skip to content

Darwin Correspondence Project

From Alphonse de Candolle   18 January [1881]1

Genève

18 Janvier 1880

Mon cher Monsieur

J’ai achevé avec beaucoup de plaisir la lecture de votre volume On the movements of plants.2 J’ai admiré, comme dans d’autres occasions, votre persévérance dans des observations de détail, que vous multipliez de manière à donner des resultats généraux ayant une base suffisante.

C’est une jouissance de l’esprit quand on voit des faits épars se grouper dans un ensemble sous ce rapport   votre loi de circumnutation, qui embrasse et explique tout de phénomènes me plait beaucoup. J’aime aussi les termes que vous avez introduits. Ils sont plus simples et plus clairs que ceux usités précédemment, et étant tirés du grec ils passeront dans toutes les langues.3

Vous me permettrez de faire une reserve sur l’emploi du mot purpose que j’ai critiqué dans ma Phytographie. Il se rattache aux théories téléologiques, qui me paraissent contraires, ou au moins étrangères, à l’ensemble de vos ideès. Si j’ai encore une fois le plaisir de causer avec vous, nous romprons ensemble une lance—amicalement—sur ces vieilles questions.4

Pages 362, 363. Je ne sais ce quil faut penser de la réduction des folioles dans beaucoup de plantes. Plusieurs folioles sont une complication d’organisation et si l’on présume une evolution du simple au composé comme le mode ordinaire les plantes à plusieurs folioles viendraient de plantes unifoliolées. D’un autre côté on voit des espèces plurifoliolées produisent des formes unifoliolées. C’est le cas du Robinia pseudo-Acacia monophylla, qui commence à se répandre dans les jardins.5 J’en ai deux pieds sur les quels j’observe beaucoup de feuilles unifoliolées et quelques unes 3-4-5-foliolées. Le fraisier monophylle découvert dans les bois par Duchesne fils, venait d’un fraisier ordinaire 3-foliolé.6 On peut dire: ce sont des retours à un état primitif unifoliolé. Et aussi: ce sont des dégénérescences sans cause connue—des innovations de forme, comme on est obligé d’en admettre dans le système de l’evolution. Par parenthèses Mr Ray Lankester vient de faire un livre sur la dégénerescence sans se doute que l’idée et le mot étaient deja dans les ouvrages de mon père en 1813.7 Chez d’un la dégénerescence est dans les formes successives, chez l’autre dans la diminution de complication d’un état moyen, mais les faits et l’expression concordent.

Sur la complication relative des feuilles du bas de la plante (ou du rameau), du milieu et du sommet vous faites une comparaison avec les embryons que je ne comprends pas bien.8 Ce sont des organes similaires que je comparerais plutot aux pattes d’une écrevisse ou d’un myriapode, ou aux vertebres superposées d’un vertébré. Ils diffèrent en raison de causes qu’on peut deviner souvent. Les cotylédons sont gênés dans la graine, et les premières feuilles du rameau sont exposées aux intempéries pendant longtemps à l’extérieur du bourgeon. Il est tout simple que ces feuilles se developpent mal. Ensuite les feuilles marchent avec vigueur, sans obstacles et se compliquent plus ou moins. Enfin les feuilles supèrieures (bractèes, calyse) ont une végétation, par position, moins heureuse et reviennent à un état imparfait. Dans un mêmoire d’anatomie que mon fils vous a envoyé en 1880, on voit des faits analogues sur les vaisseaux plus ou moins compliqués qui existent dans les pétioles et la nervure centrale des feuilles.9 Leur complication diffère d’une espèce à l’autre dans quelques genres, d’un groupe d’espèeces à un autre dans certains autres genres ou de tout un genre à un autre, mais sur chaque branche les feuilles inférieures et supérières ne sont pas aussi compliques de structure. La géographie botanique rend compte quelquefois de la cause probable des différences. Ainsi mon fils a trouvé dans les Fagus antarctiques une organisation des petioles différente de celle des Fagus de notre hémisphère, quoique pour les fleurs et fruits ils soient très analogues.10 On peut presumer que les uns descendent d’une souche ancienne, les autres d’une autre souche, vu l’eloignement.

