[page] 201

With the kind consent of Mr. Francis Darwin, I am able to achieve this object by printing, for the first time, a letter, recently discovered in the archives of the Hope Department at Oxford, written by Darwin to the Founder in 1837. It is concerned with the insect material collected on

[page] 202

the Beagle, and is of peculiar interest because so few of Darwin's letters of this early date have been preserved. The letter clearly exhibits the keen interest which Darwin took in the working out of his collections, and the free and generous use he made of his material. A number of Diptera captured by him in Australia and Tasmania—evidently gifts to Mr. Hope—exist in the Hope Department, and are still in excellent condition. It is probable that species of other groups collected by him are also present.

DEAR HOPE

I called yesterday on you and left a tin box with a few Hobart Town beetles, which I had neglected to put with the others. Is not there not (sic) a Chrysomela among them, very like the English species which feeds on the Broom.—I have spoken to Waterhouse about the Australian insects; you can have them when you like.—The collections in the pill boxes come from Sydney, Hobart town, and King George's Sound.—Do you want all orders for your work? Some are already I believe in the hands of Mr. Walker, and you know Waterhouse has described some minute Coleoptera in the papers read to the Entomological Soc: To these descriptions of course you will refer. –You will be glad to find that many of the minute Coleoptera from Sydney are mounted on cards.—Will you send me as soon as you conveniently can, one of my boxes, as I am in want of them to transplant some more insects.—Perhaps you had better return the Carabi as they came from several, localities I am afraid of some mistake. We must put out specimens for the Entomolog: Soc: and your Cabinet. May I state in a note on your authority that a third or a half of the insects which you already have of mine from Sydney and Hobart town are undescribed.—It is a striking fact, if such is the case, for it shows how imperfectly known

[page] 203

the insects are, even in the close neighbourhood of the two Australian Capitals.

Floreat Entomologia

Wednesday

Yours most truly

CHAS. DARWIN.¹

 

¹ The letter is addressed: 'The Revd. F. W. Hope, 56, Upper Seymour Street. 'At the head Mr. Hope had written' D', and the date' 1837' . The red-stamped postmark gives the date' Ju. 22, 1837'. Darwin's own address (36, Great Marlborough Street) does not appear. At the date of the letter the Entomological Society of London possessed a large collection of insects, long since dispersed. Darwin knew Mr. Hope before the Voyage, and speaks in letters to W. D. Fox (1829-30) of his splendid collection and of his generosity with specimens. He also went for an entomological trip in North Wales with Hope (June, 1829), unfortunately broken short for Darwin by ill health. See Life and Letters, 1. 174, 175, 178, 181. G. R. Waterhouse and Francis Walker, referred to in the letter, were both on the staff of the British Museum.

[page] 212

VII

LETTERS FROM CHARLES DARWIN

TO ROLAND TRIMEN (1863-1871)

MY friend, Mr. Roland Trimen, Hon. M.A. (Oxon.), F.R.S., was at the Cape when Mr. Francis Darwin's great work was in course of preparation. On this account his fine series of letters has remained unpublished up to the present date. Now, with his kind consent and that of Mr. Francis Darwin, it is a great pleasure to be able to include in this memorial volume a single complete set of letters, moderate in number, but in every way most characteristic of the writer.

Mr. Trimen has very kindly written the following deeply interesting account of his first meeting with Darwin exactly half a century ago. As we read the story, the intense antagonisms at first aroused by the Origin seem again to rise into life and activity:—

'It was in the Insect Room of the Zoological Department of the British Museum that I had my first glimpse of the illustrious Darwin. Towards the close of 1859, after my return from the Cape, I spent much time in the

[page] 214

Insect Room identifying and comparing the insects collected with those in the National Collection. One day I was at work in the next compartment to that in which Adam White sat, and heard someone come in and a cheery, mellow voice say, "Good-morning, Mr. White;—I'm afraid you won't speak to me any more!" While I was conjecturing who the visitor could be, I was electrified by hearing White reply, in the most solemn and earnest way, "Ah, Sir I if ye had only stopped with the Voyage of the Beagle!" There was a real lament in his voice, pathetic to any one who knew how to this kindly Scot, in his rigid orthodoxy and limited scientific view, the epoch-making Origin, then just published, was more than a stumbling-block—it was a grievous and painful lapse into error of the most pernicious kind. Mr. Darwin came almost directly into the compartment where I was working, and White was most warmly thanked by him for pointing out the insects he wished to see. Though I was longing for White to introduce me, I knew perfectly well that he would not do so; and after Mr. Darwin's departure White gave me many warnings against being lured into acceptance of the dangerous doctrines so seductively set forth by this most eminent but mistaken naturalist.

'A little while afterwards, on the same day, I again saw Darwin in the Bird Galleries, where it was, I think, G. R. Gray who was showing him some mounted birds. A clerical friend with me, also a naturalist, curiously enough echoed White's warning by indicating Darwin as "the most dangerous man in England".

'Years afterwards, when I had reached the honour of correspondence and personal acquaintance with Mr. Darwin, I gave him some amusement by my account of the impressive manner in which, on the first day of my seeing him, I had been warned by two

[page] 215

naturalists, much my seniors, to give him a wide berth.'¹

In working out the various subjects referred to in the letters, I have received the kindest help from Mr. Trimen and Mr. Francis Darwin. Although Mr. Trimen did not keep copies of his own letters, he was able to remember the details of nearly all the questions touched upon in the correspondence, while other data were recovered from Darwin's works. Without Mr. Francis Darwin's help I should have been unable to decipher a few obscurely written words, or to have obtained other information bearing upon the conditions under which the letters were written.

The letters are, as I have already implied, a typical series. They show all the characteristics of Darwin in his relations with younger men who helped him in his work. 'They are,' as Mr. Trimen truly says, 'of value as an additional illustration of one of the most charming and attractive sides of Darwin's character—the gracious and glad welcome and recognition he never failed to extend to every one who even in the slightest degree endeavoured to render some aid in his researches.'

In addition to the full recognition he accorded in his published works, we find, in these letters as in others, that Darwin not only urged his correspondent to publish on his own account,

¹ See p. 219.

