I hope these remarks may be intelligible to you, and that you will be so kind as to let me know what you think of them.

I have not heard for some time how you are getting on.  I hope you are still improving in health, and that you will be able now to get on with your great work, for which so many thousands are looking with interest.—­With best wishes, believe me, my dear Darwin, yours very faithfully,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E.  July 5, [1866].

My dear Wallace,—­I have been much interested by your letter, which is as clear as daylight.  I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer’s excellent expression of “the survival of the fittest.”  This, however, had not occurred to me till reading your letter.  It is, however, a great objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive governing a verb; and that this is a real objection I infer from H. Spencer continually using the words “Natural Selection.”

I formerly thought, probably in an exaggerated degree, that it was a great advantage to bring into connection natural and artificial selection; this indeed led me to use a term in common, and I still think it some advantage.  I wish I had received your letter two months ago, for I would have worked in “the survival,” etc., often in the new edition of the “Origin,” which is now almost printed off, and of which I will, of course, send you a copy.  I will use the term in my next book on Domestic Animals, etc., from which, by the way, I plainly see that you expect much too much.  The term Natural Selection has now been so largely used abroad and at home that I doubt whether it could be given up, and with all its faults I should be sorry to see the attempt made.  Whether it will be rejected must now depend on the “survival of the fittest.”

As in time the term must grow intelligible, the objections to its use will grow weaker and weaker.  I doubt whether the use of any term would have made the subject intelligible to some minds, clear as it is to others; for do we not see, even to the present day, Malthus on Population absurdly misunderstood?  This reflection about Malthus has often comforted me when I have been vexed at the misstatement of my views.

As for M. Janet,[55] he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen are so acute that I think they often misunderstand common folk.  Your criticism on the double sense in which I have used Natural Selection is new to me and unanswerable; but my blunder has done no harm, for I do not believe that anyone excepting you has ever observed it.  Again, I agree that I have said too much about “favourable variations,” but I am inclined to think you put the opposite side too strongly; if every part of every being varied, I do not think we should see the same end or object gained by such wonderfully diversified means.