Vous n’avez pas considéré l’organisation des limbes comme pouvant influer sur les directions et les mouvements. Cependant les organes foliaces (des Graminées, Iris, Jacinthes, phyllodes des Acacias de la Nouvelle Hollande etc) qui ont des stomates des deux côtés, avec les cavités sous-jacentes, n’ont pas précisément des surfaces supérieures et inférieures, mais se dressent plutot, se tournent un peu sur elles mêmes ou se placent la tranche verticale sur le sol (phyllodes), ce qui, dit-on, donne aux forêts de la Nouvelle Hollande un aspect particulier.11 Il doit y avoir quelque relation entre cette organisation de tissu et la direction principale et ordinaire des organes.

Je ne sais si l’on s’est occupé en Allemagne de ce point de vue. Je remarque aussi que les traitès de botanique ne parlent pas de la relation des stomates et des positions, mais le fait a été connu depuis longtemps. Autant qu’il me souvient mon père le mentionnait dans ses cours ou en conversation. Ferdinand Müller indique le nombre des stomates sur les deux côtés des feuilles d’Eucalyptus (Eucalyptographia, in –4o).12 Il serait curieux de voir si les espèces ayant autant de stomates d’un côté que d’un autre, ou à peu près, se comportant d’une certaine manière quant aux directions ou plutot aux positions habituelles.

Les mouvements des plantes, d’aprés vos travaux, ressemblent beaucoup aux mouvements involontaires, plus ou moins localisés, des animaux—surtout à ceux des tissus érectiles. On présume partout ou on a la preuve que la cause est dans la translation des sucs ou dans l’accroissement des tissus qui en est l’effet. D’un autre côté je ne vois rien dans les végétaux qui ressemble aux mouvements volontaires, determinés chez des animaux (même inférieurs) par la crainte d’un ennemi éloigné, le desir de prendre un objet nourrissant, etc. On dira peut-être que les ondulations lumineuses ou sonores agissent sur le système nerveux, comme l’humidité de l’air sur une racine, en determinant des changements intérieurs physiques. Mais les physiologistes n’en sont pas encore à pouvoir expliquer la transformation des forces exterieures en volonté. A moins de se payer de mots ou de comparaisons il me semble qu’on en est loin.13

J’avais dit quelques mots à Monsieur votre fils d’un procédé graphique dont j’ai essayé de me servir pour me rendre compte des faits d’hérédité. Je n’avais pas le temps de m’expliquer, mais voici un spécimen, tracé d’aprés un individu quelconque imaginé. Vous me direz, en me renvoyant le papier, si vous et Monsr Francis14 y voyez quelque cause d’erreur et si je ferais bien, de m’en servir, tot ou tard, dans quelque publication.

L’objection principale est que très rarement on possède sur trois générations successives des details assez nombreux et assez certains pour qu’un tableau pareil puisse être dressé. J’avais dabord l’intention de tracer des lignes pour des familles de princes bien connues. J’ai essayé Louis XVI, Frederic II, les Stuarts, Charles IX fils de Catherine de Medicis.15 On a des renseignements variés et considérables sur chacun de ces personnages, mais quand on regarde de plus près on trouve que les mères ou aieules sont souvent à peine connues et que dans les rois on a mentionné surtout les caractères qui intéressent le public et les courtisants, sans dire un mot des autres. Voyant ces lacunes, j’ai cherché des familles de ma connaissance. Encore des incertitudes, des lacunes, surtout à l’egard des femmes. Enfin je me suis amusé à faire mon propre tableau. Voici ce que j’ai trouvé, qu’on ne verrait pas dans d’autres personnes, même de ma famille, car le genre des ressemblances diffère beaucoup.

J’ai constaté 38 caractères par les quels on me distinguerait d’un autre individu de ma race ou sous-race.

Ils existaient tous chez mon père ou ma mère16 ou chez les deux en même temps. Je n’ai donc rien qui me soit propre, et il n’y a pas de fait d’atavisme dans ce cas particulier.

