 Preface
Full Title:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life.
Charles Darwin, M.A.,
Fellow of the Royal, Geological, Linnæan, etc. societies;
Author of Journal of researches during H. M. S. Beagle's
Voyage round the world. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street,
1859
The following preface appears in the (unknown)
edition from which the Brown version was transcribed: it
has been retained here as a comment, but not checked. LB
14-jul-94
Preface
FIRST EDITION OF THIS WORK AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
THE PROGRESS OF OPINION ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES PREVIOUSLY
TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE FIRST EDITION OF THIS WORK
I WILL here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion
on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority
of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions,
and had been separately created. This view has been ably
maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the
other hand, have believed that species undergo modification,
and that the existing forms of life are the descendants
by true generation of pre-existing forms. Passing over allusions
to the subject in the classical writers,* the first author
who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit
was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different
periods, and as he does not enter on the causes *
Aristotle, in his 'Physicae Auscultationes' (lib. 2, cap.
8, s. 2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order
to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to spoil the
farmer's corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same
argument to organization: and adds (as translated by Mr
Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me), 'So
what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having
this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth,
for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted
for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for
masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake
of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like
manner as to the other parts in which there appears to exist
an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things
together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like
as if they were made for the sake of something, these were
preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
spontaneity, and whatsoever things were not thus constituted,
perished, and still perish. or means of the transformation
of species, I need not here enter on details.
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject
excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist
first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them
in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently,
in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux
sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine
that species, including man, are descended from other species.
He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to
the probability of all change in the organic, as well as
in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not
of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been
chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species,
by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties,
by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups,
and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect
to the means of modification, he attributed something to
the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something
to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use
and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter
agency he seemed to attribute all the beautiful adaptations
in nature; — such as the long neck of the giraffe
for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise believed
in a law of progressive development; and as all the forms
of life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the
existence at the present day of simple productions, he maintains
that such forms are now spontaneously generated.*
We here see the principle of natural selection
shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle fully comprehended
the principle, is shown by his remarks on the formation
of the teeth. *I have taken the date of the
first publication of Lamarck from Isid. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire's
('Hist. Nat. Générale,' tom. ii. p. 405, 1859)
excellent history of opinion on this subject. In this work
a full account is given of Buffon's conclusions on the same
subject. It is curious how largely my grandfather, Dr Erasmus
Darwin, anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion
of Lamarck in his 'Zoonomia' (vol. i. pp. 500-510), published
in 1794. According to Isid. Geoffroy there is no doubt that
Goethe was an extreme partisan of similar views, as shown
in the Introduction to a work written in 1794 and 1795,
but not published till long afterwards: he has pointedly
remarked ('Goethe als Naturforscher,' von Dr Karl Medinge
s. 34) that the future question for naturalists will be
how, for instance, cattle got their horns, and not for what
they are used. It is rather a singular instance of the manner
in which similar views arise at about the same time, that
Goethe in Germany, Dr Darwin in England, and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire
(as we shall immediately see) in France; came to the same
conclusion on the origin of species, in the years 1794-5.
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, as is stated in his 'Life,' written
by his son, suspected, as early as 1795, that what we call
species are various degenerations of the same type. It was
not until 1828 that he published his conviction that the
same forms have not been perpetuated since the origin of
all things. Geoffroy seems to have relied chiefly on the
conditions of life, or the 'monde ambiant' as the
cause of change. He was cautious in drawing conclusions,
and did not believe that existing species are now undergoing
modification; and, as his son adds, "C'est donc un problème
à réserver entièrement à l'avenir,
supposé meme que l'avenir doive avoir prise sur lui.'
In 1813, Dr W. C. Wells read before the Royal Society
'An Account of a White female, part of whose skin resembled
that of a Negro'; but his paper was not published until
his famous 'Two Essays upon Dew and Single Vision' appeared
in 1818. In this paper he distinctly recognises the principle
of natural selection, and this is the first recognition
which has been indicated; but he applies it only to the
races of man, and to certain characters alone. After remarking
that negroes and mulattoes enjoy an immunity from certain
tropical diseases, he observes, firstly, that all animals
tend to vary in some degree, and, secondly, that agriculturists
improve their domesticated animals by selection; and then,
he adds, but what is done in this latter case 'by art, seems
to be done with equal efficacy, though more slowly, by nature,
in the formation of varieties of mankind, fitted for the
country which they inhabit. Of the accidental varieties
of man, which would occur among the first few and scattered
inhabitants of the middle regions of Africa, some one would
be better fitted than the others to bear the diseases of
the country. This race would consequently multiply, while
the others would decrease; not only from their inability
to sustain the attacks of disease, but from their incapacity
of contending with their more vigorous neighbours. The colour
of this vigorous race I take for granted, from what has
been already said, would be dark. But the same disposition
to form varieties still existing, a darker and a darker
race would in the course of time occur: and as the darkest
would be the best fitted for the climate, this would at
length become the most prevalent; if not the only race,
in the particular country in which it had originated.' He
then extends these same views to the white inhabitants of
colder climates. I am indebted to Mr Rowley, of the United
States, for having called my attention, through Mr Brace,
to the above passage in Dr Wells' work.
The Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert, afterwards Dean of Manchester,
in the fourth volume of the 'Horticultural Transactions,'
1822, and in his work on the 'Amaryllidaceae' (1837, pp.
19, 339), declares that 'horticultural experiments have
established, beyond the possibility of refutation, that
botanical species are only a higher and more permanent class
of varieties.' He extends the same view to animals. The
Dean believes that single species of each genus were created
in an originally highly plastic condition, and that these
have produced, chiefly by intercrossing, but likewise by
variation, all our existing species.
In 1826 Professor Grant, in the concluding paragraph in
his well-known paper ('Edinburgh philosophical journal,'
vol. xiv. p. 283) on the Spongilla, clearly declares his
belief that species are descended from other species, and
that they become improved in the course of modification.
This same view was given in his 55th Lecture, published
in the 'Lancet' in 1834.
In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval
Timber and Arboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the
same view on the origin of species as that (presently to
be alluded to) propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the
'Linnean journal,' and as that enlarged in the present volume.
Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew very briefly
in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different
subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew
himself drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,'
on April 7th, 1860. The differences of Mr Matthew's view
from mine are not of much importance; he seems to consider
that the world was nearly depopulated at successive periods,
and then re-stocked; and he gives as an alternative, that
new forms may be generated ' without the presence of any
mould or germ of former aggregates.' I am not sure that
I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes
much influence to the direct action of the conditions of
life. He clearly saw, however, the full force of the principle
of natural selection.
The celebrated geologist and naturalist, Von Buch, in
his excellent 'Description physique des Isles Canaries'
(1836, p. 147), clearly expresses his belief that varieties
slowly become changed into permanent species, which are
no longer capable of intercrossing.
Rafinesque, in his 'New Flora of North America,' published
in 1836, wrote (p. 6) as follows:- 'All species might have
been varieties once, and many varieties are gradually becoming
species by assuming constant and peculiar characters'; but
farther on (p. 18) he adds, 'except the original types or
ancestors of the genus.'
In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman ('Boston journal of Nat.
Hist. U. States, vol. iv. p. 468) has ably given the arguments
for and against the hypothesis of the development and modification
of species: he seems to lean towards the side of change.
The 'Vestiges of Creation' appeared in 1844. In the tenth
and much improved edition (1853) the anonymous author says
(p. 155):- 'The proposition determined on after much consideration
is, that the several series of animated beings, from the
simplest and oldest up to the highest and most recent, are,
under the providence of God, the results, first,
of an impulse which has been imparted to the forms of life,
advancing them, in definite times, by generation, through
grades of organisation terminating in the highest dicotyledons-
and vertebrata, these grades being few in number, and generally
marked by intervals of organic character, which we find
to be a practical difficulty in ascertaining affinities;
second, of another impulse connected with the vital
forces, tending, in the course of generations, to modify
organic structures in accordance with external circumstances,
as food, the nature of the habitat, and the meteoric agencies,
these being the ''adaptations'' of the natural theologian.'
The author apparently believes that organisation progresses
by sudden leaps, but that the effects produced by the conditions
of life are gradual. He argues with much force on general
grounds that species are not immutable productions. But
I cannot see how the two supposed 'impulses' account in
a scientific sense for the numerous and beautiful co-adaptations
which we see throughout nature; I cannot see that we thus
gain any insight how, for instance, a woodpecker has become
adapted to its peculiar habits of Life. The work, from its
powerful and brilliant style, though displaying in the earlier
editions little accurate knowledge and a great want of scientific
caution, immediately had a very wide circulation. In my
opinion it has done excellent service in this country in
calling attention to the subject, in removing prejudice,
and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of analogous
views.
In 1846 the veteran geologist N. J. d'Omalius d'Halloy
published in an excellent though short paper ("Bulletins
de l'Acad. Roy Bruxelles,' tom. xiii. p. 581) his opinion
that it is more probable that new species have been produced
by descent with modification than that they have been separately
created: the author first promulgated this opinion in 1831.
Professor Owen, in 1849 ('Nature of Limbs,' p. 86), wrote
as follows:- "The archetypal idea was manifested in the
flesh under diverse such modifications, upon this planet,
long prior to the existence of those animal species that
actually exemplify it. To what natural laws or secondary
causes the orderly succession and progression of such organic
phenomena may have been committed, we, as yet, are ignorant.'
