skip to content

Darwin Correspondence Project

From Alpheus Hyatt   23 May 1881

Annisquam, Mass.

May 23rd 1881

Honored Sir

I do not think my little essay needed an acknowledgement from you of so serious a tone as that which I have just received.1 I feel honored by your intention to read my brochure on Steinheim Shells, and hope, that notwithstanding it’s imperfections, it may not entirely disappoint you.2

It would have been made much more perfect, if I had had the opportunity for revising all my conclusions by a third visit to Steinheim. I should then have done greater justice to Hilgendorf for whom I have such a high respect.3

I cannot now take any other view than, that, he and those who support him have not had the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the geological side of the question.

Certainly, if the conditions of the deposition of sediment are the same in European as in American lakes, I did reach as old a stratum as ever Hilgendorf did.

His claim, in that case, that I only reached a comparatively much younger stratum than he did falls to the ground. His claim is, that he sunk holes farther out from the old shore line and therefore pierced down to older strata where Pl. levis = Pl. Steinheim, var aequiumbilicatus existed alone without intermixture of other forms.4 You would think I was insincere, if I wrote you what I really felt with regard to what you have done for the theory of Descent.

Perhaps this essay will lead you to a more correct view, than you now have of my estimate, if I can be said to have any claim to make an estimate of your work in this direction.

You will not take offence however, if I tell you that your strongest supporters can hardly give you greater esteem, and honor.

I have striven to get a just idea of your theory, but no doubt have failed to convey this in my publications as it ought to be done.5

You certainly have explained to my mind the way in which differences arise, as I have tried to show in the essay you have; so far I have progressed, perhaps after one word awhile I may get better informed and see other applications. Do not think, I beg, that I consider I am able to fathom your books or your insight which I hold to be far beyond my plumb line.

Very respectfully | Alpheus Hyatt.

Footnotes

See letter to Alpheus Hyatt, 8 May 1881 and n. 1. The brochure was Hyatt 1880. Regarding the phylogeny of fossil snails found in the Steinheim crater in Heidenheim, Germany, Hyatt claimed that the whole series arose within a relatively short time in parallel lineages (ibid., pp. 106–11). Hyatt had given CD a long statement of his findings in a letter of January 1877 (Correspondence vol. 25).
In contrast to Hyatt, Franz Hilgendorf had published a phylogeny of the Steinheim fossil shells in which different forms were associated with ten different strata and all forms ultimately traced back to one foundation species (Hilgendorf 1866; see Rasser 2013, pp. 10–12, for more on Hilgendorf’s conclusions on the phylogeny of the Steinheim shells).
For the varieties of Planorbis levis, see Hyatt 1880, pp. 8–9 (‘levis’ was Hyatt’s misspelling of ‘laevis’; see also Correspondence vol. 25, letter from Alphaeus Hyatt, January 1877 and n. 11). Hilgendorf’s foundation species name was Planorbis multiformis aequiumbilicatus (both Hyatt’s and Hilgendorf’s names are synonyms of Gyraulus kleini). In a letter published in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft 27 (1875): 224–7, Hilgendorf had suggested that the reason both Hyatt and Fridolin Sandberger, who had also written on the shells, found a mixture of forms in the same strata was that they had not sampled from the lowest undisturbed levels. Following the appearance of Hyatt 1880, Hilgendorf wrote a review in which he extended his critique of Hyatt’s investigation, while noting some similarities in their classification systems (Hilgendorf 1881).
For more on Hyatt’s evolutionary theory as applied to his work on the Steinheim shells, see Gould 2002, pp. 370–83.

Bibliography

Gould, Stephen Jay. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hilgendorf, Franz. 1866. Ueber Planorbis multiformis im Steinheimer Süswasserkalk. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1866): 474–504.

Hilgendorf, Franz. 1881. Besprechung der neu erschienene Schrift The genesis of the tertiary species of Planorbis at Steinheim by A. Hyatt. [Review of Hyatt 1880.] [Read 21 June 1881.] Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin (1881): 95–100.

Hyatt, Alpheus. 1880. The genesis of the Tertiary species of Planorbis at Steinheim. Boston: Boston Society of Natural History.

Rasser, Michael W. 2013. Darwin’s dilemma: the Steinheim snails’ point of view. Zoosystematics and Evolution 89: 13–20.

Summary

Wishes to correct impression of his attitude towards CD’s contribution: CD has successfully explained how differences arise.

Pleased CD will read his book [Tertiary species of Planorbis at Steinheim (1880)].

Letter details

Letter no.
DCP-LETT-13171
From
Alpheus Hyatt
To
Charles Robert Darwin
Sent from
Annisquam, Mass.
Source of text
DAR 166: 360
Physical description
ALS 4pp damaged

Please cite as

Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 13171,” accessed on 16 April 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-13171.xml

letter