Sur 13 caractères physiques extérieurs, 11 existaient aussi chez mon père, dont 3 se voyaient aussi chez mon aieul paternel, et 1 chez mon aieule paternelle. 2 seulement existaient chez ma mère et j’ignore s’ils existaient chez ses parents.17

Sur 8 caractères internes, que j’ai pu constater, 3 existaient chez mon père, 1 chez ma mère, 4 étaient chez mes deux parents. Un est venu de mon aieul paternel à mon père et à moi.

Sur 10 caractères moraux, 2 etaient chez mon père, et en même temps chez son père; 3 chez ma mère, dont un chez mon aieul maternel aussi; 5 chez mes deux parents, dont 4 venaient surtout de la ligne maternelle.

Sur 7 caractères intellectuels, 4 etaient chez mon père; 2 chez ma mère; 1 chez les deux. Je ne sais pas s’ils remontaient plus haut.

Ainsi—ressemblances extérieures et intellectuelles surtout avec le père—ressemblances internes surtout avec le père ou les deux parents—ressemblances morales surtout avec la mère ou les deux parents.

Il me semble que si l’on avait beaucoup de documents pareils on connaitrait mieux la tendance moyenne des ressemblances dans l’espèce humaine.

Malheureusement c’est difficile à obtenir, et de plus, quand on a fait un tableau vrai on ne peut pas le montrer, car ce serait une indiscretion inconcevable à l’egard de ses ascendants. J’ai détruit l’explication de mes lignes. Ceux qui verront le tableau (si quelqu’un le voit) ne sauront pas si chaque ligne exprime un défaut ou une qualité. On se fiera à mon appreciation si l’on veut.

Il faut avoir 60 ou 70 ans, et avoir connu vos ascendants de vue, par la conversation, ou par la lecture de leurs lettres ou notes, pour connaitre bien les caractères distinctifs. Il faut aussi que les ascendants aient vécu jusqu’a l’age où les formes et la santé se sont montrées clairement. Tout cela est rare. Le seul profit peut-être à tirer de ma tentative est que généralement on apprécie les ressemblances d’une manière incomplète, superficielle, que les naturalistes doivent dédaigner. Votre parent, Mr Galton, a approché par d’autres moyens ingénieux. Ses procédés montrent un peu trop les bonnes qualités et pas du tout les choses indifférentes ou mauvaises.18

Mes compliments à Monsieur Francis et croyez-moi toujours, mon cher Monsieur, votre très dévoué et affectionné | Alph. de Candolle

Footnotes

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I. The year is established by the reference to Movement in plants; Candolle wrote ‘1880’ in error.
Candolle had received a presentation copy of Movement in plants (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter from Alphonse de Candolle, 23 November 1880).
CD explained his terminology in Movement in plants, pp. 4–5.
Candolle had sent CD a copy of La phytographie (A. de Candolle 1880; see Correspondence vol. 28, letter to Alphonse de Candolle, 28 May 1880). On the meaning of ‘purpose’ and ‘end’ as implying ‘intent’, see Candolle 1880, pp. 212–15. Candolle visited Down on 27 September 1880 (Correspondence vol. 28, letter from J. D. Hooker, 24 September 1880).
CD suggested that the occasional appearance of unifoliate leaves on trifoliate species of Desmodium was best explained by reversion (Movement in plants, pp. 362–3). Robinia pseudoacacia is the black locust or false acacia (R. pseudoacacia monophylla is a horticultural variety).
Antoine Nicolas Duchesne was the son of Antoine Duchesne; on his famous discovery of the single-leafed strawberry, see Ratcliff 2007.
Edwin Ray Lankester and Lankester 1880. Candolle’s father was Augustin Pyramus de Candolle. The word ‘dégénérescence’ appeared in A. P. de Candolle 1813, p. 173; see also Flourens 1842, p. 15.
On what CD termed the ‘embryology’ of leaves, see Movement in plants, pp. 414–17.
Candolle’s son was Casimir de Candolle; the article was C. de Candolle 1879. See Correspondence vol. 27, letter to Casimir de Candolle, 21 October 1879.
On Fagus antarctica, see C. de Candolle 1879, p. 446. Fagus antarctica is a synonym of Nothofagus antarctica, the Antarctic beech.
Phyllodes are modified flattened petioles that can perform the functions of leaves. CD and Francis had studied the location and number of leaf stomata in relation to their work on the protective function of bloom (an epicuticular waxy or pruinose coating) on leaves. Francis later published the results of some of this work in F. Darwin 1886.
Ferdinand von Mueller’s Eucalyptographia included tables showing the number and distribution of stomata on leaves of different species of Eucalyptus (Mueller 1879–84, sections on E. pachyphylla and E. phoenicea).
CD had compared the tip of the radicle, or embryonic root, to the brain of an animal (Movement in plants, p. 573).
Candolle may have discussed the matter with Francis Darwin on his visit to Down on 27 September 1880 (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter from J. D. Hooker, 24 September 1880); the table has not been found.
Louis XVI of France, Frederick II of Prussia, and Charles IX of France, the son of Catherine de’ Medici. The Stuarts were the ruling family of Scotland from 1371, and then of Scotland, England, and Ireland from 1603 to 1714.
Candolle’s mother was Anne Françoise Robertine de Candolle.
Candolle’s paternal grandparents were Augustin de Candolle and Louise Eléonore de Candolle; his maternal grandparents were Pierre Torras and Anne Jeanne Louis Torras.
Francis Galton had published studies of hereditary genius and the characteristics of men of science (Galton 1869 and Galton 1874).

