Dear Sir

Some time ago you asked me to send you specimens of the Pelargonium leaves I referred to in a former note as presenting a singular relation in their form to the characters of the respective flowers of the two varieties—¹ of the enclosed, No 1 is a leaf of the original “Tom Thumb” No 2 of “Brilliant” which is a monstrous variety or rather condition of “Tom Thumb”   The symmetrical leaf of Tom Thumb is always as you are doubtless aware accompanied by a perfect and symmetrical truss of flowers but “Brilliant” with the deformed leaves very rarely perfects a good truss— The individual flowers are thin with a tendency to wither & petals reflexed. in fact the distortion of leaf is accompanied by a corresponding deformity in the flower.— As far as I have observed, this relation between leaf and flower holds good in all the cultivated varieties of the Scarlet Pelargonium   those with flat symmetrical leaves always have a good truss of flowers & those in which the leaf is much crumpled (as in “mountain-of-light” “M^rs Lennox” &c) the truss is poor & imperfect—² I believe you consider these relationships between parts as evidence of their being modified forms of a common organ but do we not see similar phenomena in the relations of organs as to character, time of development, &c that cannot possibly be homologous   take as a familiar example the development of hair on the face at the time the generative organs are perfected³

If the relationship in character of leaf and flower in Pelargonium is from their being modified forms of a common organ—why not on the same principle assume that the generative organs & the hair on face are homologous? & on the supposition that the occasional leafy development of a petal is an instance of reversion to an original common organ. I think we might with equal justice assume that the Castration of male producing the contours & general aspect of female (in those races where the aspect of the sexes is notably distinct as in the ox tribe) as evidence of the sexes having been developed from an original a-sexual form, resembling the female— It is however very remarkable that the destruction of the generative organs in either Sex does not produce reversion to a common neuter form, but in many instances it causes the assumption of the special attributes of the opposite sex   for instance the castration of the bull produces in the ox the physical contours of the cow & many instances are recorded of the destruction of the ovary in hen birds producing cock plumage—the voice of the male & general physical aspect of male bird— The appearance of hair on the chin of old women is perhaps a parallel case   I cannot help thinking that these cases show how very much may depend on the mere relationship of parts, & that two organs may be subject to similar influences without their necessarily being homologous— with respect to the cotemporary phenomena at birth I noticed as presenting a difficult case for Natural Selection. I can understand it as perfectly logical that the several phenomena as the production of milk by the mother—the organization of heart—the altered Circulation—respiration of fetus on the cotemporary operation of which depends the life of the offspring, may be kept together at birth on the principle of Natural Selection but my difficulty is as to how these functions which would be useless either separately or in an imperfect state could be accumulated gradually because the offspring unless absolutely perfect in every one of these functions (with a perfected supply of milk from its mother) could not survive & accumulate & advance on their progenitors—

The perfect readyness with which you have discussed objections to your theory induces me to take the liberty of mentioning these difficulties that have occurred to me but pray do not feel under any obligation to reply as I know you must be overwhelmed with correspondence.

Believe me D^r Sir | yours truly | George Maw.

Charles Darwin Esqr