[page] 216

but himself arranged the details of publication and assisted in drawing up one of the memoirs. It is easy to imagine the delight and encouragement with which his generous words of praise for every effort would be received, and how infallibly they would become the inspiration to further effort. And with all this stimulus and encouragement there is ever present the warmest sympathy with difficulties of every kind, and the keenest anxiety not to overburden another— with trouble or expense. We recognize an unbounded love of nature and of discovery, and the keenest appreciation for the same enthusiasm in another. We feel, again and again, as we read these letters, the presence of the bright, courageous spirit that could pierce the dark shadow of lifelong pain and discomfort, and preserve undimmed its humour and its breadth of view. And the brooding shadow is never accorded the dignity of recognition on its own account, being only revealed because of the veto it had the power to impose—work prevented or long drawn out, interviews with friends cut short or postponed.

For this reason brief notes of invitation, which might otherwise be regarded as trivial, all bear their part in creating the general impression, and the whole correspondence remains untouched and unabridged.

Of the nineteen letters printed in this section of the book, one (No. 18) is from Mrs. Darwin.

[page] 217

Of the remainder, fourteen are holograph letters by Charles Darwin, one (No. 7) is signed and corrected, while three (Nos. 6, 11, 17) are only signed by him.

The letters are arranged in the order of date. Darwin, as was his custom, omitted to write the year, but fortunately this was nearly always added by Mr. Trimen himself, together with the date at which the letter was received.

Publications and the names of species, &c., although not underlined in the originals, are, for the sake of convenience, printed in italics. The first series of letters, seven in number, deal with botanical subjects,—especially Orchids, and the inquiries which grew out of the investigations upon them (such as the Peach-perforating moths). These are referred to in all seven letters; Oxalis as material for the study of heterostyled flowers in Nos. 3-7; insect visitors to Asclepiadae, Apocyneae, and Physianthus in No. 4; the fertilization by birds of Strelitzia in Nos. 6, 7.

It will be observed that Darwin in the very first letter began to urge his correspondent to send home the records of observations for publication. His advice and help were very soon accepted, and, in the Fertilisation of Orchids,¹ Darwin acknowledged the assistance he had received, and referred to Trimen's papers, in the publications of the Linnean Society, on Bonatea speciosa and Disa grandiflora, in each case specify-

¹ Second edit., sixth impression (1899), 40, 76-8.

[page] 218

ing briefly the peculiarities of structure which the author had noted as governing access to the nectary, so as almost to compel the removal of the pollinia by insect visitors of the right kind.

1.

Jan. 31st (1863)

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT. S.E.

MY DEAR SIR

I thank you most sincerely for your pleasant letter and M.S. on Orchids. Your sketches seem to me very good, and wonderful under circumstances of their execution. I cannot say how much interested I have been in studying your descriptions. I think I understand all; but these Orchids (except Eulophia) are so surprisingly different from anything that I have seen that I could hardly make them out for some time and even fancied in some cases that you had miscalled upper sepal and Labellum. But at last I see my way. I am no more a Botanist than you say you are, and I know nothing of any orchids except those seen by me. Therefore I was astonished at the upper sepal being produced into a nectary; even more astonished at stigma standing high above the pollinia &c &c.—

How curious is pollinium of Disperis!—What beautiful and new contrivances you show, and how well you have studied them! Upon the whole I think No. V. & VI. unnamed (I have sent your drawings to Prof. Harvey to name for me) have interested me most: everything seems to occur in a reversed direction compared with our true Orchis.—

You do not mention any movement of the pollinia, when attached to an object; and as you are so acute an observer, I infer that there are no such move-

[page] 219

ments; and indeed in those you describe such movements would be superfluous. If you have time to wander about do watch some kinds and see insects do the work.¹

Those with long nectaries would be probably hopeless to watch as probably fertilized by Moths.—But since my publication I have ascertained that with Orchis, Diptera are chief workmen.—They certainly do puncture the walls of nectary, and so get juice. Disperis would be grand to watch, and discover what attracts insects. You draw so well, and have so seized on the subject, that you ought really to take up 2 or 3 of the most distinct genera, and watch them, experiment on them by mutilation of parts, and describe them and send over an excellent paper to Linnean Socy or some other Socy.—I have so much other work, that I hardly know whether I shall ever publish again,—not but what I have already collected some curious new matter; for the subject delights me, and I cannot resist observing.

I am very glad to hear that you do not now think me so dangerous a person!² You will gradually, I can see, become as depraved, as I am.—I believe, or am inclined to believe, in one or very few primordial forms, from community of structure and early embryonic resemblances in each great class.—

With most cordial thanks I remain my dear Sir

Yours sincerely

CH. DARWIN

P.S. Would it be asking too great a favour to beg you

¹ Mr. Trimen writes as follows of his attempts to carry out Darwin's advice: 'I had no success with this, though I watched a variety of orchids as opportunity offered. A good many visitors of various orders came, but they were evidently not regular customers ("unbidden guests," as Kerner says), and I never saw a. pollinium actually removed by any one of them.' Trimen found, however, that one or both pollinia had been removed from 12 out of 78 flowers of Disa grandiflora,—Fertilisation of Orchids (1877), 78.

² See pp. 214-15.

[page] 220

to put 2 or 3 flowers of Satyrium or your No. V. or VI. in bottle with spirits and water, and send home by any opportunity. I would then compare your drawings and add some remarks on your authority, if I ever publish again.—But I hope, what will be much better, to see a paper by yourself.

If you come across Bonatea pray study it—it seems most extraordinary in description.—

2.

Feb. 16th (1863.)

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT. S.E.

DEAR SIR

I have thought you would like to see copy enclosed of letter by Prof. Harvey giving names of your two orchids, Pl. V. and VI, which were unnamed.¹ —Now that I hear that in Satyrium the nectaries belong to the true Labellum;² the relation of the parts is to me very puzzling: discs, pollen-masses and stigmatic surface seem all on the wrong side.—If you pursue the subject, I hope you will observe whether there is any relation

¹ The copy of W. H. Harvey's letter (dated Feb. 3, 1863, Trin. Coll., Dublin) states concerning the two unnamed forms: 'Both are of the large genus Disa, and I feel confidence in calling them (Pl. V) D. barbata and (Pl. VI) D. cornuta, both common near Capetown.'

