Volume I Part 40 (1/2)

CHARLES DARWIN TO JD HOOKER December 24th [1856]

How I do wish I lived near you to discussdefinitions of species, and stating briefly how systeia in the Flora Indica was a capital exahable to see what different ideas are prominent in various naturalists' minds, when they speak of ”species;” in soht--in soning idea--in so test, with others it is not worth a farthing It all co to define the undefinable I suppose you have lost the odd black seed froer trouble over I have now got about a dozen seeds out of s Adios,

My dear Hooker, ever yours, C DARWIN

CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY Down, January 1st [1857?]

My dear Dr Gray,

I have received the second part of your paper ('Statistics of the Flora of the Northern United States' ”Silli particular to say, I must send you my thanks and hearty ad the subject, and I quite fancy and flatter myself I now appreciate the character of your Flora What a difference in regard to Europe your relad to see your conclusion in regard to the species of large genera widely ranging; it is in strict conformity with the results I have worked out in several ways It is of great importance to my notions By the way you have paid ations of his own, this sagacious naturalist inclines to think that [the species of] large genera range over a larger area than the species of senera do”--Asa Gray, loc cit): to be SIMPLY reat honour One of your conclusions roan, viz, that the line of connection of the strictly alpine plants is through Greenland I should EXTREMELY like to see your reasons published in detail, for it ”riles” me (this is a proper expression, is it not?) dreadfully Lyell tolda theory about when Saurians were first created, on hearing some careful observations opposed to this, said he did not believe it, ”for Nature never lied”

I am just in this predicao, theorisers are always right

Overworked as you are, I dare say you will say that I aestion! I was led by one ofto do with geographical distribution, yet it has with your statistics) that trees would have a strong tendency to have floith dioecious,that this seemed so in Persoon, I took one little British Flora, and discri to Loudon, I have found that the result was in species, genera and families, as I anticipated So I sent my notions to Hooker to ask hiht my result sufficiently curious, to do so; and the accordance with Britain is very striking, and the more so, as he made three classes of trees, bushes, and herbaceous plants (He says further he shall work the Tasmanian Flora on the same principle) The bushes hold an intermediate position between the other two classes It seems to me a curious relation in itself, and is very in,'

Edition i, page 100)

With hearty thanks, your most troublesome friend, C DARWIN

CHARLES DARWIN TO JD HOOKER Down, April 12th [1857]

My dear Hooker,

Your letter has pleased et it out of e of your kindness, as I receive all and give nothing What a splendid discussion you could write on the whole subject of variation! The cases discussed in your last note are valuable tohow profoundly ignorant we are on the causes of variation I shall just allude to these cases, as a sort of sub-division of polymorphism a little more definite, I fancy, than the variation of, for instance, the Rubi, and equally or ether on variations APPARENTLY due to the immediate and direct action of external causes; and I have been struck with one result The most firm sticklers for independent creation admit, that the fur of the SAME species is thinner towards the south of the range of the sahter-coloured to the south than north; that the same [shell]

is paler-coloured in deep water--that insects are smaller and darker on mountains--more livid and testaceous near sea--that plants are shter flowers on mountains: now in all such, and other cases, distinct species in the two zones follow the same rule, which see only stronglythe sanised and admitted varieties I mention all this on account of the variation of plants in ascending enerally with no examples, for I add, there is so much doubt and dispute what to call varieties; but yet I have stumbled on soso characterised, that I presume there is some truth in it What think you? Do you believe there is ANY tendency in VARIETIES, as GENERALLY so-called, of plants to becohter-coloured flowers in ascending a arden,” of 3 x 2 feet square: Ias it appears, and I am astonished at the nus, etc Already 59 have been so killed; I expected a good many, but I had fancied that this was a less potent check than it see, the destruction of the seedlings

Grass-seedlings seeens

CHARLES DARWIN TO JD HOOKER Moor Park, Farnham [April (?) 1857]

My dear Hooker,

Your letter has been forwarded to ht, having been here a week, and having already received an aood which is quite incredible to myself and quite unaccountable I can walk and eat like a hearty Christian, and even ood I cannot in the least understand how hydropathy can act as it certainly does on ht about a single species of any kind since leaving hoht the hairiness, etc, of Alpine SPECIES was generally admitted; I am sure I have seen it alluded to a score of ti on it the other day to me Meyen or Gay, or some such fellohom you would despise), I remember, makes some remark on Chilian Cordillera plants Wimmer has written a little book on the sa so characterised in the Alps

But after writing to you, I confess I was staggered by finding onethat Alpine flowers are strongly inclined to be white, and Linnaeus saying that cold makes plants APETALOUS, even the saeneral belief froree hat you say about the little direct influence of climate; and I have just alluded to the hairiness of Alpine plants as an EXCEPTION The odoriferousness would be a good case formore odoriferous in dry habitats

I fear that I have looked at the hairiness of Alpine plants as so generally acknowledged that I have not es, so as at all to see what kind of evidence authors advance I must confess, the other day, when I asked Falconer, whether he knew of INDIVIDUAL plants losing or acquiring hairiness when transported, he did not But now THIS SECOND, othairs when cultivated at Montpellier Shall you think ht that (quite independently of the present case), you are a little too hard on bad observers; that a reht; an observer who deserves to be damned you would utterly damn I feel entire deference to any remark you make out of your own head; but when in opposition to some poor devil, I somehow involuntarily feel not quite so much, but yet much deference for your opinion I do not know in the least whether there is any truth in this ht I would tell you it

I ah I intended to put only one sentence and that vaguely, I should probably have put that ly

Ever, my dear Hooker, yours most truly, C DARWIN

PS This note, as you see, has not anything requiring an answer