More Letters of Charles Darwin Volume Ii Part 22

Down, October 20th, 1880.

What a man you are to do thoroughly whatever you undertake to do! The supply of specimens has been magnificent, and I have worked at them for a day and a half. I find a very few well-rounded grains of brick in the castings from over the gravel walk, and plenty over the hole in the field, and over the Roman floor. (547/2. See "The Formation of Vegetable Mould," 1881, pages 178 et seq. The Roman remains formed part of a villa discovered at Abinger, Surrey. Excavations were carried out, under Lord Farrer's direction, in a field adjoining the ground in which the Roman villa was first found, and extended observations were made by Lord Farrer, which led Mr. Darwin to conclude that a large part of the fine vegetable mould covering the floor of the villa had been brought up from below by worms.) You have done me the greatest possible service by making me more cautious than I should otherwise have been--viz., by sending me the rubbish from the road itself; in this rubbish I find very many particles, rounded (I suppose) by having been crushed, angles knocked off, and somewhat rolled about. But not a few of the particles may have pa.s.sed through the bodies of worms during the years since the road was laid down. I still think that the fragments are ground in the gizzards of worms, which always contain bits of stone; but I must try and get more evidence. I have to-day started a pot with worms in very fine soil, with sharp fragments of hard tiles laid on the surface, and hope to see in the course of time whether any of those become rounded. I do not think that more specimens from Abinger would aid me...

LETTER 548. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, March 7th.

I was quite mistaken about the "Gardeners' Chronicle;" in my index there are only the few enclosed and quite insignificant references having any relation to the minds of animals. When I returned to my work, I found that I had nearly completed my statement of facts about worms plugging up their burrows with leaves (548/1. Chapter II., of "The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms," 1881, contains a discussion on the intelligence shown by worms in the manner of plugging up their burrows with leaves (pages 78 et seq.).), etc., etc., so I waited until I had naturally to draw up a few concluding remarks. I hope that it will not bore you to read the few accompanying pages, and in the middle you will find a few sentences with a sort of definition of, or rather discussion on, intelligence. I am altogether dissatisfied with it. I tried to observe what pa.s.sed in my own mind when I did the work of a worm. If I come across a professed metaphysician, I will ask him to give me a more technical definition, with a few big words about the abstract, the concrete, the absolute, and the infinite; but seriously, I should be grateful for any suggestions, for it will hardly do to a.s.sume that every fool knows what "intelligent" means. (548/2. "Mr. Romanes, who has specially studied the minds of animals, believes that we can safely infer intelligence only when we see an individual profiting by its own experience...Now, if worms try to drag objects into their burrows, first in one way and then in another, until they at last succeed, they profit, at least in each particular instance, by experience" ("The Formation of Vegetable Mould," 1881, page 95).) You will understand that the MS. is only the first rough copy, and will need much correction. Please return it, for I have no other copy--only a few memoranda. When I think how it has bothered me to know what I mean by "intelligent," I am sorry for you in your great work on the minds of animals.

I daresay that I shall have to alter wholly the MS.

LETTER 549. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, March 8th [1881].

Very many thanks for your note. I have been observing the [worm] tracks on my walks for several months, and they occur (or can be seen) only after heavy rain. As I know that worms which are going to die (generally from the parasitic larva of a fly) always come out of their burrows, I have looked out during these months, and have usually found in the morning only from one to three or four along the whole length of my walks. On the other hand, I remember having in former years seen scores or hundreds of dead worms after heavy rain. (549/1. "After heavy rain succeeding dry weather, an astonishing number of dead worms may sometimes be seen lying on the ground. Mr. Galton informs me that on one occasion (March, 1881), the dead worms averaged one for every two-and-a-half paces in length on a walk in Hyde Park, four paces in width" (loc. cit., page 14).) I cannot possibly believe that worms are drowned in the course of even three or four days' immersion; and I am inclined to conclude that the death of sickly (probably with parasites) worms is thus hastened. I will add a few words to what I have said about these tracks. Occasionally worms suffer from epidemics (of what nature I know not) and die by the million on the surface of the ground. Your ruby paper answers capitally, but I suspect that it is only for dimming the light, and I know not how to illuminate worms by the same intensity of light, and yet of a colour which permits the actinic rays to pa.s.s. I have tried drawing triangles of damp paper through a small cylindrical hole, as you suggested, and I can discover no source of error. (549/2.

