ole article has struck me
more than your view with respect to the limit of fleetness in the
racehorse and other such cases; I shall try and quote you on this head
in the proof of my concluding chapter. I quite missed this explanation,
though in the case of wheat I hit upon something analogous. I am glad
you praise the Duke's book, for I was much struck with it. The part
about flight seemed to me at first very good, but as the wing is
articulated by a ball-and-socket joint, I suspect the Duke would find it
very difficult to give any reason against the belief that the wing
strikes the air more or less obliquely. I have been very glad to see
your article and the drawing of the butterfly in _Science Gossip_. By
the way, I cannot but think that you push protection too far in some
cases, as with the stripes on the tiger. I have also this morning read
an excellent abstract in the _Gardeners' Chronicle_ of your paper on
nests;[66] I was not by any means fully converted by your letter, but I
think now I am so; and I hope it will be published somewhere _in
extenso_. It strikes me as a capital generalisation, and appears to me
even more original than it did at first.

I have had an excellent and cautious letter from Mr. Geach of Singapore
with some valuable answers on expression, which I owe to you.

I heartily congratulate you on the birth of "Herbert Spencer," and may
he deserve his name, but I hope he will copy his father's style and not
his namesake's. Pray observe, though I fear I am a month too late, when
tears are first secreted enough to overflow; and write down date.

I have finished Vol. I. of my book, and I hope the whole will be out by
the end of November; if you have the patience to read it through, which
is very doubtful, you will find, I think, a large accumulation of facts
which will be of service to you in your future papers, and they could
not be put to better use, for you certainly are a master in the noble
art of reasoning.

Have you changed your house to Westbourne Grove?

Believe me, my dear Wallace, yours very sincerely,

CH. DARWIN.

This letter is so badly expressed that it is barely intelligible, but I
am tired with proofs.

P.S.--Mr. Warington has lately read an excellent and spirited abstract
of the "Origin" before the Victoria Institute, and as this is a most
orthodox body he has gained the name of the devil's advocate. The
discussion which followed during three consecutive meetings is very ri