilst lying on the ground, by absorbing the dew which would be especially apt to condense on the fine points and filaments of the pappus. Anyhow, this is a point which might be easily investigated. Seeds of Tussilago, or groundsel (761/2. It is not clear whether Tussilago or groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) is meant; or whether he was not sure which of the two plants becomes slimy when wetted.), emit worm-like masses of mucus, and it would be curious to ascertain whether wetting the pappus alone would suffice to cause such secretion. (761/3. See Letter 707.)

LETTER 762. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, April 18th, 1881.

I am extremely glad of your success with the flashing light. (762/1. Romanes' paper on the effect of intermittent light on heliotropism was the "Proc. Royal Soc." Volume LIV., page 333.) If plants are acted on by light, like some of the lower animals, there is an additional point of interest, as it seems to me, in your results. Most botanists believe that light causes a plant to bend to it in as direct a manner as light affects nitrate of silver. I believe that it merely tells the plant to which side to bend, and I see indications of this belief prevailing even with Sachs. Now it might be expected that light would act on a plant in something the same manner as on the lower animals. As you are at work on this subject, I will call your attention to another point. Wiesner, of Vienna (who has lately published a great book on heliotropism) finds that an intermittent light, say of 20 minutes, produces the same effect as a continuous light of, say 60 m. (762/2. Wiesner's papers on heliotropism are in the "Denkschriften" of the Vienna Academy, Volumes 39 and 43.) So that Van Tieghem, in the first part of his book which has just appeared, remarks, the light during 40 m. out of the 60 m. produced no effect. I observed an analogous case described in my book. (762/3. "Power of Movement," page 459.)

Wiesner and Van Tieghem seem to think that this is explained by calling the whole process "induction," borrowing a term used by some physico-chemists (of whom I believe Roscoe is one) and implying an agency which does not produce any effect for some time, and continues its effect for some time after the cause has ceased. I believe that photographic paper is an instance. I must ask Leonard (762/4. Mr. Darwin's son.) whether an interrupted light acts on it in the same manner as on a plant. At present I must still believe in my explanation that it is the contrast between light and darkness which excites a plant.

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

LETTER 763. TO JULIUS WIESNER. Down, October 4th, 1881.

I thank you sincerely for your very kind letter, and for the present of your new work. (763/1. "Das Bewegungsvermogen der Pflanze," 1881. One of us has given some account of Wiesner's book in the presidential address to Section D of the British Association, 1891. Wiesner's divergence from Darwin's views is far-reaching, and includes the main thesis of the "Power of Movement." See "Life and Letters," III., page 336, for an interesting letter to Wiesner.) My son Francis, if he had been at home, would have likewise sent his thanks. I will immediately begin to read your book, and when I have finished it will write again. But I read german so very slowly that your book will take me a considerable time, for I cannot read for more than half an hour each day. I have, also, been working too hard lately, and with very little success, so that I am going to leave home for a time and try to forget science.

I quite expect that you will find some gross errors in my work, for you are a very much more skilful and profound experimentalist than I am. Although I always am endeavouring to be cautious and to mistrust myself, yet I know well how apt I am to make blunders. Physiology, both animal and vegetable, is so difficult a subject, that it seems to me to progress chiefly by the elimination or correction of ever-recurring mistakes. I hope that you will not have upset my fundamental notion that various classes of movement result from the modification of a universally present movement of circumnutation.

I am very glad that you will again discuss the view of the turgescence of the cells being the cause of the movement of parts. I adopted De Vries' views as seeming to me the most probable, but of late I have felt more doubts on this head. (763/2. See "Power of Movement," page 2. De Vries' work is published in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1879, page 830.)

LETTER 764. TO J.D. HOOKER. Glenrhydding House, Patterdale, Penrith, June 15th, 1881.

It was real pleasure to me to see once again your well-known handwriting on the outside of your note. I do not know how long you have returned from Italy, but I am very sorry that you are so bothered already with work and visits. I cannot but think that you are too kind and civil to visitors, and too conscientious about your official work. But a man cannot cure his virtues, any more than his vices, after early youth; so you must bear your burthen. It is, however, a great misfortune for science that you have so very little spare time for the "Genera." I can well believe what an awful job the palms must be. Even their size must be very inconvenient. You and Bentham must hate the monocotyledons, for what work the Orchideae must have been, and Gramineae and Cyperaceae will be. I am rather despondent about myself, and my troubles are of an exactly opposite nature to yours, for idleness is downright misery to me, as I find here, as I cannot forget my discomfort for an hour. I have not the heart or strength at my age to begin any investigation lasting years, which is the only thing which I enjoy; and I have no little jobs which I can do. So I must look forward to Down graveyard as the sweetest place on earth. This place is magnificently beautiful, and I enjoy the scenery, though weary of it; and the weather has been very cold and almost always hazy.