Triangles of paper were used in experiments to test the intelligence of worms (loc. cit., page 83).) Nevertheless, I am becoming more doubtful about the intelligence of worms. The worst job is that they will do their work in a slovenly manner when kept in pots (549/3. Loc. cit., page 75.), and I am beyond measure perplexed to judge how far such observations are trustworthy.

LETTER 550. TO E. RAY LANKESTER.

(550/1. Mr. Lankester had written October 11th, 1881, to thank Mr.

Darwin for the present of the Earthworm book. He asks whether Darwin knows of "any experiments on the influence of sea-water on earthworms.

I have a.s.sumed that it is fatal to them. But there is a littoral species (Pontodrilus of Perrier) found at Ma.r.s.eilles." Lankester adds, "It is a great pleasure and source of pride to me to see my drawing of the earthworm's alimentary ca.n.a.l figuring in your pages."

Down, October 13th [1881].

I have been much pleased and interested by your note. I never actually tried sea-water, but I was very fond of angling when a boy, and as I could not bear to see the worms wriggling on the hook, I dipped them always first in salt water, and this killed them very quickly. I remember, though not very distinctly, seeing several earthworms dead on the beach close to where a little brook entered, and I a.s.sumed that they had been brought down by the brook, killed by the sea-water, and cast on sh.o.r.e. With your skill and great knowledge, I have no doubt that you will make out much new about the anatomy of worms, whenever you take up the subject again.

LETTER 551. TO J.H. GILBERT. Down, January, 12th, 1882.

I have been much interested by your letter, for which I thank you heartily. There was not the least cause for you to apologise for not having written sooner, for I attributed it to the right cause, i.e. your hands being full of work.

Your statement about the quant.i.ty of nitrogen in the collected castings is most curious, and much exceeds what I should have expected. In lately reading one of your and Mr. Lawes' great papers in the "Philosophical Transactions" (551/1. The first Report on "Agricultural, Botanical, and Chemical Results of Experiments on the Mixed Herbage of Permanent Gra.s.sland, conducted for many years in succession on the same land," was published in the "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society" in 1880, the second paper appeared in the "Phil. Trans." for 1882, and the third in the "Phil. Trans." of 1900, Volume 192, page 139.) (the value and importance of which cannot, in my opinion, be exaggerated) I was struck with the similarity of your soil with that near here; and anything observed here would apply to your land. Unfortunately I have never made deep sections in this neighbourhood, so as to see how deep the worms burrow, except in one spot, and here there had been left on the surface of the chalk a little very fine ferruginous sand, probably of Tertiary age; into this the worms had burrowed to a depth of 55 and 61 inches. I have never seen here red castings on the surface, but it seems possible (from what I have observed with reddish sand) that much of the red colour of the underlying clay would be discharged in pa.s.sing through the intestinal ca.n.a.l.

Worms usually work near the surface, but I have noticed that at certain seasons pale-coloured earth is brought up from beneath the outlying blackish mould on my lawn; but from what depth I cannot say. That some must be brought up from a depth of four or five or six feet is certain, as the worms retire to this depth during very dry and very cold weather.

As worms devour greedily raw flesh and dead worms, they could devour dead larvae, eggs, etc., etc., in the soil, and thus they might locally add to the amount of nitrogen in the soil, though not of course if the whole country is considered. I saw in your paper something about the difference in the amount of nitrogen at different depths in the superficial mould, and here worms may have played a part. I wish that the problem had been before me when observing, as possibly I might have thrown some little light on it, which would have pleased me greatly.

2.IX.VIII. MISCELLANEOUS, 1846-1878.

(552/1. The following four letters refer to questions connected with the origin of coal.)

LETTER 552. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May [1846].

I am delighted that you are in the field, geologising or palaeontologising. I beg you to read the two Rogers' account of the Coal-fields of N. America; in my opinion they are eminently instructive and suggestive. (552/1. "On the Physical Structure of the Appalachian Chain," by W.B. and H.D. Rogers. Boston, 1843. See also "Geology of Pennsylvania," by H.D. Rogers. 4 volumes. London and Philadelphia, 1843.) I can lend you their resume of their own labours, and, indeed, I do not know that their work is yet published in full. L. Horner gives a capital balance of difficulties on the Coal-theory in his last Anniversary Address, which, if you have not read, will, I think, interest you. (552/2. "Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume II., 1846, page 170.) In a paper just read an author (552/3. "On the Remarkable Fossil Trees lately discovered near St. Helen's." By E.W. Binney. "Phil.

