Today | News | Books | Recipes Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History Bookyour remarks on the struggle of vegetation: I find
that I have rather misunderstood you, for I feared I differed from you,
which I see is hardly the case at all. I cannot help suspecting that you
put rather too much weight to climate in the case of Australia. La
Plata seems to present such analogous facts, though I suppose the
naturalisation of European plants has there taken place on a still
larger scale than in Australia...
You will get four copies of my book--one for self, and three for the
foreign botanists--in about ten days, or sooner; i.e., as soon as the
sheets can be bound in cloth. I hope this will not be too late for your
parcels.
When you read my volume, use your pencil and score, so that some time I
may have a talk with you on any criticisms.
LETTER 346. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, December 17th, [1859].
Whilst I think of it, let me tell you that years ago I remember seeing
in the Museum of the Geological Society a tooth of hippopotamus from
Madagascar: this, on geographical and all other grounds, ought to be
looked to. Pray make a note of this fact. (346/1. At a meeting of the
Geological Society, May 1st, 1833, a letter was read from Mr. Telfair
to Sir Alex. Johnstone, accompanying a specimen of recent conglomerate
rock, from the island of Madagascar, containing fragments of a tusk, and
part of a molar tooth of a hippopotamus ("Proc. Geol. Soc." 1833, page
479). There is a reference to these remains of hippopotamus in a paper
by Mr. R.B. Newton in the "Geol. Mag." Volume X., 1893; and in Dr.
Forsyth Major's memoir on Megaladapis Madagascariensis ("Phil. Trans. R.
Soc." Volume 185, page 30, 1894).
Since this letter was written, several bones belonging to two or
possibly three species of hippopotamus have been found in Madagascar.
See Forsyth Major, "On the General Results of a Zoological Expedition to
Madagascar in 1894-96" ("Proc. Zool. Soc." 1896, page 971.))
We have returned a week ago from Ilkley, and it has done me some decided
good. In London I saw Lyell (the poor man who has "rushed into the
bosom of two heresies"--by the way, I saw his celts, and how intensely
interesting), and he told me that you were very antagonistic to my views
on species. I well knew this would be the case. I must freely confess,
the difficulties and objections are terrific; but I cannot believe that
a false theory would explain, as it seems to me it does explain, so
many classes of facts. Do you ever see Wollaston? He and you would agree
nicely about my book (346/2. "Origin of Species," 1859.)--ill luck to
both of you. If you have anything at all pleasant for me to hear, do
write; and if all that you can say is very unpleasant, it will do you
good to expectorate. And it is well known that you are very fond of
writing letters. Farewell, my good old friend and enemy.
Do make a note about the hippopotamus. If you are such a gentleman as to
write, pray tell me how Torquay agrees with your health.
(PLATE: DR. ASA GRAY, 1867.)
LETTER 347. TO ASA GRAY. Down, December 24th [1859].
I have been for ten weeks at Water-cure, and on my return a fortnight
ago through London I found a copy of your Memoir, and heartily do I
thank you for it. (347/1. "Diagnostic Characters of New Species
of Phaenogamous Plants collected in Japan by Charles Wright...with
Observations upon the Relations of the Japanese Flora to that of North
America and of other parts of the Northern Temperate Zone" ("Mem.
American Acad. Arts and Sci." Volume VI., page 377, 1857).) I have not
read it, and shall not be able very soon, for I am much overworked, and
my stomach has got nearly as bad as ever.
With respect to the discussion on climate, I beg you to believe that I
never put myself for a moment in competition with Dana; but when one
has thought on a subject, one cannot avoid forming some opinion. What
I wrote to Hooker I forget, after reading only a few sheets of your
Memoir, which I saw would be full of interest to me. Hooker asked me
to write to you, but, as I told him, I would not presume to express an
opinion to you without careful deliberation. What he wrote I know not:
I had previously several years ago seen (by whom I forget) some
speculation on warmer period in the U. States subsequent to Glacial
period; and I had consulted Lyell, who seemed much to doubt, and Lyell's
judgment is really admirably cautious. The arguments advanced in your
paper and in your letter seem to me hardly sufficient; not that I
should be at all sorry to admit this subsequent and intercalated warmer
period--the more changes the merrier, I think. On the other hand, I
do not believe that introduction of the Old World forms into New
World subsequent to the Glacial period will do for the modified or
representative forms in the two Worlds. There has been too much change
in comparison with the little change of isolated alpine forms; but you
will see this in my book. (347/2. "Origin of Species" (1859), Chapter
XI., pages 365 et seq.) I may just make a few remarks why at first sight
I do not attach much weight to the argument in your letter about the
warmer climate. Firstly, about the level of the land having been lower
subsequently to Glacial period, as evidenced by the whole, etc., I
doubt whether meteorological knowledge is sufficient for this deduction:
turning to the S. hemisphere, it might be argued that a greater extent
of water made the temperature lower; and when much of the northern land
was lower, it would have been covered by the sea and intermigration
between Old and New Worlds would have been checked. Secondly, I doubt
whether any inference on nature of climate can be deduced from extinct
species of mammals. If the musk-ox and deer of great size of your
Barren-Grounds had been known only by fossil bones, who would have
ventured to surmise the excessively cold climate they lived under? With
respect to food of large animals, if you care about the subject will you
turn to my discussion on this subject partly in respect to the Elephas
primigenius in my "Journal of Researches" (Murray's Home and Colonial
Library), Chapter V., page 85. (347/3. "The firm conviction of the
necessity of a vegetation possessing a character of tropical luxuriance
to support such large animals, and the impossibility of reconciling this
with the proximity of perpetual congelation, was one chief cause of
the several theories of sudden revolutions of climate...I am far from
supposing that the climate has not changed since the period when these
animals lived, which now lie buried in the ice. At present I only wish
to show that as far as quantity of food alone is concerned, the ancient
rhinoceroses might have roamed over the steppes of Central Siberia
even in their present condition, as well as the living rhinoceroses and
elephants over the karoos of Southern Africa" ("Journal of Researches,"
page 89, 1888).) In this country we infer from remains of Elephas
primigenius that the climate at the period of its embedment was very
severe, as seems countenanced by |