I look at all forms, which resemble each other homologically or embryologically, as certainly descended from the same species.
You hit me hard and fairly (110/6.

Harvey writes: "You ask--were all the infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or seed, or as full grown?
To this it is sufficient to reply, was your primordial organism, or were your four or five progenitors created as egg, seed, or full grown?
Neither theory attempts to solve this riddle, nor yet the riddle of the Omphalos." The latter point, which Mr.Darwin refuses to give up, is at page 483 of the "Origin," "and, in the case of mammals, were they created bearing the false marks of nourishment from the mother's womb ?" In the third edition of the "Origin," 1861, page 517, the author adds, after the last-cited passage: "Undoubtedly these same questions cannot be answered by those who, under the present state of science, believe in the creation of a few aboriginal forms, or of some one form of life.

In the sixth edition, probably with a view to the umbilicus, he writes (page 423): "Undoubtedly some of these same questions," etc., etc.

From notes in Mr.Darwin's copy of the second edition it is clear that the change in the third edition was chiefly due to Harvey's letter.

See Letter 115.) about my question (page 483, "Origin") about creation of eggs or young, etc., (but not about mammals with the mark of the umbilical cord), yet I still have an illogical sort of feeling that there is less difficulty in imagining the creation of an asexual cell, increasing by simple division.
Page 5 of your letter: I agree to every word about the antiquity of the world, and never saw the case put by any one more strongly or more ably.
It makes, however, no more impression on me as an objection than does the astronomer when he puts on a few hundred million miles to the distance of the fixed stars.