LETTER 314. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 31st (1844).

LETTER 314. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 31st (1844).

I have been a shameful time in returning your documents, but I have been very busy scientifically, and unscientifically in planting. I have been exceedingly interested in the details about the Galapagos Islands. I need not say that I collected blindly, and did not attempt to make complete series, but just took everything in flower blindly. The flora of the summits and bases of the islands appear wholly different; it may aid you in observing whether the different islands have representative species filling the same places in the economy of nature, to know that I collected plants from the lower and dry region in all the islands, i.e., in the Chatham, Charles, James, and Albemarle (the least on the latter); and that I was able to ascend into the high and damp region only in James and Charles Islands; and in the former I think I got every plant then in flower. Please bear this in mind in comparing the representative species. (You know that Henslow has described a new Opuntia from the Galapagos.) Your observations on the distribution of large mundane genera have interested me much; but that was not the precise point which I was curious to ascertain; it has no necessary relation to size of genus (though perhaps your statements will show that it has). It was merely this: suppose a genus with ten or more species, inhabiting the ten main botanical regions, should you expect that all or most of these ten species would have wide ranges (i.e. were found in most parts) in their respective countries? (314/1. This point is discussed in a letter in "Life and Letters," Volume II., page 25, but not, we think in the "Origin"; for letters on large genera containing many varieties see "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 102-7, also in the "Origin," Edition I., page 53, Edition VI., page 44. In a letter of April 5th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker gave his opinion: "On the whole I believe that many individual representative species of large genera have wide ranges, but I do not consider the fact as one of great value, because the proportion of such species having a wide range is not large compared with other representative species of the same genus whose limits are confined."

It may be noted that in large genera the species often have small ranges ("Origin," Edition VI., page 45), and large genera are more commonly wide-ranging than the reverse.) To give an example, the genus Felis is found in every country except Australia, and the individual species generally range over thousands of miles in their respective countries; on the other hand, no genus of monkey ranges over so large a part of the world, and the individual species in their respective countries seldom range over wide spaces. I suspect (but am not sure) that in the genus Mus (the most mundane genus of all mammifers) the individual species have not wide ranges, which is opposed to my query.

I fancy, from a paper by Don, that some genera of grasses (i.e. Juncus or Juncaceae) are widely diffused over the world, and certainly many of their species have very wide ranges--in short, it seems that my question is whether there is any relation between the ranges of genera and of individual species, without any relation to the size of the genera. It is evident a genus might be widely diffused in two ways: 1st, by many different species, each with restricted ranges; and 2nd, by many or few species with wide ranges. Any light which you could throw on this I should be very much obliged for. Thank you most kindly, also, for your offer in a former letter to consider any other points; and at some future day I shall be most grateful for a little assistance, but I will not be unmerciful.

Swainson has remarked (and Westwood contradicted) that typical genera have wide ranges: Waterhouse (without knowing these previous remarkers) made to me the same observation: I feel a laudable doubt and disinclination to believe any statement of Swainson; but now Waterhouse remarks it, I am curious on the point. There is, however, so much vague in the meaning of "typical forms," and no little ambiguity in the mere assertion of "wide ranges" (for zoologists seldom go into strict and disagreeable arithmetic, like you botanists so wisely do) that I feel very doubtful, though some considerations tempt me to believe in this remark. Here again, if you can throw any light, I shall be much obliged. After your kind remarks I will not apologise for boring you with my vague queries and remarks.

LETTER 315. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 25th [1844]. Happy Christmas to you.

(315/1. The following letter refers to notes by Sir J.D. Hooker which we have not seen. Though we are therefore unable to make clear many points referred to, the letter seems to us on the whole so interesting that it is printed with the omission of only one unimportant sentence.

The subjects dealt with in the letter are those which were occupying Hooker's attention in relation to his "Flora Antarctica" (1844).)

I must thank you once again for all your documents, which have interested me very greatly and surprised me. I found it very difficult to charge my head with all your tabulated results, but this I perfectly well know is in main part due to that head not being a botanical one, aided by the tables being in MS.; I think, however, to an ignoramus, they might be made clearer; but pray mind, that this is very different from saying that I think botanists ought to arrange their highest results for non-botanists to understand easily. I will tell you how, for my individual self, I should like to see the results worked out, and then you can judge, whether this be advisable for the botanical world.

Looking at the globe, the Auckland and Campbell I., New Zealand, and Van Diemen's Land so evidently are geographically related, that I should wish, before any comparison was made with far more distant countries, to understand their floras, in relation to each other; and the southern ones to the northern temperate hemisphere, which I presume is to every one an almost involuntary standard of comparison. To understand the relation of the floras of these islands, I should like to see the group divided into a northern and southern half, and to know how many species exist in the latter--

1. Belonging to genera confined to Australia, Van Diemen's Land and north New Zealand.

2. Belonging to genera found only on the mountains of Australia, Van Diemen's Land, and north New Zealand.

3. Belonging to genera of distribution in many parts of the world (i.e., which tell no particular story).

4. Belonging to genera found in the northern hemisphere and not in the tropics; or only on mountains in the tropics.

I daresay all this (as far as present materials serve) could be extracted from your tables, as they stand; but to any one not familiar with the names of plants, this would be difficult. I felt particularly the want of not knowing which of the genera are found in the lowland tropics, in understanding the relation of the Antarctic with the Arctic floras.

