macintosh.world | Log In | Register

Today | News | Books | Recipes
Notes | QuickTake | Wiki | Browse
Maps | Reference | Reddit | YouTube
Chat | Games | About

Search Books

Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History

Book

Open Original Text

ot come here before Nottingham, if you do not come
afterwards I shall think myself diabolically ill-used.

LETTER 371. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, August 9th, 1866.

If my letters did not gene you it is impossible that you should suppose
that yours were of no use to me! I would throw up the whole thing were
it not for correspondence with you, which is the only bit of silver
in the affair. I do feel it disgusting to have to make a point of a
speciality in which I cannot see my way a bit further than I could
before I began. To be sure, I have a very much clearer notion of the
pros and cons on both sides (though these were rather forgotten facts
than rediscoveries). I see the sides of the well further down more
distinctly, but the bottom is as obscure as ever.

I think I know the "Origin" by heart in relation to the subject, and
it was reading it that suggested the queries about Azores boulders and
Madeira birds. The former you and I have talked over, and I thought I
remembered that you wanted it confirmed. The latter strikes me thus: why
should plants and insects have been so extensively changed and birds not
at all? I perfectly understand and feel the force of your argument in
reference to birds per se, but why do these not apply to insects and
plants? Can you not see that this suggests the conclusion that the
plants are derived one way and the birds another?

I certainly did take it for granted that you supposed the stocking [by]
occasional transport to be something even more than a "well-established
hypothesis," but disputants seldom stop to measure the strength of their
antagonist's opinion.

I shall be with you on Saturday week, I hope. I should have come before,
but have made so little progress that I could not. I am now at St.
Helena, and shall then go to, and finish with, Kerguelen's land.

(371/1. After giving the distances of the Azores, etc., from America,
Sir Joseph continues:--)

But to my mind [it] does not mend the matter--for I do not ask why
Azores have even proportionally (to distance) a smaller number of
American plants, but why they have none, seeing the winds and currents
set that way. The Bermudas are all American in flora, but from what
Col. Munro informs me I should say they have nothing but common American
weeds and the juniper (cedar). No changed forms, yet they are as far
from America as Azores from Europe. I suppose they are modern and out of
the pale.

...There is this, to me, astounding difference between certain oceanic
islands which were stocked by continental extension and those stocked
by immigration (following in both definitions your opinion), that
the former [continental] do contain many types of the more distant
continent, the latter do not any! Take Madagascar, with its many
Asiatic genera unknown in Africa; Ceylon, with many Malayan types not
Peninsular; Japan, with many non-Asiatic American types. Baird's fact of
Greenland migration I was aware of since I wrote my Arctic paper. I wish
I was as satisfied either of continental [extensions] or of transport
means as I am of my Greenland hypothesis!

Oh, dear me, what a comfort it is to have a belief (sneer away).

LETTER 372. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 4th, 1866.

I have just finished the New Zealand "Manual" (372/1. "Handbook of
the New Zealand Flora."), and am thinking about a discussion on the
geographical distribution, etc., of the plants. There is scarcely a
single indigenous annual plant in the group. I wish that I knew more of
the past condition of the islands, and whether they have been rising or
sinking. There is much that suggests the idea that the islands were
once connected during a warmer epoch, were afterwards separated and
much reduced in area to what they now are, and lastly have assumed their
present size. The remarkable general uniformity of the flora, even of
the arboreous flora, throughout so many degrees of latitude, is a very
remarkable feature, as is the representation of a good many of the
southern half of certain species of the north, by very closely allied
varieties or species; and, lastly, there is the immense preponderance of
certain genera whose species all run into one another and vary horribly,
and which suggest a rising area. I hear that a whale has been found some
miles inland.

LETTER 373. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 14th, 1866.

I do not see how the mountains of New Zealand, S. Australia, and
Tasmania could have been peopled, and [with] so large an extent of
antarctic (373/1. "Introductory Essay to Flora of New Zealand," page xx.
"The plants of the Antarctic islands, which are equally natives of New
Zealand, Tasmania, and Australia, are almost invariably found only
on the lofty mountains of these countries.") forms common to Fuegia,
without some intercommunication. And I have always supposed this was
before the immigration of Asiatic plants into Australia, and of
which plants the temperate and tropical plants of that country may be
considered as altered forms. The presence of so many of these temperate
and cold Australian and New Zealand genera on the top of Kini Balu in
Borneo (under the equator) is an awful staggerer, and demands a very
extended northern distribution of Australian temperate forms. It is
a frightful assumption that the plains of Borneo were covered with a
temperate cold vegetation that was driven up Kini Balu by the returning
cold. Then there is the very distant distribution of a few Australian
types northward to the Philippines, China, and Japan: that is a fearful
and wonderful fact, though, as these plants are New Zealand too for the
most part, the migration northward may have been east of Australia.

LETTER 374. TO J.D. HOOKER. December 24th [1866].

...One word more about the flora derived from supposed Pleistocene
antarctic land requiring land intercommunication. This will depend much,
as it seems to me, upon how far you finally settle whether Azores, Cape
de Verdes, Tristan d'Acunha, Galapagos, Juan Fernandez, etc., etc.,
etc., have all had land intercommunication. If you do not think this
necessary, might not New Zealand, etc., have been stocked during
commencing Glacial period by occasional means from antarctic land? As
for lowlands of Borneo being tenanted by a moderate number of temperate
forms during the Glacial period, so far [is it] from appearing a
"frightful assumption" that I am arrived at that pitch of bigotry that I
look at it as proved!

LETTER 375. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 25th, 1866.

I was about to write to-day, when your jolly letter came this morning,
to tell you that after carefully going over the N.Z. Flora, I find that
there are only about thirty reputed indigenous Dicot. annuals, of
which almost half, not being found by Banks and Solander, are probably
non-indigenous. This is just 1/20th of the Dicots., or, excluding the
doubtful, about 1/40th, whereas the British proportion of annuals is
1/4.6 amongst Dicots.!!! Of the naturalised New Zealan

Previous Next