Complete works of samuel.., p.283
Complete Works of Samuel Butler, page 283
Again: —
“In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on my theory, formerly have existed” ().
“My theory” became “the theory” in 1869. No reader who read in good faith could doubt that the theory of descent with modification was being here intended.
“It is just possible by my theory, that one of two living forms might have descended from the other; for instance, a horse from a tapir; but in this case direct intermediate links will have existed between them” ().
“My theory” became “the theory” in 1869.
Again: —
“By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent species of each genus,” &c. We took this to mean, “By the theory of descent with modification all living species,” &c. ().
Again: —
“Some experienced conchologists are now sinking many of the very fine species of D’Orbigny and others into the rank of varieties; and on this view we do find the kind of evidence of change which on my theory we ought to find” ().
“My theory” became “the theory” in 1869.
In the fourth edition (1866), in a passage which is not in either of the two first editions, we read (), “So that here again we have undoubted evidence of change in the direction required by my theory.” “My theory” became “the theory” in 1869; the theory of descent with modification is unquestionably intended.
Again: —
“Geological research has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views” ().
We naturally took “my views” to mean descent with modification. The “my” has been allowed to stand.
Again: —
“If, then, there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find in our geological formations an infinite number of those transitional forms which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group in one long and branching chain of life . . . But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and at the close of each formation pressed so hardly on my theory” (p, 302).
Substitute “descent with modification” for “my theory” and the meaning does not suffer. The first of the two “my theories” in the passage last quoted was altered in 1869 into “our theory;” the second has been allowed to stand.
Again: —
“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in some formations, has been urged by several palæontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection” ().
Here “the belief in the transmutation of species,” or descent with modification, is treated as synonymous with “the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection;” but it has nowhere been explained that there are two widely different “theories of descent with slow modification through natural selection,” the one of which may be true enough for all practical purposes, while the other is seen to be absurd as soon as it is examined closely. The theory of descent with modification is not properly convertible with either of these two views, for descent with modification deals with the question whether species are transmutable or no, and dispute as to the respective merits of the two natural selections deals with the question how it comes to be transmuted; nevertheless, the words “the theory of descent with slow modification through the ordinary course of things” (which is what “descent with modification through natural selection” comes to) may be considered as expressing the facts with practical accuracy, if the ordinary course of nature is supposed to be that modification is mainly consequent on the discharge of some correlated function, and that modification, if favourable, will tend to accumulate so long as the given function continues important to the wellbeing of the organism; the words, however, have no correspondence with reality if they are supposed to imply that variations which are mainly matters of pure chance and unconnected in any way with function will accumulate and result in specific difference, no matter how much each one of them may be preserved in the generation in which it appears. In the one case, therefore, the expression natural selection may be loosely used as a synonym for descent with modification, and in the other it may not. Unfortunately with Mr. Charles Darwin the variations are mainly accidental. The words “through natural selection,” therefore, in the passage last quoted carry no weight, for it is the wrong natural selection that is, or ought to be, intended; practically, however, they derived a weight from Mr. Darwin’s name to which they had no title of their own, and we understood that “the theory of descent with slow modification” through the kind of natural selection ostensibly intended by Mr. Darwin was a quasi-synonymous expression for the transmutation of species. We understood — so far as we understood anything beyond that we were to believe in descent with modification — that natural selection was Mr. Darwin’s theory; we therefore concluded, since Mr. Darwin seemed to say so, that the theory of the transmutation of species generally was so also. At any rate we felt as regards the passage last quoted that the theory of descent with modification was the point of attack and defence, and we supposed it to be the theory so often referred to by Mr. Darwin as “my.”
Again: —
“Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from the living species; and it cannot on my theory be supposed that these old species were the progenitors,” &c. () . . . “Consequently if my theory be true, it is indisputable,” &c. ().
Here the two “my theories” have been altered, the first into “our theory,” and the second into “the theory,” both in 1869; but, as usual, the thing that remains with the reader is the theory of descent, and it remains morally and practically as much claimed when called “the theory” — as during the many years throughout which the more open “my” distinctly claimed it.