Bibliography

Candolle, Alphonse de. 1880. La phytographie; ou l’art de décrire les végétaux considérés sous différents points de vue. Paris: G. Masson.

Candolle, Augustin Pyramus de. 1813b. Recueil de memoires sur la botanique. Paris: Gabriel Dufour.

Candolle, Casimir de. 1879. Anatomie comparée des feuilles chez quelques familles de Dicotylédones. [Read 6 March 1879.] Mémoires de la Société de physique et d’histoire naturelle de Genève 26 (1877–9): 427–80.

Darwin, Francis. 1886. On the relation between the ‘bloom’ on leaves and the distribution of the stomata. [Read 4 February 1886.] Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 22 (1885–6): 99–116.

Flourens, Marie Jean Pierre. 1842. Éloge historique de Pyramus de Candolle. Paris: Didot Frères.

Galton, Francis. 1869. Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan.

Galton, Francis. 1874. English men of science: their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan and Co.

Lankester, Edwin Ray. 1880. Degeneration. A chapter in Darwinism. London: Macmillian and Co.

Movement in plants: The power of movement in plants. By Charles Darwin. Assisted by Francis Darwin. London: John Murray. 1880.

Mueller, Ferdinand von. 1879–84. Eucalyptographia. A descriptive atlas of the eucalypts of Australia and the adjoining islands. Melbourn: John Ferres. London: Trübner and Co.

Ratcliff, Marc J. 2007. Duchesne’s strawberries: between growers’ practices and academic knowledge. In Heredity produced: at the crossroads of biology, politics, and culture, 1500–1870, edited by Staffan Müller-Wille and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Translation

From Alphonse de Candolle   18 January [1881]1

Geneva

18 January 1880

My dear Sir

I have finished reading with much pleasure your volume On the movements of plants.2 I have admired, as on other occasions, your perseverance in detailed observations, which you accumulate in a way that gives general results based on a firm foundation.

It is an intellectual pleasure to see scattered facts drawn together in this respect. Your law of circumnutation, which includes and explains all phenomena pleases me greatly. I also like the terms which you have introduced. They are simpler and clearer than those previously employed, and being drawn from Greek they will be accepted in every language.3

You will allow me to express a reservation on the use of the word purpose, which I have criticised in my Phytographie. It is applied to teleological theories, which seem to me contrary, or at least foreign, to your ideas as a whole. If I once again have the pleasure of conversing with you, we will break a lance together—in a friendly way—over these old questions.4

