Volume Ii Part 1 (2/2)
Grove is disgusted at your being disquieted about W. Thomson. Tell George from me not to sit upon you with his mathematics. When I threatened your tropical cooling views with the facts of the physicists, you snubbed me and the facts sweetly, over and over again; and now, because a scarecrow of x+y has been raised on the selfsame facts, you boo-boo. Take another dose of Huxley's penultimate G. S. Address, and send George back to college. (383/2. Huxley's Anniversary Address to the Geological Society, 1869 (”Collected Essays,” VIII., page 305). This is a criticism of Lord Kelvin's paper ”On Geological Time” (”Trans. Geolog.
Soc. Glasgow,” III.). At page 336 Mr. Huxley deals with Lord Kelvin's ”third line of argument, based on the temperature of the interior of the earth.” This was no doubt the point most disturbing to Mr. Darwin, since it led Lord Kelvin to ask (as quoted by Huxley), ”Are modern geologists prepared to say that all life was killed off the earth 50,000, 100,000, or 200,000 years ago?” Mr. Huxley, after criticising Lord Kelvin's data and conclusion, gives his conviction that the case against Geology has broken down. With regard to evolution, Huxley (page 328) ingeniously points out a case of circular reasoning. ”But it may be said that it is biology, and not geology, which asks for so much time--that the succession of life demands vast intervals; but this appears to me to be reasoning in a circle. Biology takes her time from geology. The only reason we have for believing in the slow rate of the change in living forms is the fact that they persist through a series of deposits which, geology informs us, have taken a long while to make. If the geological clock is wrong, all the naturalist will have to do is to modify his notions of the rapidity of change accordingly.”)
LETTER 384. TO J.D. HOOKER. February 3rd [1868].
I am now reading Miquel on ”Flora of j.a.pan” (384/1. Miquel, ”Flore du j.a.pon”: ”Archives Neerlandaises” ii., 1867.), and like it: it is rather a relief to me (though, of course, not new to you) to find so very much in common with Asia. I wonder if A. Murray's (384/2. ”Geographical Distribution of Mammals,” by Andrew Murray, 1866. See Chapter V., page 47. See Letter 379.) notion can be correct, that a [profound] arm of the sea penetrated the west coast of N. America, and prevented the Asiatico-j.a.pan element colonising that side of the continent so much as the eastern side; or will climate suffice? I shall to the day of my death keep up my full interest in Geographical Distribution, but I doubt whether I shall ever have strength to come in any fuller detail than in the ”Origin” to this grand subject. In fact, I do not suppose any man could master so comprehensive a subject as it now has become, if all kingdoms of nature are included. I have read Murray's book, and am disappointed--though, as you said, here and there clever thoughts occur.
How strange it is, that his view not affording the least explanation of the innumerable adaptations everywhere to be seen apparently does not in the least trouble his mind. One of the most curious cases which he adduces seems to me to be the two allied fresh-water, highly peculiar porpoises in the Ganges and Indus; and the more distantly allied form of the Amazons. Do you remember his explanation of an arm of the sea becoming cut off, like the Caspian, converted into fresh-water, and then divided into two lakes (by upheaval), giving rise to two great rivers.
But no light is thus thrown on the affinity of the Amazon form. I now find from Flower's paper (384/3. ”Zoolog. Trans.” VI., 1869, page 115.
The toothed whales are divided into the Physeteridae, the Delphinidae, and the Platanistidae, which latter is placed between the two other families, and is divided into the sub-families Iniinae and Platanistinae.) that these fresh-water porpoises form two sub-families, making an extremely isolated and intermediate, very small family. Hence to us they are clearly remnants of a large group; and I cannot doubt we here have a good instance precisely like that of ganoid fishes, of a large ancient marine group, preserved exclusively in fresh-water, where there has been less compet.i.tion, and consequently little modification.
(384/4. See Volume I., Letter 95.) What a grand fact that is which Miquel gives of the beech not extending beyond the Caucasus, and then reappearing in j.a.pan, like your Himalayan Pinus, and the cedar of Lebanon. (384/5. For Pinus read Deodar. The essential ident.i.ty of the deodar and the cedar of Lebanon was pointed out in Hooker's ”Himalayan Journals” in 1854 (Volume I., page 257.n). In the ”Nat. History Review,”
January, 1862, the question is more fully dealt with by him, and the distribution discussed. The nearest point at which cedars occur is the Bulgar-dagh chain of Taurus--250 miles from Lebanon. Under the name of Cedrus atlantica the tree occurs in ma.s.s on the borders of Tunis, and as Deodar it first appears to the east in the cedar forests of Afghanistan.