Again: —
“All the most eminent palæontologists, namely, Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. . . . I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities . . . Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds brought forward in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory” ().
What is “my theory” here, if not that of the mutability of species, or the theory of descent with modification? “My theory” became “the theory” in 1869.
Again: —
“Let us now see whether the several facts and rules relating to the geological succession of organic beings, better accord with the common view of the immutability of species, or with that of their slow and gradual modification, through descent and natural selection” ().
The words “natural selection” are indeed here, but they might as well be omitted for all the effect they produce. The argument is felt to be about the two opposed theories of descent, and independent creative efforts.
Again: —
“These several facts accord well with my theory” (). That “my theory” is the theory of descent is the conclusion most naturally drawn from the context. “My theory” became “our theory” in 1869.
Again: —
“This gradual increase in the number of the species of a group is strictly conformable with my theory; for the process of modification and the production of a number of allied forms must be slow and gradual, . . . like the branching of a great tree from a single stem, till the group becomes large” ().
“My theory” became “the theory” in 1869. We took “my theory” to be the theory of descent; that Mr. Darwin treats this as synonymous with the theory of natural selection appears from the next paragraph, on the third line of which we read, “On the theory of natural selection the extinction of old forms,” &c.
Again: —
“The theory of natural selection is grounded on the belief that each new variety and ultimately each new species, is produced and maintained by having some advantage over those with which it comes into competition; and the consequent extinction of less favoured forms almost inevitably follows” (). Sense and consistency cannot be made of this passage. Substitute “The theory of the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life” for “The theory of natural selection” (to do this is only taking Mr. Darwin’s own synonym for natural selection) and see what the passage comes to. “The preservation of favoured races” is not a theory, it is a commonly observed fact; it is not “grounded on the belief that each new variety,” &c., it is one of the ultimate and most elementary principles in the world of life. When we try to take the passage seriously and think it out, we soon give it up, and pass on, substituting “the theory of descent” for “the theory of natural selection,” and concluding that in some way these two things must be identical.
Again: —
“The manner in which single species and whole groups of species become extinct accords well with the theory of natural selection” ().
Again: —
“This great fact of the parallel succession of the forms of life throughout the world, is explicable on the theory of natural selection” ().
Again: —
“Let us now look to the mutual affinities of extinct and living species. They all fall into one grand natural system; and this is at once explained on the principle of descent” ().
Putting the three preceding passages together, we naturally inferred that “the theory of natural selection” and “the principle of descent” were the same things. We knew Mr. Darwin claimed the first, and therefore unhesitatingly gave him the second at the same time.
Again: —
“Let us see how far these several facts and inferences accord with the theory of descent with modification” ()
Again: —
“Thus, on the theory of descent with modification, the main facts with regard to the mutual affinities of the extinct forms of life to each other and to living forms, seem to me explained in a satisfactory manner. And they are wholly inexplicable on any other view” ().
The words “seem to me” involve a claim in the absence of so much as a hint in any part of the book concerning indebtedness to earlier writers.
Again: —
“On the theory of descent, the full meaning of the fossil remains,” &c. ().
In the following paragraph we read: —
“But in one particular sense the more recent forms must, on my theory, be higher than the more ancient.”
Again: —
“Agassiz insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of recent animals of the same classes; or that the geological succession of extinct forms is in some degree parallel to the embryological development of recent forms. . . . This doctrine of Agassiz accords well with the theory of natural selection” ().
“The theory of natural selection” became “our theory” in 1869. The opinion of Agassiz accords excellently with the theory of descent with modification, but it is not easy to see how it bears upon the fact that lucky races are preserved in the struggle for life — which, according to Mr. Darwin’s title-page, is what is meant by natural selection.
Again: —
“On the theory of descent with modification, the great law of the long-enduring but not immutable succession of the same types within the same areas, is at once explained” ().
Again: —
“It must not be forgotten that, on my theory, all the species of the same genus have descended from some one species” ().