Pages 362, 363. I do not know what to think about the reduction of the folioles in many plants. Many folioles are an organisational complication and assuming evolution from the simple to the complex to be the norm, plants with multiple folioles would come from unifoliolate plants. On the other hand one sees plurifoliolate species produce unifoliolate forms. That is the case with Robinia pseudo-Acacia monophylla, which is beginning to establish itself in the gardens.5 I have two stocks of them on which I observe many unifoliolate leaves and some 3-4-5-foliolate ones. The monophyllous strawberry plant discovered in the woods by Duchesne Jr came from an ordinary 3-foliolate strawberry.6 It could be said: these are reversions to a primitive unifoliolate state. And also: these are degeneration with no known cause—innovations of form, such as one is obliged to allow in the evolutionary system. As an aside, Mr Ray Lankester has just made a book on degeneration without being aware that the idea and the word already existed in my father’s publications in 1813.7 In the one, degeneration happens in successive forms, in the other in the diminution of complexity in the average state, but the facts and the expression match.

On the relative complexity of leaves at the base of the plant (or of the twig), in the middle, and at the top, you make a comparison with embryos that I do not understand well.8 These are similar organs, which I would compare rather to the legs of a crayfish or of a myriapod, or to the superposed vertebrae of a vertebrate. They differ for reasons that can often be worked out. Cotyledons are cramped in the seed, and the first leaves from the twig are exposed to the inclemency of the weather for a long time on the outside of the bud. It is easy for these leaves to develop poorly. Later the leaves grow with vigour, without difficulties and they become more or less complex. At last the upper leaves (bracts, calyxes) have growth that is less favourable, in position, and they revert to an imperfect state. In a memoir about anatomy that my son sent you in 1880, the analogous facts can be seen in the more or less complex vessels that exist in the petioles and the central vein of leaves.9 Their complexity differs from one species to another in some genuses, from one group of species to another in certain other genuses or from one complete genus to another, but on each branch the lower and upper leaves are not equally complex in structure. Botanical geography sometimes accounts for the probable cause of the differences. Thus my son found in Antarctic Fagus a different arrangement of petioles from that of the Fagus of our hemisphere, although as regards the flowers and the fruits they are very analogous.10 One may presume that one descends from one ancient stock, the other from another, given the distance between them.

You have not considered the arrangement of limbs as a possible influence on directions and movements. Whereas the foliaceous organs (of Graminaceae, Iris, Hyacinths, the phyllodes of the Acacias of Australia etc) that have stomata on both sides, with the cavities subjacent, do not precisely have upper and lower surfaces, but rather stand up, turning a little on themselves or taking a position with the vertical edge towards the ground (phyllodes), which, it is said, gives the forests of Australia a distinctive appearance.11 There must be some relation between the organisation of tissue and the principal and usual direction of the organs.

I do not know if anyone in Germany is working from this perspective. I also note that botanical treatises do not talk about the relation of the stomata and their positions, but the fact has been known for a long time. As far as I recall my father used to mention it in his lectures or in conversation. Ferdinand Müller points out the number of stomata on the two sides of the leaves of Eucalyptus (Eucalyptographia, in –4o).12 It would be interesting to see whether the species that have as many stomata on one side as on the other, or very nearly, behave in a particular way with respect to their directions or rather usual positions.

The movements of plants, according to your studies, are very like the involuntary movements, more or less localised, of animals—particularly those of erectile tissues. One usually presumes or there is evidence that the explanation is in the transmission of the sap or in the swelling of the tissue that results from it. On the other hand I see nothing in plants that resembles voluntary movement, regulated in animals (even lower ones) by fear of a distant enemy, the wish to acquire a food item, etc. One could argue that light or sound waves act on the nervous system like humidity in the air on a root, in determining internal physical changes. But physiologists are not yet able to explain the transformation of external forces into volition. Apart from empty talk or comparisons it seems to me far away.13

I had said a few words to your son about a graphic representation that I used to try to understand the facts of heredity. I did not have the time to explain myself, but here is an example, drawn up from an imaginary ordinary individual. You will tell me, when you return the paper to me, whether you and Mr Francis14 see any flaw in it and whether I would do well to use it, sooner or later, in some publication.

