Dear Sir.

I am glad you consider the notice of your works an unprejudiced one.¹ It seems, strangely enough, to find favor with the rigid orthodox as well as with those who are disposed to consider the subject without reference to theology. & I hope it will give a stimulus to the perusal of your works.

I cannot, for my own part, conceive how any one who considers the past and present of organic life, without theological bias, can find it reasonable to suppose that animals have sprung into existence as it was formerly believed, and a gradual development appears to me the only sensible mode of explaining the matter.

On the other hand, unless you are greatly misunderstood, by me as well as others, I am at a loss to comprehend how you can have arrived at the metaphysical result stated or implied, at p 492 of the ‘Origin’. (3^d Edⁿ.) “not by means superior to, though analogous with” &c.²

Assuming your theory to be correct; that the metaphysical causes—in other words that the creative or divine power which makes or has made new species is not superior to, though analogous with, human reason; what is the use of continuing your efforts to make a new species? It is only on the assumption that “Nature” acts in a manner superior to though analogous with human reason, that the question of artificial selection can have the slightest weight in determining the natural method of creating species;—I am not going to read you a sermon! You have had enough of those I should think! but judging from some of the explanatory remarks you have introduced into your last edition, referred to by your reviewer at p. 153 (J of S.) I should say that you have, from conviction, not coercion, somewhat changed your views as regards the nature of the metaphysical influences at work; or at least that you have felt yourself to be misunderstood, in the amount of power attributable to “Natural Selection”.³

I think you are still misunderstood, in a way which is calculated to impede the progress of your views.

As to ‘Natural selection’ modifying the Egg—seed &c, “by preserving favorable variations”,⁴ I confess myself totally unable to perceive how you can, in a large majority of cases, ascertain anything whatever as to the influences which are at work in or upon the ovum, germ, or spermatozoon. In the lower & lowest forms of life, these are at present often less than microscopic, & when our powers increase, I do not think we shall be much wiser in that respect. I say this with every deference to your large experience and observation; though as you may perhaps be aware, I have devoted many years to this particular branch of Science. You will probably have seen that I sent a paper last Autumn to the Royal Society in which I have sought to show by experiment that the developmental theory must, in the case of the infusoria, take the place of that of spontaneous generation; but although in the paper (of which an abstract only appeared in the proceedings) I have expressed my conviction that one and the same form of zoospore, monad, or whatever you choose to call it, may become developed into what are now believed to be distinct species of Infusoria, (& I sent an illustration of what I believe to be such a phenomenon) yet I cannot go so far back as the “ovum, germ, or seed” in forming a judgment upon the causes of variation.⁵

You will consider me very un-Editorial, I know, for entering upon this discussion, but I received your note, & reply to it, not in my official capacity, but as a young fellow-observer—if you will not be scandalised by the comparison.

Believe me, Dear Sir, | With every regard, Yrs truly | James Samuelson

C Darwin Esq