e 38.)

LETTER 279. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(279/1. The following letter refers to MS. notes by Romanes, which we
have not seen. Darwin's remarks on it are, however, sufficiently clear.)

My address will be "Bassett, Southampton," June 11th [1877].

I have received the crossing paper which you were so kind as to send me.
It is very clear, and I quite agree with it; but the point in question
has not been a difficulty to me, as I have never believed in a new form
originating from a single variation. What I have called unconscious
selection by man illustrates, as it seems to me, the same principle as
yours, within the same area. Man purchases the individual animals or
plants which seem to him the best in any respect--some more so, and some
less so--and, without any matching or pairing, the breed in the
course of time is surely altered. The absence in numerous instances
of intermediate or blending forms, in the border country between two
closely allied geographical races or close species, seemed to me a
greater difficulty when I discussed the subject in the "Origin."

With respect to your illustration, it formerly drove me half mad to
attempt to account for the increase or diminution of the productiveness
of an organism; but I cannot call to mind where my difficulty lay.
(279/2. See Letters 209-16.) Natural Selection always applies, as I
think, to each individual and its offspring, such as its seeds, eggs,
which are formed by the mother, and which are protected in various ways.
(279/3. It was in regard to this point that Romanes had sent the MS. to
Darwin. In a letter of June 16th he writes: "It was with reference
to the possibility of Natural Selection acting on organic types as
distinguished from individuals,--a possibility which you once told
me did not seem at all clear.") There does not seem any difficulty in
understanding how the productiveness of an organism might be increased;
but it was, as far as I can remember, in reducing productiveness that I
was most puzzled. But why I scribble about this I know not.

I have read your review of Mr. Allen's book (279/4. See "Nature"
(June 7th, 1877, page 98), a review of Grant Allen's "Physiological
Aesthetics."), and it makes me more doubtful, even, than I was before
whether he has really thrown much light on the subject.

I am glad to hear that some physiologists take the same view as I did
about your giving too much credit to H. Spencer--though, heaven knows,
this is a ra