The main difficulty is that one very seldom has sufficiently numerous and definite details on three successive generations for such a table to be able to be drawn up. I originally intended to trace lines for the families of well known princes. I tried Louis XVI, Frederick II, the Stuarts, Charles IX son of Catherine de’Medici.15 There is considerable and varied information on each of these people, but on closer inspection one finds that the mothers or grandmothers are often hardly known and that with the kings, characteristics that interest the public and courtiers are what is mostly mentioned, without a word about other factors. In view of these gaps, I searched among families of my acquaintance. Again uncertainties, gaps, especially with regard to women. In the end I amused myself by making my own table. Here is what I have found, which you would not see in other people, even from my family, because the sort of similarities varies greatly.

I have noted 38 characteristics by which I would be distinguished from another individual of my race or sub-race.

They were all present in my father or my mother16 or in both of them at the same time. So there is nothing peculiar to me, and there is no atavism in this particular case.

Of 13 external physical characteristics, 11 were also present in my father, of which 3 also appeared in my paternal grandfather, and one in my paternal grandmother. Only 2 were present in my mother and I do not know if they were present in her parents.17

Of 8 internal characteristics that I have been able to observe, 3 were present in my father, 1 in my mother, 4 were in both my parents. One came from my paternal grandfather to my father and to me.

Of 10 moral characteristics, 2 were in my father, and at the same time in his father; 3 in my mother, one of which also in my maternal grandfather; 5 in both my parents, 4 of which came principally from the maternal line.

Of 7 intellectual characteristics, 4 were in my father; 2 in my mother; 1 in both. I do not know if they would go further back.

So—external and intellectual similarities principally with the father—internal similarities with the father or both parents—moral similarities principally with the mother or both parents.

It seems to me that if you had a lot of similar documents you would better understand the general trend of similarity in the human race.

Unfortunately it is difficult to obtain, and moreover, when you have made an accurate table you cannot show it, because it would be would be an inconceivable indiscretion with regard to your ancestors. I have destroyed the interpretation of my lines. Those who will see the chart (if anyone sees it) will not know whether each line shows a fault or a good quality. People will have to trust in my judgment.

One must be 60 or 70 years old, and have known one’s ancestors personally, from their conversation, or from reading their letters or notes, to thoroughly understand their distinctive characteristics. In addition the ancestors must have reached an age where their traits and health were clearly apparent. All that is unusual. The only benefit that might be drawn from my attempt is that generally people assess similarities in an incomplete and superficial way, which naturalists must repudiate. Your relation, Mr Galton, has got close with other clever means. His methods put a little too much emphasis on the good qualities and none at all on the indifferent or bad things.18

My compliments to Mr Francis and believe me always, my dear Sir, your very devoted and affectionate | Alph. de Candolle