I am so glad that your tour has answered for Lady Hooker. We return home on the first week of July, and should be truly glad to aid Lady Hooker in any possible manner which she will suggest.

I have written to my gardener to send you plants of Oxalis corniculata (and seeds if possible). I should think so common a weed was never asked for before, — and what a poor return for the hundreds of plants which I have received from Kew! I hope that I have not bothered you by writing so long a note, and I did not intend to do so.

If Asa Gray has returned with you, please give him my kindest remembrances.

LETTER 765. TO J.D. HOOKER. October 22nd, 1881.

I am investigating the action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll, which makes me want the plants in my list. (765/1. "The Action of Carbonate of Ammonia on Chlorophyll Bodies." "Linn. Soc. Journ." XIX., page 262, 1882.) I have incidentally observed one point in Euphorbia, which has astonished me — viz. that in the fine fibrous roots of Euphorbia, the alternate rows of cells in their roots must differ physiologically, though not in external appearance, as their contents after the action of carbonate of ammonia differ most conspicuously...

Wiesner of Vienna has just published a book vivisecting me in the most courteous, but awful manner, about the "Power of Movement in Plants." (765/2. See Letter 763, note.) Thank heaven, he admits almost all my facts, after re-trying all my experiments; but gives widely different interpretation of the facts. I think he proves me wrong in several cases, but I am convinced that he is utterly erroneous and fanciful in other explanations. No man was ever vivisected in so sweet a manner before, as I am in this book.

CHAPTER 2.XII

VIVISECTION AND MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS, 1867-1882

2. XII.I. VIVISECTION, 1875-1882. LETTER 766. TO LORD PLAYFAIR.

(766/1. A Bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Messrs. Lyon Playfair, Walpole and Ashley, in the spring of 1875, but was withdrawn on the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question. Some account of the Anti-Vivisection agitation, the introduction of bills, and the appointment of a Royal Commission is given in the "Life and Letters," III., page 201, where the more interesting of Darwin's letters on the question are published.)

Down, May 26th, 1875.

I hope that you will excuse my troubling you once again. I received some days ago a letter from Prof. Huxley, in Edinburgh, who says with respect to your Bill: "the professors here are all in arms about it, and as the papers have associated my name with the Bill, I shall have to repudiate it publicly, unless something can be done. But what in the world is to be done?" (766/2. The letter is published in full in Mr. L. Huxley's interesting chapter on the vivisection question in his father's "Life," I., page 438.) Dr. Burdon Sanderson is in nearly the same frame of mind about it. The newspapers take different views of the purport of the Bill, but it seems generally supposed that it would prevent demonstrations on animals rendered insensible, and this seems to me a monstrous provision. It would, moreover, probably defeat the end desired; for Dr. B. Sanderson, who demonstrates to his class on animals rendered insensible, told me that some of his students had declared to him that unless he had shown them what he had, they would have experimented on live animals for themselves. Certainly I do not believe that any one could thoroughly understand the action of the heart without having seen it in action. I do not doubt that you wish to aid the progress of Physiology, and at the same time save animals from all useless suffering; and in this case I believe that you could not do a greater service than to warn the Home Secretary with respect to the appointment of Royal Commissioners, that ordinary doctors know little or nothing about Physiology as a science, and are incompetent to judge of its high importance and of the probability of its hereafter conferring great benefits on mankind.

LETTER 767. TO LORD PLAYFAIR. Down, May 28th.

I must write one line to thank you for your very kind letter, and to say that, after despatching my last note, it suddenly occurred to me that I had been rude in calling one of the provisions of your Bill "monstrous" or "absurd" — I forget which. But when I wrote the expression it was addressed to the bigots who, I believed, had forced you to a compromise. I cannot understand what Dr. B. Sanderson could have been about not to have objected with respect to the clause of not demonstrating on animals rendered insensible. I am extremely sorry that you have had trouble and vexation on the subject. It is a most disagreeable and difficult one. I am not personally concerned, as I never tried an experiment on a living animal, nor am I a physiologist; but I know enough to see how ruinous it would be to stop all progress in so grand a science as Physiology. I commenced the agitation amongst the physiologists for this reason, and because I have long felt very keenly on the question of useless vivisection, and believed, though without any good evidence, that there was not always, even in this country, care enough taken. Pray forgive me this note, so much about myself...

LETTER 768. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(768/1. Published in "Life of Romanes," page 61, under 1876-77.)

Down, June 4th {1876}.

