The only fault was the terrible 'Darwinismus' which spread over the section and crept out when you least expected it, even in Fergusson's lecture on 'Buddhist Temples.' You will have the rare happiness to see your ideas triumphant during your lifetime.
"P.S .-- I am going into opposition; I can't stand it.") Down, April 3rd [1868].
I have been thinking over your Presidential Address; I declare I made myself quite uncomfortable by fancying I had to do it, and feeling myself utterly dumbfounded.
But I do not believe that you will find it so difficult.

When you come to Down I shall be very curious to hear what your ideas are on the subject.
Could you make anything out of a history of the great steps in the progress of Botany, as representing the whole of Natural History?
Heaven protect you! I suppose there are men to whom such a job would not be so awful as it appears to me...If you had time, you ought to read an article by W.Bagehot in the April number of the "Fortnightly" (215/2.
"Physic and Politics," "Fortnightly Review," Volume III., page 452, 1868.), applying Natural Selection to early or prehistoric politics, and, indeed, to late politics,--this you know is your view.
LETTER 216.

A.R.WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN.

9, St.Mark's Crescent, N.W., August 16th [1868].
I ought to have written before to thank you for the copies of your papers on Primula and on "Cross-unions of Dimorphic Plants, etc." The latter is particularly interesting and the conclusion most important; but I think it makes the difficulty of how these forms, with their varying degrees of sterility, originated, greater than ever.

If "natural selection" could not accumulate varying degrees of sterility for the plant's benefit, then how did sterility ever come to be associated with one cross of a trimorphic plant rather than another?
The difficulty seems to be increased by the consideration that the advantage of a cross with a distinct individual is gained just as well by illegitimate as by legitimate unions.