In his Address to the British Association, in 1858, he speaks
(p. li.) of "the axiom of the continuous operation of creative
power, or of the ordained becoming of living things.' Farther
on (p. xc.), after referring to geographical distribution,
he adds, 'These phenomena shake our confidence in the conclusion
that the Apteryx of New Zealand and the Red Grouse of England
were distinct creations in and for those islands respectively.
Always, also, it may be well to bear in mind that by the
word ''creation'' the zoologist means '"a process he knows
not what.'' He amplifies this idea by adding that when such
cases as that of the Red Grouse are enumerated by the zoologists
as evidence of distinct creation of the bird in and for
such islands, he chiefly expresses that he knows not how
the Red Grouse came to be there, and there exclusively;
signifying also, by this mode of expressing such ignorance,
his belief that both the bird and the islands owed their
origin to a great first Creative Cause.' If we interpret
these sentences given in the same Address, one by the other,
it appears that this eminent philosopher felt in 1858 his
confidence shaken that the Apteryx and the Red Grouse first
appeared in their respective homes, 'he knew not how,' or
by some process 'he knew not what.'
This Address was delivered after the papers by Mr Wallace
and myself on the Origin of Species, presently to be referred
to, had been read before the Linnean Society. When the first
edition of this work was published, I was so completely
deceived, as were many others, by such expressions as 'the
continuous operation of creative power,' that I included
Professor Owen with other palaeontologists as being firmly
convinced of the immutability of species; but it appears
('Anat. of Vertebrates,' vol. iii. p. 796) that this was
on my part a preposterous error. In the last edition of
this work I inferred, and the inference still seems to me
perfectly just, from a passage beginning with the words
'no doubt the type-form,' &c. (Ibid. vol. i. p. xxxv.),
that Professor Owen admitted that natural selection may
have done something in the formation of a new species; but
this it appears (Ibid. vol. nl. p. 798) is inaccurate and
without evidence. I also gave some extracts from a correspondence
between Professor Owen and the Editor of the 'London Review,'
from which it appeared manifest to the Editor as well as
to myself, that Professor Owen claimed to have promulgated
the theory of natural selection before I had done so; and
I expressed my surprise and satisfaction at this announcement;
but as far as it is possible to understand certain recently
published passages (Ibid. vol. iii. p. 798) I have either
partially or wholly again fallen into error. It is consolatory
to me that others find Professor Owen's controversial writings
as difficult to understand and to reconcile with each other,
as I do. As far as the mere enunciation of the principle
of natural selection is concerned, it is quite immaterial
whether or not Professor Owen preceded me, for both of us,
as shown in this historical sketch, were long ago preceded
by Dr Wells and Mr Matthews.
M. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, in his lectures delivered
in 1850 (of which a Résumé appeared in the
'Revue et Nag. de Zoolog.,' Jan. 1851), briefly gives his
reason for believing that specific characters "sont fixés,
pour chaque espèce, tant qu'elle se perpétue
au milieu des mèmes circonstances: ils se modifient,
si les circonstances ambiantes viennent à changer.'
'En résumé, l'observation des animaux
sauvages démontre déjà la variabilité
limité des espèces. Les expériences
sur les animaux sauvages devenus domestiques, et sur les
animaux domestiques redevenus sauvages, la démontrent
plus clairement encore. Ces memes expériences prouvent,
de plus, que les différences produites peuvent etre
de valeur générique.' In his 'Hist.
Nat. Généralé (tom. ii. p. 430, 1859)
he amplifies analogous conclusions.
From a circular lately issued it appears that Dr Freke,
in 1851 ("Dublin Medical Press,' p. 322), propounded the
doctrine that all organic beings have descended from one
primordial form. His grounds of belief and treatment of
the subject are wholly different from mine; but as Dr Freke
has now (1861) published his Essay on the 'Origin of Species
by means of Organic Affinity,' the difficult attempt to
give any idea of his views would be superfluous on my part.
Mr Herbert Spencer, in an Essay (originally published
in the 'Leader,' March, 1852, and republished in his 'Essays,'
in 1858), has contrasted the theories of the Creation and
the Development of organic beings with remarkable skill
and force. He argues from the analogy of domestic productions,
from the changes which the embryos of many species undergo,
from the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties,
and from the principle of general gradation, that species
have been modified; and he attributes the modification to
the change of circumstances. The author (1855) has also
treated psychology on the principle of the necessary acquirement
of each mental power and capacity by gradation.