² The copy of Harvey's letter contains the following account: 'Nectariferous back sepals are quite frequent among Cape Orchids and correspondently depauperated labella. The labellum is often a mere little tongue (sketch)—sometimes a mere thread (sketch) and sometimes as in Brownleia, nearly disappears altogether, and is adnate to the column. 'In Satyrium the two spurred affair is a true labellum—the sepals and petals small and crowded together at the front of flower—the opposite to Disa.'

[page] 221 SOUTH AFRICAN ORCHIDS: 1863

(as in English Orchids) between the rapidity of the setting of the viscid matter and nectar being stored ready for suction or confined in cellular tissue.—

I was at Kew 2 or 3 days ago and was telling Dr. Hooker and Mr H. Gower of your work: they expressed a strong wish to try whether they could not cultivate some of your wonderful forms; and tempted me by saying that if they could flower them, I shd have plants to examine.—I said I would mention the subject to you; but that of course I doubted whether you had time and inclination to get them dug up. They said the roots might be packed in almost dry peaty soil or charcoal in moss, and sent to "Royal Gardens(.) Kew, London," marking what they were, i.e. terrestrial orchids from the Cape.—They ought to be dug up, when completely dormant after seeding over.—It certainly would be a treat to see a blooming Satyrium, or Disperis and the odd unnamed form! They said the safest way of all, but more troublesome, to send them, would be to plant them in pots in a box, with a [sic] little glazed windows on two sides under charge of some passenger. The heat starting them would be the great risk. But it is not at all likely you could spare time from your own pursuits.¹

Pray believe me, my dear Sir

Yours sincerely and obliged

CH. DARWIN

¹ Mr. Trimen informs me that a good many orchids were got together and dispatched, but (probably owing to unsuitable treatment) did not appear to prosper; and by the time a few of them contrived to flower, Darwin was too much occupied with other pressing work to be able to examine them.

[page] 222

3.

May¹ 23rd (1863.)

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT. S.E.

MY DEAR SIR

I have delayed thanking you for your note and photograph, as I have no photograph by me of myself. I have never had a proper "carte" taken; but I enclose a photograph made of me by my son, which I daresay will do as well.—

Your accounts of the Disa and Herschedia are excellent, and your drawings first-rate. I felt so sorry that such excellent work sh'd remain locked up for an indefinite period in my portfolio, that you have made me break a solemn vow, and I have drawn up from your notes (and selected 4 figures for woodcuts) an account for Linnean Soc.—I have enlarged a little and explained and introduced a few remarks.—I hope the Socy will publish the paper, and if so I will send you spare copies.—

The title is "On the Fertilisation of Disa grandiflora by Roland Trimen Esq1 of the Colon. Off. C. Town: drawn up from notes and drawings sent to C. Darwin Esqr."2 I hope that you will approve of this, and not object to anything in the little paper.—I am very sorry to hear so poor an account of your health and that you have so little time to spare for the exercise of your

¹ The month is indistinctly written and looks more like 'July' than 'May', Mr. Trimen had, however, noted that he received the letter at the Cape on July 20, so that this latter month cannot have been intended. Confirmation of the reading as 'May' is afforded by the presence of an envelope (two only are preserved) with the post-mark' BROMLEY, KENT. MY 24. 63'. It also bears post-marks of 'LONDON. MY 25' and 'DEVONPORT. MY 26'. It is addressed, 'Roland Trimen, Esq., Colonial Office, Cape Town, Cape of Good Hope.'2 The paper was published in Journ. Proc. Linn, Soc. Bot., vii (1863), 144.

[page] 223

admirable powers of observation.—I did not know all this; otherwise I shd not have thought of asking for plants. Think not a moment more on subject.—lndeed I ought to work on other subjects.—Yet I am going to ask a favour, if you know any one who dabbles in Botany, viz., for seed of any Cape Oxalis: several species present two forms, one with long pistil and short stamens; the other form with short pistil and longer stamens. It is of high interest to me to get seed of any such species.—To return to Orchids, I now believe that Hymenoptera and Diptera are generally the chief workers more than Lepidoptera. With respect to the limits of Rostellum; it can in most cases be told only conjecturally: in Disa the 2 discs (and no part of caudicle of pollinia) and the part which connects the 2 discs with the medial upward central fold or ridge, and whole face of column down to the two confluent stigmas, may all be considered as the rostellum or modified third stigma.—With sincere thanks and every good wish,

Believe me, my dear Sir

Yours sincerely

C. DARWIN

4.

August 27th (, 1863)

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT. S.E.

MY DEAR SIR

I am very much obliged for your very pleasant letter. You have hit upon the right case in Oxalis, and seeds will really be a treasure to me. I have posted a paper to you on the dimorphism of Linum which if you will read, you will see why I am anxious for Oxalis I have a more curious case unpublished; but the whole class of facts strike me as very surprising. You

[page] 224

may rely on my statements, for they have been verifyed (sic). Linum perenne agrees with your Oxalis. I am also very glad indeed to hear about the Peaches,—the more so as it is an exotic in S. Africa.—I am going in a weeks time to Malvern for a month to try and get a little strength, and when there I will probably draw up a notice for Gardener's Chronicle on your peach case,¹—

I daily expect proofs of your paper on Disa; a rough woodcut is made.—You must not waste time in sending me many specimens of Orchids in spirits, for I declare I do not know whether I shall ever have time to work up mass of new matter already collected on Orchids. It is capital sport to observe and a horrid bore to publish.—It pleases me to read your admiration on my beloved Orchids.—I quite agree they are intellectual beings! By the bye, I believe I have blundered in Cypripedium²; Asa Gray suggested that small insects

¹ Darwin had suggested in relation to fertilization by moths of Orchids which seemed to secrete no nectar, that the insects might possibly obtain palatable juices by perforating the softer tissues of some parts of the flower. Trimen informed him, as bearing on this suggestion, of two good-sized Noctuid moths (Egybolis vaillantina, Stoll, and Achaea chamaeleon, Guén.), abundant in Natal, where both were styled' Peach Moth'—though absolutely different in appearance—because they sucked peaches (both ripe on the tree and when fallen). Trimen caught the latter in the act, and found that they had no difficulty in piercing the peach-skin with their sharp and strong haustellum. The observation is quoted by Darwin in Fertilisation of Orchids (1877), 40. F. Darwin later published an account of the similar behaviour of a much larger moth of the same tribe which was accounted a nuisance in Northern Australia owing to its piercing and sucking oranges! He showed how the proboscis in this moth was armed near the tip with cutting and lacerating processes.