Your letter has made me as proud and conceited as ten peacocks. (768/2. This may perhaps refer to Darwin being elected the only honorary member of the Physiological Society, a fact that was announced in a letter from Romanes June 1st, 1876, published in the "Life" of Romanes, page 50. Dr. Sharpey was subsequently elected a second honorary member.) I am inclined to think that writing against the bigots about vivisection is as hopeless as stemming a torrent with a reed. Frank, who has just come here, and who sputters with indignation on the subject, takes an opposite line, and perhaps he is right; anyhow, he had the best of an argument with me on the subject...It seems to me the physiologists are now in the position of a persecuted religious sect, and they must grin and bear the persecution, however cruel and unjust, as well as they can.

LETTER 769. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON.

(769/1. In November, 1881, an absolutely groundless charge was brought by the Victoria Street Society for the Protection of Animals from Vivisection against Dr. Ferrier for an infringement of the Vivisection Act. The experiment complained of was the removal of the brain of a monkey and the subsequent testing of the animal's powers of reacting to certain treatment. The fact that the operation had been performed six months before the case came into court would alone have been fatal to the prosecution. Moreover, it was not performed by Dr. Ferrier, but by another observer, who was licensed under the Act to keep the monkey alive after the operation, which was performed under anaesthetics. Thus the prosecution completely broke down, and the case was dismissed. (769/2. From the "British Medical Journal," November 19th, 1881. See also "Times," November 18th, 1881.) The sympathy with Dr. Ferrier in the purely scientific and medical world was very strong, and the British Medical Association undertook the defence. The prosecution did good in one respect, inasmuch as it led to the formation of the Science Defence Association, to which reference is made in some of Mr. Darwin's letters to Sir Lauder Brunton. The Association still exists, and continues to do good work.

Part of the following letter was published in the "British Medical Journal," December 3rd, 1881.)

Down, November 19th, 1881

I saw in some paper that there would probably be a subscription to pay Dr. Ferrier's legal expenses in the late absurd and wicked prosecution. As I live so retired I might not hear of the subscription, and I should regret beyond measure not to have the pleasure and honour of showing my sympathy {with} and admiration of Dr. Ferrier's researches. I know that you are his friend, as I once met him at your house; so I earnestly beg you to let me hear if there is any means of subscribing, as I should much like to be an early subscriber. I am sure that you will forgive me for troubling you under these circumstances.

P.S. — I finished reading a few days ago the several physiological and medical papers which you were so kind as to send me. (769/3. Some of Lauder Brunton's publications.) I was much interested by several of them, especially by that on night-sweating, and almost more by others on digestion. I have seldom been made to realise more vividly the wondrous complexity of our whole system. How any one of us keeps alive for a day is a marvel!

LETTER 770. T. LAUDER BRUNTON TO CHARLES DARWIN. 50, Welbeck Street, London, November 21st, 1881.

I thank you most sincerely for your kind letter and your offer of assistance to Dr. Ferrier. There is at present no subscription list, as the British Medical Association have taken up the case, and ought to pay the expenses. Should these make such a call upon the funds of the Association as to interfere with its other objects, the whole or part of the expenses will be paid by those who have subscribed to a guarantee fund. To this fund there are already a number of subscribers, whose names are taken by Professor Gerald Yeo, one of the secretaries of the Physiological Society. They have not subscribed a definite sum, but have simply fixed a maximum which they will subscribe, if necessary, on the understanding that only so much as is required shall be asked from each subscriber in proportion to his subscription. It is proposed to send by-and-by a list of the most prominent members of this guarantee fund to the "Times" and other papers, and not only every scientific man, but every member of the medical profession, will rejoice to see your name in the list. Dr. Ferrier has been quite worn out by the worry of this prosecution, or, as it might well be called, persecution, and has gone down to Shanklin for a couple of days. He returns this afternoon, and I have sent on your letter to await his arrival, knowing as I do that it will be to him like cold water to a thirsty soul.

LETTER 771. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON. Down, November 22nd, 1881.

Many thanks for your very kind and interesting letter...

I write now to beg a favour. I do not in the least know what others have guaranteed in relation to Dr. Ferrier. (771/1. In a letter dated November 27th, 1881, Sir Lauder Brunton wrote in reply to Mr. Darwin's inquiry as to the amount of the subscriptions: "When I ascertain what they intend to give under the new conditions — viz., that the subscriptions are not to be applied to Ferrier's defence, but to the defence of others who may be attacked and to a diffusion of knowledge regarding the nature and purposes of vivisection, I will let you know...") Would twenty guineas be sufficient? If not, will you kindly take the trouble to have my name put down for thirty or forty guineas, as you may think best. If, on the other hand, no one else has guaranteed for as much as twenty guineas, will you put me down for ten or fifteen guineas, though I should like to give twenty best.

You can understand that I do not wish to be conspicuous either by too little or too much; so I beg you to be so very kind as to act for me. I have a multitude of letters which I must answer, so excuse haste.

LETTER 772. TO T. LAUDER BRUNTON.