If the Fuegian flora was treated in the analogous way (and this would incidentally show how far the Cordillera are a high-road of genera), I should then be prepared far more easily and satisfactorily to understand the relations of Fuegia with the Auckland Islands, and consequently with the mountains of Van Diemen's Land. Moreover, the marvellous facts of their intimate botanical relation (between Fuegia and the Auckland Islands, etc.) would stand out more prominently, after the Auckland Islands had been first treated of under the purely geographical relation of position. A triple division such as yours would lead me to suppose that the three places were somewhat equally distant, and not so greatly different in size: the relation of Van Diemen's Land seems so comparatively small, and that relation being in its alpine plants, makes me feel that it ought only to be treated of as a subdivision of the large group, including Auckland, Campbell, New Zealand...

I think a list of the genera, common to Fuegia on the one hand and on the other to Campbell, etc., and to the mountains of Van Diemen's Land or New Zealand (but not found in the lowland temperate, and southern tropical parts of South America and Australia, or New Zealand), would prominently bring out, at the same time, the relation between these Antarctic points one with another, and with the northern or Arctic regions.

In Article III. is it meant to be expressed, or might it not be understood by this article, that the similarity of the distant points in the Antarctic regions was as close as between distant points in the Arctic regions? I gather this is not so. You speak of the southern points of America and Australia, etc., being "materially approximated," and this closer proximity being correlative with a greater similarity of their plants: I find on the globe, that Van Diemen's Land and Fuegia are only about one-fifth nearer than the whole distance between Port Jackson and Concepcion in Chile; and again, that Campbell Island and Fuegia are only one-fifth nearer than the east point of North New Zealand and Concepcion. Now do you think in such immense distances, both over open oceans, that one-fifth less distance, say 4,000 miles instead of 5,000, can explain or throw much light on a material difference in the degree of similarity in the floras of the two regions?

I trust you will work out the New Zealand flora, as you have commenced at end of letter: is it not quite an original plan? and is it not very surprising that New Zealand, so much nearer to Australia than South America, should have an intermediate flora? I had fancied that nearly all the species there were peculiar to it. I cannot but think you make one gratuitous difficulty in ascertaining whether New Zealand ought to be classed by itself, or with Australia or South America--namely, when you seem (bottom of page 7 of your letter) to say that genera in common indicate only that the external circumstances for their life are suitable and similar. (315/2. On December 30th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker replied, "Nothing was further from my intention than to have written anything which would lead one to suppose that genera common to two places indicate a similarity in the external circumstances under which they are developed, though I see I have given you excellent grounds for supposing that such were my opinions.") Surely, cannot an overwhelming mass of facts be brought against such a proposition? Distant parts of Australia possess quite distinct species of marsupials, but surely this fact of their having the same marsupial genera is the strongest tie and plainest mark of an original (so-called) creative affinity over the whole of Australia; no one, now, will (or ought) to say that the different parts of Australia have something in their external conditions in common, causing them to be pre-eminently suitable to marsupials; and so on in a thousand instances. Though each species, and consequently genus, must be adapted to its country, surely adaptation is manifestly not the governing law in geographical distribution. Is this not so? and if I understand you rightly, you lessen your own means of comparison--attributing the presence of the same genera to similarity of conditions.

You will groan over my very full compliance with your request to write all I could on your tables, and I have done it with a vengeance: I can hardly say how valuable I must think your results will be, when worked out, as far as the present knowledge and collections serve.

Now for some miscellaneous remarks on your letter: thanks for the offer to let me see specimens of boulders from Cockburn Island; but I care only for boulders, as an indication of former climate: perhaps Ross will give some information...

Watson's paper on the Azores (315/3. H.C. Watson, "London Journal of Botany," 1843-44.) has surprised me much; do you not think it odd, the fewness of peculiar species, and their rarity on the alpine heights? I wish he had tabulated his results; could you not suggest to him to draw up a paper of such results, comparing these Islands with Madeira? surely does not Madeira abound with peculiar forms?

A discussion on the relations of the floras, especially the alpine ones, of Azores, Madeira, and Canary Islands, would be, I should think, of general interest. How curious, the several doubtful species, which are referred to by Watson, at the end of his paper; just as happens with birds at the Galapagos...Any time that you can put me in the way of reading about alpine floras, I shall feel it as the greatest kindness. I grieve there is no better authority for Bourbon, than that stupid Bory: I presume his remark that plants, on isolated volcanic islands are polymorphous (i.e., I suppose, variable?) is quite gratuitous. Farewell, my dear Hooker. This letter is infamously unclear, and I fear can be of no use, except giving you the impression of a botanical ignoramus.