I have lately, i.e. in the new edition of the “Origin,"[79] been moderating my zeal, and attributing much more to mere useless variability.  I did think I would send you the sheet, but I daresay you would not care to see it, in which I discuss Naegeli’s essay on Natural Selection not affecting characters of no functional importance, and which yet are of high classificatory importance.

Hooker is pretty well satisfied with what I have said on this head.  It will be curious if we have hit on similar conclusions.  You are about the last man in England who would deviate a hair’s breadth from his conviction to please any editor in the world.—­Yours very sincerely,

CH.  DARWIN.

P.S.—­After all, I have thought of one question, but if I receive no answer I shall understand that (as is probable) you have nothing to say.  I have seen it remarked that the men and women of certain tribes differ a little in shade or tint; but have you ever seen or heard of any difference in tint between the two sexes which did not appear to follow from a difference in habits of life?

* * * * *

Down, Bromley, Kent, S.E.  April 14, 1869.

My dear Wallace,—­I have been wonderfully interested by your article,[80] and I should think Lyell will be much gratified by it.  I declare if I had been editor and had the power of directing you I should have selected for discussion the very points which you have chosen.  I have often said to younger geologists (for I began in the year 1830) that they did not know what a revolution Lyell had effected; nevertheless, your extracts from Cuvier have quite astonished me.

Though not able really to judge, I am inclined to put more confidence in Croll than you seem to do; but I have been much struck by many of your remarks on degradation.

Thomson’s views of the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles, and so I have been glad to read what you say.  Your exposition of Natural Selection seems to me inimitably good; there never lived a better expounder than you.

I was also much pleased at your discussing the difference between our views and Lamarck’s.  One sometimes sees the odious expression, “Justice to myself compels me to say, etc.,” but you are the only man I ever heard of who persistently does himself an injustice and never demands justice.  Indeed, you ought in the review to have alluded to your paper in the Linnean Journal, and I feel sure all our friends will agree in this, but you cannot “Burke” yourself, however much you may try, as may be seen in half the articles which appear.

I was asked but the other day by a German professor for your paper, which I sent him.  Altogether, I look at your article as appearing in the Quarterly as an immense triumph for our cause.  I presume that your remarks on Man are those to which you alluded in your note.