a review which interested me so much. By Heavens, how the blood must have
gushed into the capillaries when a certain great man (whom with all his
faults I cannot help liking) read it!

I am rather sorry you do not think more of Agassiz's embryological stages
(34/3. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 310: also Letter 40, Note.), for
though I saw how exceedingly weak the evidence was, I was led to hope in
its truth.


LETTER 35. TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down [1854].

With respect to "highness" and "lowness," my ideas are only eclectic and
not very clear. It appears to me that an unavoidable wish to compare all
animals with men, as supreme, causes some confusion; and I think that
nothing besides some such vague comparison is intended, or perhaps is even
possible, when the question is whether two kingdoms such as the Articulata
or Mollusca are the highest. Within the same kingdom I am inclined to
think that "highest" usually means that form which has undergone most
"morphological differentiation" from the common embryo or archetype of the
class; but then every now and then one is bothered (as Milne Edwards has
remarked) by "retrograde development," i.e., the mature animal having fewer
and less important organs than its own embryo. The specialisation of parts
to different functions, or "the division of physiological labour" (35/1. A
slip of the pen for "physiological division of labour.") of Milne Edwards
exactly agrees (and to my mind is the best definition, when it can be
applied) with what you state is your idea in regard to plants. I do not
think zoologists agree in any definite ideas on this subject; and my ideas
are not clearer than those of my brethren.