—On the Structure of the Proboscis of Ophideres fullonica, an orange-sucking moth (Quarterly Journ. of Microscopical Science, N.S., xv. 384). The number (LX) containing the paper appeared in Oct., 1875, and it is a curious coincidence that the same organ of the same species was briefly described and well figured almost simultaneously by Künckel in the Comptes Rendus for Aug. 80, 1875.

² When Darwin wrote the first edition of Fertilisation of Orchids (1862), he misunderstood the mechanism of Cypripedium. In the

[page] 225

enter by the toe and crawl out by the lateral windows,—I put in a small bee and it did so and came out with its pack smeared with pollen: I caught him and put him in again, and again he crawled out by the window: I cut open the flower and found the stigma smeared with pollen!

Read Bates Travels they will, I am sure, interest you.

—With respect to Physianthus, I do not know whether fact is known; but I think it would be well worth investigating.¹ It is certain that the Asclepiadae require insect aid for fertilisation. The pollen-masses are wonderfully like those of Orchids. You ought to read R. Browns admirable paper on Asclepias in Transact. Linnean Soc. about 15 or 20 years ago. In the Apocynece, (which are allied to the Asclepiadae) there is a genus, which catches Diptera by the hundred: I have a plant but cannot make it flourish, as I have always wished to investigate the case. It is said that the Diptera are caught by the wedge-shaped spaces between filaments of anthers. But I suspect the plant somehow profits or requires visits of insects. You ought to try whether Physianthus will seed if insects are excluded by a net.—I have seen Hymenoptera from N. America with numbers of pollen-masses of some Asclepias sticking to their tarsi; "and the pollen-masses

second edition (1877) he gives, on p. 230, Asa. Gray's view, and his own observations confirming it. Mr. Francis Darwin has kindly given me these references.

¹ Darwin was here referring to a note of Trimen's about the curious manner in which Lepidoptera and many other insects are caught by a mechanical (not viscid) contrivance in the flowers of Physianthus albens,—a native of temperate South America. It seemed a. case in which the plant overdid matters, the numerous visitors being mpped by hard sharp ridges closing on the proboscis when introduced into the nectaries, and the captives, in a great many cases, failed to liberate themselves and carry off the pollinia, eventually dying where they hung.

² I have myself often observed the difficulty with which insects, especially wasps and Fossors, dragged themselves free from the

[page] 226

are thus dragged over the stigmas.—R. Brown's paper has beautiful illustrations.—This is a disjointed, dull letter, but I have been working all day with very little strength.—

With every good wish and sincere thanks

Pray believe me

My dear Sir

Yours sincerely

CH DARWIN

5.

Nov. 25 (1863)

DOWN.

BROMLEY,

KENT. S.E.

MY DEAR SIR

I have been laid on the shelf for nearly three months, and am ordered to do nothing for 6 months by my doctors. To write this is against rules.—Many thanks for specimens of orchids and for your kind letter. I dare not look at Oxalis flowers. I regret much that you cannot get seed, especially of your trimorphic flowers.¹ Most species of Oxalis shed their seed by a spurt and the capsules are sensitive to a touch. Could you employ anyone to dig up the bulbs of the 2 or 3 forms and allow me to pay; i.e. if they are bulb-bearers.

The last job I began and broke down was a letter

hold of Asclepiad flowers in North America, and how frequently their tarsi were bristling with pollen-masses. On one occasion I found a dead humble-bee held fast by the flower.

¹ In answer to Darwin's inquiries Trimen informed him that he had found trimorphic heterostyled species of Oxalis, and sent drawings and dried specimens. Darwin referred to this information and material in The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of thesame Species (1877), 169. Trimen's name is accidentally omitted from the index of this work.

[page] 227

to G. Chronicle on your Peach case.¹—I must write no more.—I live in hopes some day to be able to work a very little more, but it will be long before I can.—

Sincere thanks for your very kind letter.

Yours very sincerely

C. DARWIN

I forwarded letter to Bates. Pray use me as often as you like.—

6.

Written by Mrs. Darwin, signed by Charles Darwin.

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT. S.E.

May 13. 1864

MY DEAR MR TRIMEN

I received your letter of Mar 14, some time ago and was fearful that the Oxalis would never arrive, but yesterday to my joy they came safe and alive and are now planted.² Please give my sincere thanks to Mr Mac Gibbon and accept them yourself. The plants will be invaluable. My only fear is that each kind has been propagated by offsets from a single stock and if so they will all belong to the same form.

I am sorry for my mistake about the Disa, I have sent an erratum to Linn. Journ.³

Thanks for the additional facts about Disa, but I am sure I do not know what I shall ever do with all my wealth of new facts.

¹ See p. 224 n. 1.

² See the preceding letter (5) on p. 226.

³ This was an error in Darwin's description of the position of the viscid discs of the pollinia in relation to the passages leading to the nectar; but it was partly due to the point of view from which Mr. Trimen's fig. A was taken. The position was of importance in relation to the only passages of access to the nectary where a proboscis could be pushed.

[page] 228

I am slowly recovering from my 10 months illness, but I do not know when I shall regain my old modicum of strength. I was pleased to see a nice little review evidently by Mr Bates on your Cape butterflies in that admirable journal The Nat. Hist. Review.¹

By the way do you see the "Reader". No English newspaper ever before gave half as good resumes of all branches of science: the literature is likewise well treated. I do not know who the Editor is so that my puffing is honest.

Does Strelitza reginæ grow in any gardens at the Cape? I strongly suspect it must be fertilized by some honey seeking bird; the structure is very curious and this wd be worth investigating.² With cordial thanks believe me

Yours sincerely

CH. DARWIN

7.