Sir J.D. Hooker supposes that, during a period of greater cold, the cedars on the Taurus and on Lebanon lived many thousand feet nearer the sea-level, and spread much farther to the east, meeting similar belts of trees descending and spreading westward from Afghanistan along the Persian mountains.) I know of nothing that gives one such an idea of the recent mutations in the surface of the land as these living ”outlyers.”
In the geological sense we must, I suppose, admit that every yard of land has been successively covered with a beech forest between the Caucasus and j.a.pan!
I have not yet seen (for I have not sent to the station) Falconer's works. When you say that you sigh to think how poor your reprinted memoirs would appear, on my soul I should like to shake you till your bones rattled for talking such nonsense. Do you sigh over the ”Insular Floras,” the Introduction to New Zealand Flora, to Australia, your Arctic Flora, and dear Galapagos, etc., etc., etc.? In imagination I am grinding my teeth and choking you till I put sense into you. Farewell. I have amused myself by writing an audaciously long letter. By the way, we heard yesterday that George has won the second Smith's Prize, which I am excessively glad of, as the Second Wrangler by no means always succeeds.
The examination consists exclusively of [the] most difficult subjects, which such men as Stokes, Cayley, and Adams can set.
LETTER 385. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. March 8th, 1868.
...While writing a few pages on the northern alpine forms of plants on the Java mountains I wanted a few cases to refer to like Teneriffe, where there are no northern forms and scarcely any alpine. I expected the volcanoes of Hawaii would be a good case, and asked Dr. Seemann about them. It seems a man has lately published a list of Hawaiian plants, and the mountains swarm with European alpine genera and some species! (385/1. ”This turns out to be inaccurate, or greatly exaggerated. There are no true alpines, and the European genera are comparatively few. See my 'Island Life,' page 323.”--A.R.W.) Is not this most extraordinary, and a puzzler? They are, I believe, truly oceanic islands, in the absence of mammals and the extreme poverty of birds and insects, and they are within the Tropics.
Will not that be a hard nut for you when you come to treat in detail on geographical distribution? I enclose Seemann's note, which please return when you have copied the list, if of any use to you.
LETTER 386. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 21st [1870].
I read yesterday the notes on Round Island (386/1. In Wallace's ”Island Life,” page 410, Round Island is described as an islet ”only about a mile across, and situated about fourteen miles north-east of Mauritius.”
Wallace mentions a snake, a python belonging to the peculiar and distinct genus Casarea, as found on Round Island, and nowhere else in the world. The palm Latania Loddigesii is quoted by Wallace as ”confined to Round Island and two other adjacent islets.” See Baker's ”Flora of the Mauritius and the Seych.e.l.les.” Mr. Wallace says that, judging from the soundings, Round Island was connected with Mauritius, and that when it was ”first separated [it] would have been both much larger and much nearer the main island.”) which I owe to you. Was there ever such an enigma? If, in the course of a week or two, you can find time to let me hear what you think, I should very much like to hear: or we hope to be at Erasmus' on March 4th for a week. Would there be any chance of your coming to luncheon then? What a case it is. Palms, screw-pines, four snakes--not one being in main island--lizards, insects, and not one land bird. But, above everything, such a proportion of individual monocotyledons! The conditions do not seem very different from the Tuff Galapagos Island, but, as far as I remember, very few monocotyledons there. Then, again, the island seems to have been elevated. I wonder much whether it stands out in the line of any oceanic current, which does not so forcibly strike the main island? But why, oh, why should so many monocotyledons have come there? or why should they have survived there more than on the main island, if once connected? So, again, I cannot conceive that four snakes should have become extinct in Mauritius and survived on Round Island. For a moment I thought that Mauritius might be the newer island, but the enormous degradation which the outer ring of rocks has undergone flatly contradicts this, and the marine remains on the summit of Round Island indicate the island to be comparatively new--unless, indeed, they are fossil and extinct marine remains. Do tell me what you think. There never was such an enigma.
I rather lean to separate immigration, with, of course, subsequent modification; some forms, of course, also coming from Mauritius.
Speaking of Mauritius reminds me that I was so much pleased the day before yesterday by reading a review of a book on the geology of St.
Helena, by an officer who knew nothing of my hurried observations, but confirms nearly all that I have said on the general structure of the island, and on its marvellous denudation. The geology of that island was like a novel.
LETTER 387. TO A. BLYTT. Down, March 28th, 1876.
(387/1. The following refers to Blytt's ”Essay on the Immigration of the Norwegian Flora during Alternating Rainy and Dry Periods,” Christiania, 1876.)
I thank you sincerely for your kindness in having sent me your work on the ”Immigration of the Norwegian Flora,” which has interested me in the highest degree. Your view, supported as it is by various facts, appears to me the most important contribution towards understanding the present distribution of plants, which has appeared since Forbes' essay on the effects of the Glacial Period.
LETTER 388. TO AUG. FOREL. Down, June 19th, 1876.
<script>