My dear Lyell

I thank Lady Lyell (whose kind note to William I answer) & yourself for all your sympathy.¹ Emma is going on very well, but she has had a sharpish attack.² Lenny has been fearfully ill, but is perhaps as strong as one could expect; he now gets up for some hours every day.³ We long to get to Bournemouth, where though in a separate house, we shall be close to our other children;⁴ & Horace is far from strong.⁵ The last two months misery has been enough to try anyone; but I suppose better times will come.— The Lubbocks have had for nearly a year (& have enjoyed) a separate house, “Lamas, Chiselhurst.”⁶

I am glad Glen Roy is settled;⁷ the moraines opposite L. Treig are obviously very important: if the slope inland can be proved, it will indeed be an important fact.— I heartily hope that you will be out in October;⁸ I fancy Huxley will be out sooner;⁹ Hooker speaks as if the book would be very interesting.¹⁰ You say that the Bishop & Owen will be down on you;¹¹ the latter hardly can, for I was assured that Owen in his Lectures this Spring, advanced as a new idea that wingless Birds had lost their wings by disuse.¹² Also that magpies stole spoons &c from a remnant of some instinct like that of the Bower-bird, which ornaments its playing passages with pretty feathers.¹³ Indeed I am told that he hinted plainly that all Birds are descended from one. What an unblushing man he must be to lecture thus after abusing me so & never to have openly retracted or alluded to my Book.¹⁴

Your P.S. touches on, as it seems to me, very difficult points.¹⁵ I am glad to see in Origin, I only say that naturalists generally consider that low organisms vary more than high;¹⁶ & this I think certainly is the general opinion. I put the statement this way to show that I considered it only an opinion probably true. I must own that I do not at all trust even Hooker’s contrary opinion, as I feel pretty sure that he has not tabulated any result.¹⁷ I have some materials at home, & think I attempted to make this point out, but cannot remember result.¹⁸

Mere variability, though the necessary foundation of all modifications, I believe to be almost always present enough to allow of any amount of selected change; so that it does not seem to me at all incompatible, that a group which at any one period (or during all successive periods) varies less, should in the long course of time have undergone more modification than a group which is generally more variable. Placental mammals e.g. might be at each period less variable than Marsupials, & nevertheless have undergone more differentiation & development than marsupials, owing to some advantage, probably Brain development.—

I am surprised, but do not pretend to form an opinion, at Hooker’s statement that higher species, genera &c are best limited.—¹⁹ It seems to me a bold statement.

Looking to the Origin I see that I state that the productions of the land seem to change quicker than those of the sea (Ch X. p. 339 3^d. Edit) & I add there is some reason to believe that organisms considered high in the scale change quicker than those that are low. I remember writing these sentences after much deliberation; but cannot now remember why I did not more fully adopt & quote your axiom of 1832.—²⁰ I remember well feeling much hesitation about putting in even the guarded sentences which I did. My doubts, I remember related to the rate of change of the Radiata in the Secondary formation & of the Foraminifera in the oldest Tertiary beds.

I daresay, however, your axiom may be quite true: I only remember considerable perplexity on subject; I sh^d. think mammals & molluscs rather too remote from each other for fair comparison.

I am tired with writing this long letter (though it has amused me writing it) & I fear that you will be tired with reading it, & that it will be much too vague to be of any service—

I was very glad to get your note.— I hope to goodness your Book won’t be delayed—

With kindest remembrances to Lady Lyell— Good Night— | C. Darwin