ertaking a "Fauna of the Amazon Valley." It
would be a noble work, but one requiring years of labour, as of course
you would wish to incorporate all existing materials and would have to
spend months in Berlin and Milan and Paris to study the collections of
Spix, Natterer, Oscolati, Castituan and others, as well as most of the
chief private collections of Europe. I hope you may undertake it and
bring it to a glorious conclusion. I have long been contemplating such a
work for this Archipelago, but am convinced that the plan must be very
limited to be capable of completion....--I remain, dear Bates, yours
very sincerely,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO H.W. BATES

_Ternate. December 24, 1860._

Dear Bates,--Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I have
myself suffered much in the same way as you describe, and I think more
severely. The kind of _taedium vitae_ you mention I also occasionally
experience here. I impute it to a too monotonous existence.

I know not how or to whom to express fully my admiration of Darwin's
book. To him it would seem flattery, to others self-praise; but I do
honestly believe that with however much patience I had worked up and
experimented on the subject, I could never have _approached_ the
completeness of his book--its vast accumulation of evidence, its
overwhelming argument, and its admirable tone and spirit. I really feel
thankful that it has not been left to me to give the theory to the
public. Mr. Darwin has created a new science and a new philosophy, and I
believe that never has such a complete illustration of a new branch of
human knowledge been due to the labours and researches of a single man.
Never have such vast masses of widely scattered and hitherto utterly
disconnected facts been combined into a system, and brought to bear upon
the establishment of such a grand and new and simple philosophy!...--In
haste, yours faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW, THOMAS SIMS

_Delli, Timor. March 15, 1861_[15]

My dear Thomas,--I will now try and write you a few lines in reply to
your last three letters, which I have not before had time and
inclination to do. First, about your _one-eyed_ and _two-eyed_ theory of
art, etc. etc. I do not altogether agree with you. We do not see _all
objects_ wider with two eyes than with one. A spherical or curved object
we do see so, because o