In 1852 M. Naudin, a distinguished botanist, expressly
stated, in an admirable paper on the Origin of Species ('Revue
Horticole, p. 102; since partly republished in the 'Nouvelles
Archives du Muséum,' tom.
i. p. 171), his belief that species are formed in an analogous
manner as varieties are under cultivation; and the latter
process he attributes to man's power of selection. But he
does not show how selection acts under nature. He believes,
like Dean Herbert, that species, when nascent, were more
plastic than at present. He lays weight on what he calls
the principle of finality, 'puissance mystérieuse,
indéterminée; fatalité pour les uns;
pour les autres volonté providentielle, dont l'action
incessante sur les ètres vivants détermine,
à toutes les époques de l'existence du monde,
la forme, le volume, et la durée de chacun d'eux,
en raison de sa destinée dans l'ordre de choses dont
il fait partie. C'est cette puissance qui harmonise chaque
membre à l'ensemble, en l'appropriant à la
fonction qu'il doit remplir dans l'organisme général
de la nature, fonction qui est pour lui sa raison d'ètre.'*
* From references in Bronn's 'Untersuchungen über
die Entwickenlungs-Gesetze,' it appears that the celebrated
botanist and palaeontologist Unger published, in 1852, his
belief that species undergo development and modification.
Dalton, likewise, in Pander and Dalton's work on Fossil
Sloths, expressed, in 1821 a similar belief. Similar views
have, as is well known, been maintained by Oken in his mystical
'Natur-philosophie.' From other references in Godron's work
'Sur l'Espéce,' it seems that Bory St Vincent, Burdach,
Poiret, and Fries, have all admitted that new species are
continually being produced.
In 1853 a celebrated geologist, Count Keyserling ("Bulletin
de la Soc. Gèolog.,' 2nd Ser., tom. x. p. 357), suggested
that as new diseases, supposed to have been caused by some
miasma, have arisen and spread over the world, so at certain
periods the germs of existing species may have been chemically
affected by circumambient molecules of a particular nature,
and thus have given rise to new forms.
In this same year, 1853, Dr Schaaffhausen published an
excellent pamphlet ('Verhand. des Naturhist. Vereins der
preuss. Rheinlands,' &c.), in which he maintains the
development of organic forms on the earth. He infers that
many species have kept true for long periods, whereas a
few have become modified. The distinction of species he
explains by the destruction of intermediate graduated forms.
'Thus living plants and animals are not separated from the
extinct by new creations, but are to be regarded as their
descendants through continued reproduction.'
I may add, that of the thirty-four authors named
in this Historical Sketch, who believe in the modification
of species, or at least disbelieve in separate acts of creation,
twenty-seven have written on special branches of natural
history or geology.
A well-known French botanist, M. Lecoq, writes in 1854
('Etudes sur Géograph. Bot.,' tom. i. p. 250), 'On
voit que nos recherches sur la fixité ou la variation
de l'espèce, nous conduisent directement aux idées
émises, par deux hommes justement célèbres,
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire et Goethe.' Some other passages scattered
through M. Lecoq's large work, make it a little doubtful
how far he extends his views on the modification of species.
The 'Philosophy of Creation' has been treated in a masterly
manner by the Rev. Baden Powell, in his "Essays on the Unity
of Worlds,' 1855. Nothing can be more striking than the
manner in which he shows that the introduction of new species
is "a regular, not a casual phenomenon,' or, as Sir John
Herschel expresses it, 'a natural in contradistinction to
a miraculous, process.'
The third volume of the "Journal of the Linnean Society'
contains papers, read July 1st, 1858, by Mr Wallace and
myself, in which, as stated in the introductory remarks
to this volume, the theory of Natural Selection is promulgated
by Mr Wallace with admirable force and clearness.
Von Baer, towards whom all zoologists feel so profound
a respect, expressed about the year 1859 (see Prof. Rudolph
Wagner, a "Zoologisch-Anthropologische Untersuchungen,'
1861, s. 51) his conviction, chiefly grounded on the laws
of geographical distribution, that forms now perfectly distinct
have descended from a single parent-form.
In June, 1859, Professor Huxley gave a lecture before
the Royal Institution on the 'Persistent Types of Animal
Life.' Referring to such cases, he remarks, "It is difficult
to comprehend the meaning of such facts as these, if we
suppose that each species of animal and plant, or each great
type of organisation, was formed and placed upon the surface
of the globe at long intervals by a distinct act of creative
power; and it is well to recollect that such an assumption
is as unsupported by tradition or revelation as it is opposed
to the general analogy of nature. If, on the other hand,
we view 'Persistent Types' in relation to that hypothesis
which supposes the species living at any time to be the
result of the gradual modification of pre-existing species
a hypothesis which, though unproven, and sadly damaged by
some of its supporters, is yet the only one to which physiology
lends any countenance; their existence would seem to show
that the amount of modification which living beings have
undergone during geological time is but very small in relation
to the whole series of changes which they have suffered.'
In December, 1859, Dr Hooker published his 'Introduction
to the Australian Flora.' In the first part of this great
work he admits the truth of the descent and modification
of species, and supports this doctrine by many original
observations.
The first edition of this work was published on November
24th, 1859, and the second edition on January 7th, 1860.
|