Written by Mrs. Darwin, signed by Charles Darwin, who also inserted the words and letters printed in small capitals.

DOWN.

BROMLEY,

KENT. S.E.

Nov 25, 1864.

MY DEAR SIR

Your paper arrived quite safe. I have read it with much interest, for I have long thought the Bonatea one of the most curious Orchids in the world. Asa Gray

¹ Bate's very appreciative review was of Part I of Trimen's Rhopalocera Africae Australis, Cape Town, 1862. It appeared in The Natural History Review for April, 1864.

² Trimen supplied some evidence that Darwin's suspicions were well founded; for two species of Sun-bird (Cinnyris) frequented the flowers of Strelitzia. See Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom (1876), 371 n.

[page] 229

has described in an American Habenaria a nearly similar contrivance with respect to the nectary as yours. I have sent your paper to Linn. Soc. and I hope it may be printed, but that of course I cannot say and IT may be influenced by cost of engraving.¹

With respect to the Satyrium I shd think that the pollen masses which you sent had been scraped off the head of some insect BY THE INSECT ITSELF; I do not refer to the additional pollen-masses which you saw growing in their cases.

Most of the Oxalis which you so kindly sent me flowered, but all with 2 exceptions presented one form alone. From what I know about Primula, I shd be astonished at the same bulb ever producing 2 forms. In the 2 exceptional cases, one bulb in each lot produced a distinct form; but I have very little doubt there ought to be 3 forms. I got some seed from one of the unions and have some feeble hopes that they may germinate. If I have strength (for I keep weak) I shd like to make out Oxalis, so if you have any opportunity I should still be very glad of seed.

Many thanks about Strelitzia.² Would it be possible to get a plant of the kind that seeds, protected from the sugar-birds, with another plant unprotected near by? I am tired, and so will write no more.

With many thanks pray believe me

Yours very sincerely

CH. DARWIN

¹ The paper was published in 1865. It is entitled: On the Structure of Bonatea speciosa, Linn., with reference to its Fertilisation.—By Roland Trimen, Memb. Ent. Soc. Lond.—Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot., ix (1865), 156. Darwin mentions this paper in his Notes on the Fertilisation of Orchids in Ann. and Mag. N.H. for September (1869), 8, 17; as also in Fertilisation of Orchids (1877), 76, 77.-

² See p. 228.

[page] 230

The invitation conveyed in the following letter (No. 8) exhibits the characteristic features described by Mr. Francis Darwin.¹

It was on this visit that Mr. Trimen heard Darwin speak with such strong feeling on the subject of Owen and the article in the Edinburgh (see p. 28 n. 2).

8.

Dec. 24th (1867)

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT. S. E.

MY DEAR SIR

If you are not engaged, will you give me the great pleasure of your company here next Saturday, and stay the Sunday with us. We dine at 7 oclock.—You would have to come by Train to Bromley, but I am sorry to say this place is six miles from the Station.

I am bound to tell you that my health is very uncertain and I am continually liable to bad days, and even on my best days I cannot talk long with anyone; but if you will put up with the best will to see as much of you as I can, I hope that you will come.—Pray believe me, My dear Sir

Yours very sincerely

CH. DARWIN

Of the remaining eleven letters six (Nos. 9-12, 15, 16) deal with subjects treated of in The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex;

¹ Life and Letters, i. 139.

² The following references to information received from Roland Trimen are printed in the index of this work (Ed. 1874, 682): 'on the proportion of the sexes in South African butterflies, 250; on

[page] 231 S

a few words of encouragement on Trimen's great paper on Mimicry are contained in No. 13; the geographical distribution of beetles in No. 19. Of four brief letters, two contain invitations (Nos. 13, 14), and two are concerned with difficulties caused by ill-health (Nos. 17, 18, the latter written by Mrs. Darwin).

The first letter (No. 9) of the following series introduces, and subsequent letters return to the question of ocelli (ocellated spots or eye-spots) on the wings of butterflies and moths. It is evident, from his reference to the male peacock and inquiries as to ocelli restricted to male butterflies, that Darwin was inclined to seek an interpretation based on the hypothesis of Sexual Selection.¹

It was not known until long after the date of these letters that eye-spots together with certain differences in shape² are in the vast majority of cases characteristic of the butterfly broods of the wet season. The existing interpretation of them was first suggested by an observation made by Professor Meldola and the present writer in 1887, when a lizard was seen to exhibit special interest in an eye-spot on the wing of the English 'Small Heath' butterfly (Coenonympha pamphilus).

the attraction of males by the female of Lasiocampa quercus, 252; on Pneumora, 288; on difference of colour in the sexes of beetles, 294; on moth, brilliantly coloured beneath, 315; on mimicry in butterflies, 325 (324); on Gynanisa Isis, and on the ocellated spots of Lepidoptera, 428; on Cyllo Leda, 429. 'Nearly all the above subjects are referred to in letters 9-12, 15, 16.

¹ Compare pp. 104, 105, 113, 125, 127, 128, 133-5, 140-1.

² Figured by Darwin in Descent of Man, &c. (1874), 429. See also 428 n. 48.

[page] 232

It examined the mark and more than once attempted to seize it. This observation has been repeated with birds and African butterflies by Mr. Guy Marshall and others, while large numbers of specimens have been collected with injuries to the wing at or near an eye-spot. Hence the conclusion that the usual value of these markings is to divert attention from the vital parts and give the insect extra chance of escape. Their disappearance from the dry season broods is interpreted as due to the paramount necessity for concealment during that time of special stress.¹

9.

Jan. 2nd (1868)

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT. S.E.

MY DEAR MR TRIMEN

What you say about the ocelli (ocellated spots or eye-spots) is exactly what I want, viz the greatest range of variation within the limits of the same species,—greater than in the Meadow Brown, if that be possible. The range of difference within the same genus is of

secondary interest; nevertheless if you find any good case of variation, I shd much like to hear how far the species of the same genus differ in the ocelli. As I know from your Orchid Drawings how skilful an artist you are, perhaps it would not give you much more trouble to sketch any variable ocelli than to describe them.—I am very much obliged to you for so kindly assisting

¹ For a further account of this and other uses of these markings, together with references to the Original memoirs, see' eye-spots' in index of Essays on Evolution (1908), 424.