Footnotes

For a transcription of this letter in its original French, see Transcript. The year is established by the reference to Movement in plants; Candolle wrote ‘1880’ in error.
Candolle had received a presentation copy of Movement in plants (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter from Alphonse de Candolle, 23 November 1880).
CD explained his terminology in Movement in plants, pp. 4–5.
Candolle had sent CD a copy of La phytographie (A. de Candolle 1880; see Correspondence vol. 28, letter to Alphonse de Candolle, 28 May 1880). On the meaning of ‘purpose’ and ‘end’ as implying ‘intent’, see Candolle 1880, pp. 212–15. Candolle visited Down on 27 September 1880 (Correspondence vol. 28, letter from J. D. Hooker, 24 September 1880).
CD suggested that the occasional appearance of unifoliate leaves on trifoliate species of Desmodium was best explained by reversion (Movement in plants, pp. 362–3). Robinia pseudoacacia is the black locust or false acacia (R. pseudoacacia monophylla is a horticultural variety).
Antoine Nicolas Duchesne was the son of Antoine Duchesne; on his famous discovery of the single-leafed strawberry, see Ratcliff 2007.
Edwin Ray Lankester and Lankester 1880. Candolle’s father was Augustin Pyramus de Candolle. The word ‘dégénérescence’ appeared in A. P. de Candolle 1813, p. 173; see also Flourens 1842, p. 15.
On what CD termed the ‘embryology’ of leaves, see Movement in plants, pp. 414–17.
Candolle’s son was Casimir de Candolle; the article was C. de Candolle 1879. See Correspondence vol. 27, letter to Casimir de Candolle, 21 October 1879.
On Fagus antarctica, see C. de Candolle 1879, p. 446. Fagus antarctica is a synonym of Nothofagus antarctica, the Antarctic beech.
Phyllodes are modified flattened petioles that can perform the functions of leaves. CD and Francis had studied the location and number of leaf stomata in relation to their work on the protective function of bloom (an epicuticular waxy or pruinose coating) on leaves. Francis later published the results of some of this work in F. Darwin 1886.
Ferdinand von Mueller’s Eucalyptographia included tables showing the number and distribution of stomata on leaves of different species of Eucalyptus (Mueller 1879–84, sections on E. pachyphylla and E. phoenicea).
CD had compared the tip of the radicle, or embryonic root, to the brain of an animal (Movement in plants, p. 573).
Candolle may have discussed the matter with Francis Darwin on his visit to Down on 27 September 1880 (see Correspondence vol. 28, letter from J. D. Hooker, 24 September 1880); the table has not been found.
Louis XVI of France, Frederick II of Prussia, and Charles IX of France, the son of Catherine de’ Medici. The Stuarts were the ruling family of Scotland from 1371, and then of Scotland, England, and Ireland from 1603 to 1714.
Candolle’s mother was Anne Françoise Robertine de Candolle.
Candolle’s paternal grandparents were Augustin de Candolle and Louise Eléonore de Candolle; his maternal grandparents were Pierre Torras and Anne Jeanne Louis Torras.
Francis Galton had published studies of hereditary genius and the characteristics of men of science (Galton 1869 and Galton 1874).

Bibliography

Candolle, Alphonse de. 1880. La phytographie; ou l’art de décrire les végétaux considérés sous différents points de vue. Paris: G. Masson.

Candolle, Augustin Pyramus de. 1813b. Recueil de memoires sur la botanique. Paris: Gabriel Dufour.

Candolle, Casimir de. 1879. Anatomie comparée des feuilles chez quelques familles de Dicotylédones. [Read 6 March 1879.] Mémoires de la Société de physique et d’histoire naturelle de Genève 26 (1877–9): 427–80.

Darwin, Francis. 1886. On the relation between the ‘bloom’ on leaves and the distribution of the stomata. [Read 4 February 1886.] Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 22 (1885–6): 99–116.

Flourens, Marie Jean Pierre. 1842. Éloge historique de Pyramus de Candolle. Paris: Didot Frères.

Galton, Francis. 1869. Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan.

Galton, Francis. 1874. English men of science: their nature and nurture. London: Macmillan and Co.

Lankester, Edwin Ray. 1880. Degeneration. A chapter in Darwinism. London: Macmillian and Co.

Movement in plants: The power of movement in plants. By Charles Darwin. Assisted by Francis Darwin. London: John Murray. 1880.

Mueller, Ferdinand von. 1879–84. Eucalyptographia. A descriptive atlas of the eucalypts of Australia and the adjoining islands. Melbourn: John Ferres. London: Trübner and Co.

Ratcliff, Marc J. 2007. Duchesne’s strawberries: between growers’ practices and academic knowledge. In Heredity produced: at the crossroads of biology, politics, and culture, 1500–1870, edited by Staffan Müller-Wille and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Summary

Thanks for Movement in plants. Praises the terms CD introduces, but criticises CD’s use of the teleological word "purpose".

Outlines his efforts to study the inheritance of characters in his family. F. Galton overemphasises the inheritance of good qualities.

Letter details

Letter no.
DCP-LETT-13017
From
Alphonse de Candolle
To
Charles Robert Darwin
Sent from
Geneva
Source of text
DAR 161: 25
Physical description
ALS 7pp (French)

Please cite as

Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 13017,” accessed on 28 March 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-13017.xml

letter