The Fruitful Facets of Galton's Polyhedron 417
objections brought forward against the theory of natural selection after the
publication of the first edition of the Origin of Species, Darwin stated his
view on this point very clearly:—"The doctrine of natural selection or the
survival of the fittest, which implies when variations or individual
differences of a beneficial nature happen to arise, these will be preserved."
In this sense the words "happen to arise" appear to me of prominent
significance. ... A distinction is indicated between ordinary fluctuations
which are always present, and such variations as "happen to arise" from
time to time. The latter afford the material for natural selection to act upon
on the broad lines of organic development, but the first do not. Fortuitous
variations are the species producing kind, which the theory requires;
continuous fluctuations constitute, in this respect, a useless type... Darwin's
variations, which from time to time happen to arise, are mutations, the
opposite type being commonly designed fluctuations (de Vries, 1909b, pp.
70 - 72).Seward responded in his unique footnote, and with annoyance barely
concealed:
I think it right to point out that the interpretation of this passage from the
Origin by Prof. De Vries is not accepted as correct either by Mr. Francis
Darwin or by myself. We do not believe that Darwin intended to draw any
distinction between two types of variation; the words 'when variations or
individual differences of a beneficial nature happen to arise' are not in our
opinion meant to imply a distinction between ordinary fluctuations and
variations, which 'happen to arise.'... The statement in this passage that
'Darwin was well aware that ordinary variability has nothing to do with
evolution, but that other kinds of variation were necessary' is contradicted
by many passages in the Origin (Seward, 1909, p. 71).Why did de Vries so covet a linkage with Darwin that he would torture and
distort his hero's words to forge the supposed bond? And why did Seward single
out this passage among others more overtly hostile to the source of this centennial
celebration? To resolve this small puzzle, we must explore the wider context of de
Vries' background and purposes. In particular, we must rescue de Vries from his
conventional "sound bite" status as "Mendel's rediscoverer," and recognize this
near accident in his career as distinctly secondary to a much deeper, older, and
direct inspiration from Darwin. We shall see that the profundity of de Vries'
intellectual break with Darwin, combined with his psychological inability to sever
overt homage, set the deeper source of Seward's legitimate annoyance about a
single passage. An understanding of de Vries' reluctant apostasy provides our best
biographically based insight into the nature of Darwinian logic—and of the
persistent power and attraction of formalist alternatives (stressing the facet-flipping
mode of Galton's polyhedron in this case).