[page] 233

me, and for your two pieces of information in your note about the sexes of the Batchian Butterfly and about the Longicorn Beetle.—¹

With many thanks, pray believe me

Yours very sincerely

CH. DARWIN

10

Jan. 16th (, 1868.)

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT, S.E.

MY DEAR MR TRIMEN

I really do not know how to thank you enough for all the great trouble which you have taken for me.—I never saw anything so beautiful as your drawings.²

I have examined them with the microscope!! When I asked for a sketch I never dreamed of your taking so great trouble.—Your letter and Proof-sheet give me exactly and fully the information which I wanted. I am very glad of the description of the ocellus in the S. African Saturnidae:³ I had no idea it was so com-

¹ In The Descent of Man (1874), 250, Darwin quotes A. R. Wallace's observation, doubtless supplied to him by Trimen, and here referred to, that the female of Ornithoptera croesus was commoner and more easily caught than the male. Mr. Trimen thinks that this must be the 'Batchian Butterfly'. On p. 294 n. 63 Darwin states that he had been informed by Trimen that the male of a species of the Lamellicorn genus Trichius is more obscurely coloured than the female. Trimen's name is not mentioned in connexion with the similar relationship recorded for certain Longicorn beetles on pp. 294, 295.

² The drawings were illustrations of the extreme variation in the development of the eye-spots on the wings of Cyllo (Melanitis) leda. Darwin referred to these and figured some of them in Descent of Man (1874), 428, 429.

³ Darwin is here evidently alluding to the description given him by Trimen of the S. African moth (Gynanisa isis), allied to our Emperor moth, in which a magnificent ocellus occupies nearly the whole surface of each hinder wing'. –Descent of Man (1874), 428.

[page] 234

plex.—If you know of any case in Lepidoptera of ocelli regularly confined to the male,¹ I shd much like to hear of it, as it would illustrate a little better the case of the peacock, which has often been thrown in my teeth.— I doubt whether such cases exist, and if I do not hear I will understand that you know of no such case. Again let me thank you cordially for your great kindness, and I remain,

Yours very sincerely

CH. DARWIN

11.

Written by Mrs. Darwin, signed by Charles Darwin.

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT, S.E.

Feb 12 (1868.)

DEAR MR TRIMEN

I shall be very happy to put my name down for your brother's book and he can hand over the enclosed paper to Hardwick.²

Since you were here I have become much interested on the relative numbers of the males and females of all animals. I am particularly anxious for other cases like that from (A. R.) Wallace which you gave me of females in excess;³ or to know that such cases are rare. If you can, I am sure you will aid me.⁴ Do you give many

¹ Mr. Trimen informs me that he was unable to discover any such case.

² Mr. Trimen thinks that the book must have been the Flora of Middlesex; (octavo, London: 1869) written and published by Henry Trimen and Sir William Thiselton-Dyer.

³ See p. 233 n. 1.

⁴ This letter enclosed a slip of paper which is evidently Trimen's copy of the list sent by him m reply to Darwin's inquiry. It contains a full list of nineteen species of South African butterflies in which males are more numerous than females, and of three species

[page] 235

instances in your book on S. African butterflies, of males in excess. I remember writing down one or 2 cases which you gave me.

Believe me

 Yours very sincerely

CH. DARWIN

12.

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT. S.E.

Feb. 21st (1868.)

You are always most kind in aiding me. The argument of the Lasiocampa¹ strikes me as very good but what an intricate subject it is!—I have had excellent letters from Stainton and Bates. The latter is much staggered.—Have you ever heard or observed other cases like the Lasiocampa. I think I have seen in England many Butterflies pursuing one.—But here comes a doubt may not the same male serve more than one female. I think I will write to Dr. Wallace of Colchester.²—

in which the females are apparently the more numerous. These numbers are quoted by Darwin in Descent of Man, &c. (1874), 250.

¹ Mr. Trimen has kindly given me the following note:—

'E. Blanchard (in his Métamorphoses, Moeurs et Instincts des Insectes) had attributed to some special and peculiar sense the power exhibited by many males among moths of discovering the distant and concealed females of their respective species. I contended that it could only be the sense of smell that was brought to bear in such cases, instancing my own experience in the case of the English 'Oak Eggar' (Lasiocampa quercus), where the males assembled to an empty box in my pocket which had contained a virgin female on the previous day.' The observation is referred to in Descent of Man (1874), 252. See also Darwin's argument in letter 15, p. 242.

² The experience of Dr. A. Wallace with the large silk-producing moths is quoted in several places in the Descent of Man, &c.

[page] 236

My women-kind have insisted on coming to London for all March, much to my grief; but I shall get some good, for I shall see some of my friends, and you amongst the number.—With very sincere thanks

Believe me

Yours very sincerely

CH. DARWIN

I shall go doggedly on collecting facts through the animal kingdom, and possibly at the end some little light may be acquired.—I am getting some of the chief domestic animals tabulated.

In the last sentence of the following letter Darwin was referring to the evening of March 5, 1868, when Trimen read his remarkable and important paper, published in the early part of the following year: 'On some remarkable Mimetic Analogies among African Butterflies.'¹ Bates's classical paper on Mimicry (1862), referred to on pp. 122-6, was concerned with tropical American butterflies and moths. A. R. Wallace's paper 'On the Phenomena of Variation and Geographical Distribution as illustrated by the Papilionidae of the Malayan Region'² (1866) dealt with the same subject as illustrated by butterflies in the tropical East. Trimen's paper completed the great series by extending the hypothesis of Mimicry to the African continent. The chief example considered in the paper, that of Papilio dardanus (merope), was by

¹ Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., xxvi. 497-522.

² Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., xxv. 1-71.

[page] 237

far the most complex and difficult to interpret of any in the world. When, in this masterly memoir, he had at length unravelled the tangled relationships, three 'species', up to that time regarded as entirely distinct, had been sunk as the three different mimetic females of a single non-mimetic male, then known as a fourth 'species'. Trimen's conclusions were not confirmed by the supreme test of breeding until 1902, and all three mimetic forms found in one locality were not bred from the eggs of a single parent until 1906.

