196 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
of intelligence. But in consequence of the perpetual interference of the
external causes before mentioned, this regular order is greatly interfered
with, and an approximation only to such a state of things is exhibited by the
animate creation, the progress of some races being retarded by unfavorable,
and that of others accelerated by favorable, combinations of circumstances.
Hence, all kinds of anomalies interrupt the continuity of the plan, and
chasms, into which whole genera or families might be inserted, are seen to
separate the nearest existing portions of the series (Lyell, 1832, pp. 13-14).Darwin's public silence (or mild approbation) is belied by his consistently
negative attitude towards Lamarck, as recorded in private letters extending from
the 1840's to post-Origin years. In 1844, he wrote to Hooker on the dearth of
available evolutionary writing: "With respect to books on this subject, I do not
know of any systematical ones except Lamarck's, which is veritable rubbish" (in F.
Darwin, 1887, volume 2, p. 29). The most interesting post-Origin references occur
in letters to Lyell, who criticized Darwin for not giving Lamarck sufficient credit.
In responding to Lyell's first reaction to the Origin, Darwin wrote on October 11,
1859 (in F. Darwin, 1887, volume 2, p. 215): "You often allude to Lamarck's work;
I do not know what you think about it, but it appeared to me extremely poor; I got
not a fact or idea from it." Perhaps, but I suspect that Darwin got many a concept
against it.
Darwin's longest statement, a testy comment directed against Lyell's repeated
designation of Lamarck as a source (though mitigated at the end by Darwin's usual
humor), conveys special insight in Darwin's stated rationale for rejecting
Lamarck's theory so firmly:
Lastly, you refer repeatedly to my view as a modification of Lamarck's
doctrine of development and progression. If this is your deliberate opinion
there is nothing to be said, but it does not seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my
grandfather before Lamarck, and others, propounded the obvious view that
if species were not created separately they must have descended from other
species, and I can see nothing else in common between the "Origin" and
Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is very injurious to its
acceptance, as it implies necessary progression, and closely connects
Wallace's and my views with what I consider, after two deliberate readings
as a wretched book, and one from which (I well remember my surprise) I
gained nothing. But I know you rank it higher, which is curious, as it did
not in the least shake your belief. But enough, and more than enough.
Please remember you have brought it down on yourself!! (in F. Darwin,
1887, volume 2, pp. 198-199).Note the basis of Darwin's critique—"very injurious ... as it implies necessary
progression." In other words, Darwin dismisses the higher-level cause of
Lamarck's hierarchy. Darwin's own theory, of course, rested on the complete
sufficiency, by extrapolation, of the lower-level force of adaptation in