Mag." Volume XXIV., page 165, 1844. On page 173 the author writes: "The Stigmaria or Sigillaria, whichever name is to be retained... was a tree that undoubtedly grew in water.") throws out the idea that the Sigillaria was an aquatic plant (552/4. See "Life and Letters," I., pages 356 et seq.)--I suppose a Cycad-Conifer with the habits of the mangrove. From simple geological reasoning I have for some time been led to suspect that the great (and great and difficult it is) problem of the Coal would be solved on the theory of the upright plants having been aquatic. But even on such, I presume improbable notion, there are, as it strikes me, immense difficulties, and none greater than the width of the coal-fields. On what kind of coast or land could the plants have lived?

It is a grand problem, and I trust you will grapple with it. I shall like much to have some discussion with you. When will you come here again? I am very sorry to infer from your letter that your sister has been ill.

LETTER 553. TO J.D. HOOKER. [June 2nd, 1847.]

I received your letter the other day, full of curious facts, almost all new to me, on the coal-question. (553/1. Sir Joseph Hooker deals with the formation of coal in his cla.s.sical paper "On the Vegetation of the Carboniferous Period, as compared with that of the Present Day." "Mem.

Geol. Surv. Great Britain," Volume II., pt. ii., 1848.) I will bring your note to Oxford (553/2. The British a.s.sociation met at Oxford in 1847.), and then we will talk it over. I feel pretty sure that some of your purely geological difficulties are easily solvable, and I can, I think, throw a very little light on the sh.e.l.l difficulty. Pray put no stress in your mind about the alternate, neatly divided, strata of sandstone and shale, etc. I feel the same sort of interest in the coal question as a man does watching two good players at play, he knowing little or nothing of the game. I confess your last letter (and this you will think very strange) has almost raised Binney's notion (an old, growing hobby-horse of mine) to the dignity of an hypothesis (553/3.

Binney suggested that the Coal-plants grew in salt water. (See Letters 102, 552.) Recent investigations have shown that several of the plants of the Coal period possessed certain anatomical peculiarities, which indicate xerophytic characteristics, and lend support to the view that some at least of the plants grew in seash.o.r.e swamps.), though very far yet below the promotion of being properly called a theory.

I will bring the remainder of my species-sketch to Oxford to go over your remarks. I have lately been getting a good many rich facts. I saw the poor old Dean of Manchester (553/4. Dean Herbert.) on Friday, and he received me very kindly. He looked dreadfully ill, and about an hour afterwards died! I am most sincerely sorry for it.

LETTER 554. TO J.D. HOOKER. [May 12th, 1847.]

I cannot resist thanking you for your most kind note. Pray do not think that I was annoyed by your letter. I perceived that you had been thinking with animation, and accordingly expressed yourself strongly, and so I understood it. Forefend me from a man who weighs every expression with Scotch prudence. I heartily wish you all success in your n.o.ble problem, and I shall be very curious to have some talk with you and hear your ultimatum. (554/1. The above paragraph was published in "Life and Letters," I., page 359.) I do really think, after Binney's pamphlet (554/2. "On the Origin of Coal," "Mem. Lit. Phil. Soc."

Manchester Volume VIII., page 148, 1848.), it will be worth your while to array your facts and ideas against an aquatic origin of the coal, though I do not know whether you object to freshwater. I am sure I have read somewhere of the cones of Lepidodendron being found round the stump of a tree, or am I confusing something else? How interesting all rooted--better, it seems from what you say, than upright--specimens become.

I wish Ehrenberg would undertake a microscopical hunt for infusoria in the underclay and shales; it might reveal something. Would a comparison of the ashes of terrestrial peat and coal give any clue? (554/3. In an article by M. F. Rigaud on "La Formation de la Houille," published in the "Revue Scientifique," Volume II., page 385, 1894, the author lays stress on the absence of certain elements in the ash of coals, which ought to be present, on the a.s.sumption that the carbon has been derived from plant tissues. If coal consists of altered vegetable debris, we ought to find a certain amount of alkalies and phosphoric acid in its ash. Had such substances ever been present, it is difficult to understand how they could all have been removed by the solvent action of water. (Rigaud's views are given at greater length in an article on the "Structure and Formation of Coal," "Science Progress," Volume II., pages 355 and 431, 1895.)) Peat ashes are good manure, and coal ashes, except mechanically, I believe are of little use. Does this indicate that the soluble salts have been washed out? i.e., if they are NOT present. I go up to Geological Council to-day--so farewell.