One of the principal opponents of Trimen's conclusions was the late W. C. Hewitson, who said: 'It would require a stretch of the imagination, of which I am incapable, to believe that. ..P. merope.. . indulges in a whole harem of females, differing as widely from it as any other species in the genus.. .'² However, shortly after he had written the above sentence Hewitson received from one of his own collectors this very male taken paired with one of the mimetic females.³

My friend Mr. Harry Eltringham has recently pointed out to me a passage, marked by much confusion of thought, in Hewitson's Exotic Butterflies, which might be read as an anticipation

¹ See' dardanus' in index of Essays on Evolution (1908), 414; also Plate XXIII in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. (1908 J, 427-45.

² Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. (1874), 137.

³ E. M. M. (Oct., 1874), 113.

⁴ London, 1862-66, III: text of plate' Nymphalidæ. Diadema iii.: (pages unnumbered).

[page] 238

of Fritz Müller's earlier suggestion that Mimicry may be due to Sexual Selection (see pp. 127-8). I do not think that the words really bear this interpretation, but even if they do, it is obvious that a suggestion intended to be taken as a joke cannot be looked upon as a serious anticipation! Inasmuch as Hewitson makes special reference to the three papers of Bates, Wallace and Trimen, it is not inappropriate to quote his criticisms at this point. After describing some of the wonderful forms that would now be placed in the African genus Pseudacraea mimetic of the Acraeine genus Planema from the same localities, Hewitson proceeds to remark:—

'This strange resemblance to each other of distant and very distinct groupes, which forms the romance of natural history, has afforded wonder and delight to every naturalist, and will do so to the end of time, the more so because of its mystery, unless some much better explanation is offered than that proposed by Darwin and his followers, because, unluckily for them, it is just those species which superficially bear the closest resemblance to each other that differ most in their fundamental structure.'

The objection urged by Hewitson is of course the strongest of all reasons in favour of the views he is attacking. Such fundamental differences exclude an interpretation of resemblance based simply on affinity. It is well that this important statement should be proclaimed by an opponent

[page] 239

of the theory of Mimicry. It is also well that he should say of the 'great leading aristocratic' groups which are resembled by other butterflies Danais, Acraea, 'Heliconidae' (including under this head Ithomiinae and Danainae as well as true Heliconinae'):—

'One of the most marvellous things in this representative system is that the great groupes are not only imitated at home, but that the stragglers from two of them in other lands have their mimics as well; and in the great South American groupe, the Heliconidæ, the butterflies of several genera, completely different in their neuration, are inseparable by the unaided sight.'

It would be hardly possible to produce better indirect evidence of some special quality in the chief models than that afforded by the resemblances to them formed afresh when stragglers have wandered into other lands. Section VI of the present work is largely concerned with one striking example of the mimetic resemblance by indigenous New World species of invading Danaines from the Old World. Hewitson for a most singular reason rejects the conclusion that the groups in question are specially protected, and concludes by making the jocular suggestion to which Mr. Eltringham directed my attention:—

'Naturalists, Wallace, Bates, and Trimen, who have each studied one of these great groupes in their native land, tell us that they exude a liquid of an offensive

¹ See pp. 152-4.

[page] 240

smell. We have, however, no right to conclude that what may be unpleasant to us is not to them a sweet-smelling royal unction. May not all the imitators of these scented aristocrats be simply votaries of fashion, apeing the dress of their superiors, and, since the females take the lead, "naturally selecting" those of the gayest colours?'

Hewitson in the first part of the above paragraph assumes that the liquid is considered to be offensive to the insects themselves, whereas of course it is believed to protect against insect-eating animals. In the last part I do not think he uses the word 'naturally' when he means 'sexually', for the sake of the little play upon the former word, I think by the words 'females take the lead' Hewitson refers to the greater prevalence and perfection of female Mimicry, and that he only intended to convey the facetious suggestion of conscious and deliberate imitation.

To return to Trimen's paper, it is hardly surprising that a memoir containing such novel and startling conclusions should have been heard by a hostile audience, and my friend tells me that 'Darwin's congratulations were of immense comfort, as the large meeting was for by far the greater part opposed and discouraging'.

Darwin's keen interest in Bates's paper has been shown on pp. 123-6, the part he took in encouraging Fritz Müller in his successive amendments of the Batesian Hypothesis, on pp. 126-9; but the following letter is the first evidence I

[page] 241

have come across of his personal interest in the immensely important contribution made by Roland Trimen.

13.

Monday

(Mar. 20, 1868)

4. CHESTER PLACE¹

REGENTS PARK

N.W.

MY DEAR MR TRIMEN

Would it suit you to come and lunch here at 1. oclock on Friday or Saturday, or indeed almost any day; or if luncheon-time does not suit you, if you will you will (sic) tell me at what hour you will call I will be at home.—I hear that you had a brilliant night at Linn.

Soc. and I regretted so much that I could not come.

Yours very sincerely

CH. DARWIN

14.

Saturday (1868)

4 CHESTER PLACE

N.W.

MY DEAR MR TRIMEN,

Tuesday wd suit me, but another man (Mr. Blyth²) is coming to lunch on that day, and as you know that I am not up to more than an hour's talk, I shd see less of you; so if equally convenient and I do not hear to contrary, I will name Wednesday at 1 oclock.

Very many thanks for your information in note—

Yours very sincerely

C. DARWIN

¹ The house of Mrs. Darwin's sister, Miss Elizabeth Wedgwood.

² See More Letters, i. 62 n., for an account of this naturalist.

[page] 242

15.

April 14th—(1868)

DOWN.

BROMLEY.

KENT. S.E.

MY DEAR MR TRIMEN

It is very kind of you to take the trouble of making so long an extract, which I am very glad to possess, as the case is certainly a very striking one. Blanchard's argument about the males not smelling the females, because we can perceive no odour, seems to me curiously weak. It is wonderful that he shd not have remembered at what great distances Deer and many other animals can scent the cleanest man.¹—Many thanks for your Photograph, and I send mine, but it is a hideous affair—merely a modified, hardly an improved, Gorilla.—

Mr (H.) Doubleday has suggested a capital scheme for estimating the number of sexes in Lepidoptera, viz by a German List, in which in many cases the sexes are differently priced.² With Butterflies, out of a list of about 300 Sp. and Vars. 114 have sexes of different prices, and in all of them, with one single exception, the male is the cheapest. On an average judging from price for every 100 females of each species there ought to be 143 males of the same species.—So I firmly believe that you field collectors are correct.—Nearly the same result with Moths.

