The reference in the following letter is to Wallace’s review, in the April number of the Quarterly, of Lyell’s “Principles of Geology” (tenth edition), and of the sixth edition of the “Elements of Geology.”  Wallace points out that here for the first time Sir C. Lyell gave up his opposition to Evolution; and this leads Wallace to give a short account of the views set forth in the “Origin of Species.”  In this article Wallace makes a definite statement as to his views on the evolution of man, which were opposed to those of Darwin.  He upholds the view that the brain of man, as well as the organs of speech, the hand and the external form, could not have been evolved by Natural Selection (the “child” he is supposed to “murder “).  At p. 391 he writes:  “In the brain of the lowest savages and, as far as we know, of the prehistoric races, we have an organ ... little inferior in size and complexity to that of the highest types....  But the mental requirements of the lowest savages, such as the Australians or the Andaman Islanders, are very little above those of many animals....  How then was an organ developed far beyond the needs of its possessor?  Natural Selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape, whereas he actually possesses one but very little inferior to that of the average members of our learned societies.”

This passage is marked in Darwin’s copy with a triply underlined “No,” and with a shower of notes of exclamation.  It was probably the first occasion on which he realised the extent of this great and striking divergence in opinion between himself and his colleague.  He had, however, some indication of it in Wallace’s paper on Man in the Anthropological Review, 1864, referred to in his letter to Wallace of May 28, 1864, and again in that of April 14, 1869.

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E.  March 27, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—­I must send a line to thank you, but this note will require no answer.  This very morning after writing I found that “elk” was used for “moose” in Sweden, but I had been reading lately about elk and moose in North America.

As you put the case in your letter, which I think differs somewhat from your book, I am inclined to agree, and had thought that a feather could hardly be increased in length until it had first grown to full length, and therefore it would be increased late in life and transmitted to a corresponding age.  But the Crossoptilon pheasant, and even the common pheasant, show that the tail feathers can be developed very early.

Thanks for other facts, which I will reflect on when I go again over my MS.

I read all that you said about the Dutch Government with much interest, but I do not feel I know enough to form any opinion against yours.

I shall be intensely curious to read the Quarterly:  I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.