Today | News | Books | Recipes Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History Bookd
since the Glacial era; but do you feel so sure, as to oppose (359/4.
The meaning seems to be: "Do you feel so sure that you can bring in
opposition a large body of considerations to show, etc.") a large body
of considerations on the other side, that this genus could not have been
slowly accustomed to a cooler climate? I see Lindley says it has
not been brought to England, and so could not have been tried in the
greenhouse. Have you materials to show to what little height it ever
ascends the mountains of Java or Sumatra? It makes a mighty difference,
the whole area being cooled; and the area perhaps not being in all
respects, such as dampness, etc., etc., fitted for such temperate
plants as could get in. But, anyhow, I am ready to swear again that
Dipterocarpus and any other genus you like to name did survive during a
cooler period.
About reversion you express just what I mean. I somehow blundered, and
mentally took literally that the child inherited from his grandfather.
This view of latency collates a lot of facts--secondary sexual
characters in each individual; tendency of latent character to appear
temporarily in youth; effect of crossing in educing talent, character,
etc. When one thinks of a latent character being handed down, hidden for
a thousand or ten thousand generations, and then suddenly appearing, one
is quite bewildered at the host of characters written in invisible ink
on the germ. I have no evidence of the reversion of all characters in a
variety. I quite agree to what you say about genius. I told Lyell that
passage made me groan.
What a pity about Falconer! (359/5. This refers to Falconer's claim
of priority against Lyell. See "Life and Letters," III., page 14; also
Letters 166 and 168.) How singular and how lamentable!
Remember orchid pods. I have a passion to grow the seeds (and other
motives). I have not a fact to go on, but have a notion (no, I have a
firm conviction!) that they are parasitic in early youth on cryptogams!
(359/6. In an article on British Epiphytal Orchids ("Gard. Chron." 1884,
page 144) Malaxis paludosa is described by F.W. Burbidge as being a true
epiphyte on the stems of Sphagnum. Stahl states that the difficulty of
cultivating orchids largely depends on their dependence on a mycorhizal
fungus,--though he does not apply his view to germination. See
Pringsheim's "Jahrbucher," XXXIV., page 581. We are indebted to Sir
Joseph Hooker for the reference to Burbidge's paper.) Here is a fool's
notion. I have some planted on Sphagnum. Do any tropical lichens or
mosses, or European, withstand heat, or grow on any trees in hothouse at
Kew? If so, for love of Heaven, favour my madness, and have some scraped
off and sent me.
I am like a gambler, and love a wild experiment. It gives me great
pleasure to fancy that I see radicles of orchid seed penetrating the
Sphagnum. I know I shall not, and therefore shall not be disappointed.
LETTER 360. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down [September 26th 1863].
...About New Zealand, at last I am coming round, and admit it must have
been connected with some terra firma, but I will die rather than admit
Australia. How I wish mountains of New Caledonia were well worked!...
LETTER 361. TO J.D. HOOKER.
(361/1. In the earlier part of this letter Mr. Darwin refers to a review
on Planchon in the "Nat. History Review," April 1865. There can be
no doubt, therefore, that "Thomson's article" must be the review of
Jordan's "Diagnoses d'especes nouvelles ou meconnues," etc., in the
same number, page 226. It deals with "lumpers" and "splitters," and a
possible trinomial nomenclature.)
April 17th [1865].
I have been very much struck by Thomson's article; it seems to me quite
remarkable for its judgment, force, and clearness. It has interested me
greatly. I have sometimes loosely speculated on what nomenclature would
come to, and concluded that it would be trinomial. What a name a
plant will formally bear with the author's name after genus (as some
recommend), and after species and subspecies! It really seems one of
the greatest questions which can be discussed for systematic Natural
History. How impartially Thomson adjusts the claims of "hair-splitters"
and "lumpers"! I sincerely hope he will pretty often write reviews or
essays. It is an old subject of grief to me, formerly in Geology and of
late in Zoology and Botany, that the very best men (excepting those who
have to write principles and elements, etc.) read so little, and give
up nearly their whole time to original work. I have often thought that
science would progress more if there was more reading. How few read any
long and laborious papers! The only use of publishing such seems to be
as a proof that the author has given time and labour to his work.
LETTER 362. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 22nd and 28th, 1865.
As for the anthropologists being a bete noire to scientific men, I
am not surprised, for I have just skimmed through the last "Anthrop.
Journal," and it shows, especially the long attack on the British
Association, a curious spirit of insolence, conceit, dullness, and
vulgarity. I have read with uncommon interest Travers' short paper on
the Chatham Islands. (362/1. See Travers, H.H., "Notes on the Chatham
Islands," "Linn. Soc. Journ." IX., October 1865. Mr. Travers says he
picked up a seed of Edwardsia, evidently washed ashore. The stranded
logs indicated a current from New Zealand.) I remember your pitching
into me with terrible ferocity because I said I thought the seed of
Edwardsia might have been floated from Chili to New Zealand: now what do
you say, my young man, to the three young trees of the same size on one
spot alone of the island, and with the cast-up pod on the shore? If it
were not for those unlucky wingless birds I could believe that the group
had been colonised by accidental means; but, as it is, it appears by
far to me the best evidence of continental extension ever observed. The
distance, I see, is 360 miles. I wish I knew whether the sea was deeper
than between New Zealand and Australia. I fear you will not admit such
a small accident as the wingless birds having been transported on
icebergs. Do suggest, if you have a chance, to any one visiting the
Islands again, to look out for erratic boulders there. How curious
his statement is about the fruit-trees and bees! (362/2. "Since the
importation of bees, European fruit-trees and bushes have produced
freely." Travers, "Linn. Soc. Journal," IX., page 144.) I wish I knew
whether the clover had spread before the bees were introduced...
I saw in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" the sentence about the "Origin"
dying in Germany, but did not know it was by Seemann.
LETTER 363. TO C. LYELL. Down, February 7th [1866].
I am very much obliged for your note and the extract, which have
interested me extremely. I cannot disbelieve for a moment Agassiz on
Glacial action after all his experience, as you say, and after that
capital book with plates which he early published (363/1. "Etudes sur
les Glaciers"; Neuch |