¹ The 'extract' probably refers to an account of the male, of the Oak Eggar moth assembling to a box that had contained the female (see p. 235 n. 1). Blanchard's argument was revived in 1894 by Prof. F. Plateau, who, finding the taste ('saveur réelle') of the larva, pupa, and imago of the Magpie moth (Abraxas grossulariata) to be somewhat pleasant to his own: palate, concluded that it was not distasteful to insectivorous animals. This conclusion is opposed by the present writer in Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. (1902), 405-14.

² Quoted by Darwin in Descent of Man, &c. (1874), 252.

[page] 243

I sincerely wish yon health, happiness and success in Nat. History in S. Africa. I should have much liked to have asked you, if you could have spared time, to come down here for a day or two; but Mrs. Huxley is coming here in a few days with all her six children and nurses, for healths sake, and stop some weeks. And our House will be, with others, so absolutely full, that today we have had to tell our Brother-in-law, that we cannot possibly receive him.—Most truly do I thank you for your great kindness in aiding me in so many ways. Yesterday I was working in much of your information.—

Believe me

Yours very sincerely

C. DARWIN

16

July 24th (1871)

DOWN

BECKENHAM,

KENT.

MY DEAR MR TRIMEN

I am much obliged for your long and interesting letter. You asked me whether I have any notion about the meaning of moths etc flying into candles, and birds against light-houses.—I have not.—I have looked at the case as one of curiosity, which is very strong with the higher animals, and I presume even with insects. A light is a very new object, and its distance cannot be judged, but how it comes that an insect is so stupid as to go on flying into the same candle I cannot conceive. It looks as if they were drawn towards it.—Sir C. Lyell, I remember, made years ago the difficulty greater by asking me, what stops all the moths in the world flying every moon-light night up to the moon, or as near as they could get.—Perhaps they have instinctively learnt that this cannot be done.—

[page] 244

With respect to humour, I think dogs do have it, but it is necessarily only of a practical kind. Everyone must have seen a dog with a piece of a stick or other object in his mouth, and if his master in play tries to take it away, the dog runs with prancing steps a few yards away, squats down, facing his master, and waits till he comes quite close and then jumps up and repeats the operation,—looking, as if he said, "you are sold".—

I have many letters to write so pray excuse brevity.—My book has been very successful as far as sale has been concerned, and has hitherto been in most cases treated very liberally by the press.—My notions on the moral sense have, however, been much reprobated by some and highly praised by others.—I have no news to tell, for I have seen hardly any one for months.—I am extremely sorry to hear that you are no freer of official duties, for I feel sure if you had more leisure and especially if you lived in the country, you would make some grand new observations.—With every good wish—

Pray believe me.

Yours sincerely

CH. DARWIN

Written by Sir George Darwin, signed by Charles Darwin.

DOWN

BECKENHAM

Thursd July 27. 71

MY DEAR MR. TRIMEN,

I was much surprized to receive your letter and I am sorry to hear of the cause of your hurried return to England.¹—

¹ In consequence of the death of his father in March, 1871.

[page] 245

I have been a good deal out of health of late and we have taken Haredene¹ for a month in order that I may get a little rest. We start tomorrow morning. I shall have very great pleasure in seeing you there after your return from Edinburgh. I am sorry to say that I cannot ask you to sleep with us as we shall have no beds to spare;—but I suppose from what you say that you will be staying in the neighbourhood. Many thanks for the Review which I will read in the course of the day.²

Believe me

Yours very sincerely

CHARLES DARWIN

18.

From Mrs. Darwin.

HAREDENE³ Tuesday

(Jul. 28-Aug. 25, 1871)

DEAR MR TRIEN

I am very sorry to say that Mr Darwin has been so unwell (ill I may say) that we are hastening our return home as soon as possible. He is quite unequal to seeing you which he very much regrets.

Our stay in this charming place is a great disappointment, though I hope he will reap the benefit of the rest afterwards. He desires me to repeat how very sorry he is not to be able to see you

believe me

yours very truly

EMMA DARWIN

¹ Mr. Francis Darwin informs me that Haredene is near Albury in Surrey.

² Mr. Trimen thinks that the Review spoken of was a notice of the Descent of Man, &c., contributed by him to the Cape Monthly Magazine in June, 1871.

³ See the above n. 1.

[page] 246

19

Nov. 13th (1871)

DOWN,

BECKENHAM, KENT.

 

MY DEAR MR TRIMEN

I write one line to say how sorry I am not to see you before your return to the Cape,¹ which I presume will be soon. But I cannot get my head steady enough to see anyone. I have just returned from a visit to my sister for a week, but I was forced to spend nearly all the day in my bed-room.—

I read with much interest some little time ago your paper on Geographical Distribution of Beetles; and agreed, I believe, with all your general remarks.²—

I wish you all success in your future researches and remain

Yours very sincerely

CH. DARWIN

If on the point of starting do not trouble yourself to answer this.—

¹ The letter was received Jan. 11, 1872, after Trimen had returned to the Cape.

² The paper referred to is:

Notes on the Geographical Distribution and Dispersion of Insects; chiefly in reference to a paper by Mr. Andrew Murray, F.L.S., 'on the Geographical Relations of the chief Coleopterous Faunæ,'–By Roland Trimen, F.L.S., &c.—Linn. Soc. Journal. –Zool. xii (1871), 276-84.

Murray in a very dogmatic way had in his elaborate memoir endeavoured to account for the greater part of the difficulties presented by the known existing distribution of animals and plants over the globe bl the simple explanation of 'continuity of soil at some former period' Trimen in his paper insisted on the more important methods of dispersal always at work, and traversed several of the author's statements, especially as regards oceanic islands, which had been treated by Murray as obviously surviving portions of otherwise vanished continental lands.