(554/4. In a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker, October 6th, 1847, Mr. Darwin, in referring to the origin of Coal, wrote: "...I sometimes think it could not have been formed at all. Old Sir Anthony Carlisle once said to me gravely that he supposed Megatherium and such cattle were just sent down from heaven to see whether the earth would support them, and I suppose the coal was rained down to puzzle mortals. You must work the coal well in India.")

LETTER 555. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 22nd, 1860.

Lyell tells me that Binney has published in Proceedings of Manchester Society a paper trying to show that Coal plants must have grown in very marine marshes. (555/1. "On the Origin of Coal," by E.W. Binney, "Mem.

Lit. Phil. Soc. Manchester," Volume VIII., 1848, page 148. Binney examines the evidence on which dry land has been inferred to exist during the formation of the Coal Measures, and comes to the conclusion that the land was covered by water, confirming Brongniart's opinion that Sigillaria was an aquatic plant. He believes the Sigillaria "grew in water, on the deposits where it is now discovered, and that it is the plant which in a great measure contributed to the formation of our valuable beds of coal." (Loc. cit., page 193.)) Do you remember how savage you were long years ago at my broaching such a conjecture?

LETTER 556. TO L. HORNER. Down [1846?].

I am truly pleased at your approval of my book (556/1. "Geological Observations on South America," London, 1846.): it was very kind of you taking the trouble to tell me so. I long hesitated whether I would publish it or not, and now that I have done so at a good cost of trouble, it is indeed highly satisfactory to think that my labour has not been quite thrown away.

I entirely acquiesce in your criticism on my calling the Pampean formation "recent" (556/2. "We must, therefore, conclude that the Pampean formation belongs, in the ordinary geological sense of the word, to the Recent Period." ("Geol. Obs." page 101).); Pleistocene would have been far better. I object, however, altogether on principle (whether I have always followed my principle is another question) to designate any epoch after man. It breaks through all principles of cla.s.sification to take one mammifer as an epoch. And this is presupposing we know something of the introduction of man: how few years ago all beds earlier than the Pleistocene were characterised as being before the monkey epoch. It appears to me that it may often be convenient to speak of an Historical or Human deposit in the same way as we speak of an Elephant bed, but that to apply it to an epoch is unsound.

I have expressed myself very ill, and I am not very sure that my notions are very clear on this subject, except that I know that I have often been made wroth (even by Lyell) at the confidence with which people speak of the introduction of man, as if they had seen him walk on the stage, and as if, in a geological chronological sense, it was more important than the entry of any other mammifer.

You ask me to do a most puzzling thing, to point out what is newest in my volume, and I found myself incapable of doing almost the same for Lyell. My mind goes from point to point without deciding: what has interested oneself or given most trouble is, perhaps quite falsely, thought newest. The elevation of the land is perhaps more carefully treated than any other subject, but it cannot, of course, be called new.

I have made out a sort of index, which will not take you a couple of minutes to skim over, and then you will perhaps judge what seems newest.

The summary at the end of the book would also serve same purpose.

I do not know where E. de B. [Elie de Beaumont] has lately put forth on the recent elevation of the Cordillera. He "rapported" favourably on d'Orbigny, who in late times fires off a most Royal salute; every volcano bursting forth in the Andes at the same time with their elevation, the debacle thus caused depositing all the Pampean mud and all the Patagonian shingle! Is not this making Geology nice and simple for beginners?

We have been very sorry to hear of Bunbury's severe illness; I believe the measles are often dangerous to grown-up people. I am very glad that your last account was so much better.

I am astonished that you should have had the courage to go right through my book. It is quite obvious that most geologists find it far easier to write than to read a book.

Chapter I. and II.--Elevation of the land: equability on E. coast as shown by terraces, page 19; length on W. coast, page 53; height at Valparaiso, page 32; number of periods of rest at Coquimbo, page 49; elevation within Human period near Lima greater than elsewhere observed; the discussion (page 41) on non-horizontality of terraces perhaps one of newest features--on formation of terraces rather newish.

Chapter III., page 65.--Argument of horizontal elevation of Cordillera I believe new. I think the connection (page 54) between earthquake [shocks] and insensible rising important.

Chapter IV.--The strangeness of the (Eocene) mammifers, co-existing with recent sh.e.l.ls.