“My theory” became “our theory” in 1869.
Again: —
“He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory” ().
“My” became “our” in 1869.
Again: —
“Passing from these difficulties, the other great leading facts in palæontology agree admirably with the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection” ().
Again: —
The succession of the same types of structure within the same areas during the later geological periods ceases to be mysterious, and is simply explained by inheritance ().
I suppose inheritance was not when Mr. Darwin wrote considered mysterious. The last few words have been altered to “and is intelligible on the principle of inheritance.” It seems as though Mr. Darwin did not like saying that inheritance was not mysterious, but had no objection to implying that it was intelligible.
The next paragraph begins— “If, then, the geological record be as imperfect as I believe it to be, . . . the main objections to the theory of natural selection are greatly diminished or disappear. On the other hand, all the chief laws of palæontology plainly proclaim, as it seems to me, that species have been produced by ordinary generation.”
Here again the claim to the theory of descent with modification is unmistakable; it cannot, moreover, but occur to us that if species “have been produced by ordinary generation,” then ordinary generation has as good a claim to be the main means of originating species as natural selection has. It is hardly necessary to point out that ordinary generation involves descent with modification, for all known offspring differ from their parents, so far, at any rate, as that practised judges can generally tell them apart.
Again: —
“We see in these facts some deep organic bond, prevailing throughout space and time, over the same areas of land and water, and independent of their physical condition. The naturalist must feel little curiosity who is not led to inquire what this bond is.
“This bond, on my theory, is simply inheritance, that cause which alone,” &c. ().
This passage was altered in 1869 to “The bond is simply inheritance.” The paragraph concludes, “On this principle of inheritance with modification, we can understand how it is that sections of genera . . . are confined to the same areas,” &c.
Again: —
“He who rejects it rejects the vera causa of ordinary generation,” &c. ().
We naturally ask, Why call natural selection the “main means of modification,” if “ordinary generation” is a vera causa?
Again: —
“In discussing this subject, we shall be enabled at the same time to consider a point equally important for us, namely, whether the several distinct species of a genus, which on my theory have all descended from a common ancestor, can have migrated (undergoing modification during some part of their migration) from the area inhabited by their progenitor” ().
The words “on my theory” became “on our theory” in 1869.
Again: —
“With those organic beings which never intercross (if such exist) the species, on my theory, must have descended from a succession of improved varieties,” &c. ().
The words “on my theory” were cut out in 1869.
Again: —
“A slow southern migration of a marine fauna will account, on the theory of modification, for many closely allied forms,” &c. ().
Again: —
“But the existence of several quite distinct species, belonging to genera exclusively confined to the southern hemisphere, is, on my theory of descent with modification, a far more remarkable case of difficulty” ().
“My” became “the” in 1866 with the fourth edition. This was the most categorical claim to the theory of descent with modification in the “Origin of Species.” The “my” here is the only one that was taken out before 1869. I suppose Mr. Darwin thought that with the removal of this “my” he had ceased to claim the theory of descent with modification. Nothing, however, could be gained by calling the reader’s attention to what had been done, so nothing was said about it.
Again: —
“Some species of fresh-water shells have a very wide range, and allied species, which, on my theory, are descended from a single source, prevail throughout the world” ().
“My theory” became “our theory” in 1869.
Again: —
“In the following remarks I shall not confine myself to the mere question of dispersal, but shall consider some other facts which bear upon the truth of the two theories of independent creation and of descent with modification” (). What can be plainer than that the theory which Mr. Darwin espouses, and has so frequently called “my,” is descent with modification?
Again: —
“But as these animals and their spawn are known to be immediately killed by sea-water, on my view, we can see that there would be great difficulty in their transportal across the sea, and therefore why they do not exist on any oceanic island. But why, on the theory of creation, they should not have been created there, it would be very difficult to explain” ().
“On my view” was cut out in 1869.
On the following page we read— “On my view this question can easily be answered.” “On my view” is retained in the latest edition.
Again: —
