FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   403   404   405   406   407   408   409   410   411   412   413   414   415   416   417   418   419   420   421   422   423   424   425   426   427  
428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439   440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452   >>   >|  
hy? Is East Asia nearly as well known as West America? so that does the state of knowledge allow a pretty fair comparison? I presume it would be impossible, but I think it would make in one point your tables of generic ranges more clear (admirably clear as they seem to me) if you could show, even roughly, what proportion of the genera in common to Europe (i.e. nearly half) are very general or mundane rangers. As your results now stand, at the first glance the affinity seems so very strong to Europe, owing, as I presume, to nearly half of the genera including very many genera common to the world or large portions of it. Europe is thus unfairly exalted. Is this not so? If we had the number of genera strictly, or nearly strictly European, one could compare better with Asia and Southern America, etc. But I dare say this is a Utopian wish, owing to difficulty of saying what genera to call mundane; nor have I my ideas at all clear on the subject, and I have expressed them even less clearly than I have them. I am so very glad that you intend to work out the north range of the 321 European species; for it seems to me the by far most important element in their distribution. And I am equally glad that you intend to work out range of species in regard to size of genera--i.e. number of species in genus. I have been attempting to do this in a very few cases, but it is folly for any one but a botanist to attempt it. I must think that De Candolle has fallen into error in attempting to do this for orders instead of for genera--for reasons with which I will not trouble you. LETTER 332. TO J.D. HOOKER. (332/1. The "verdict" referred to in the following letter was Sir J.D. Hooker's opinion on Darwin's MS. on geographical distribution. The first paragraph has been already published in "Life and Letters," II., page 86.) Down, November 4th [1856]. I thank you more cordially than you will think probable for your note. Your verdict has been a great relief. On my honour I had no idea whether or not you would say it was (and I knew you would say it very kindly) so bad, that you would have begged me to have burnt the whole. To my own mind my MS. relieved me of some few difficulties, and the difficulties seemed to me pretty fairly stated; but I had become so bewildered with conflicting facts--evidence, reasoning and opinions--that I felt to myself that I had lost all judgment. Your general verdict is incomparably more favourable tha
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   403   404   405   406   407   408   409   410   411   412   413   414   415   416   417   418   419   420   421   422   423   424   425   426   427  
428   429   430   431   432   433   434   435   436   437   438   439   440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
genera
 

species

 
Europe
 

verdict

 
strictly
 

European

 

number

 
attempting
 

distribution

 

intend


America
 

difficulties

 

presume

 

pretty

 

common

 
mundane
 

general

 
letter
 
evidence
 

reasoning


orders

 

conflicting

 

fallen

 

fairly

 

stated

 

bewildered

 

referred

 

judgment

 

LETTER

 

incomparably


trouble
 

favourable

 

HOOKER

 
reasons
 

opinions

 

begged

 

probable

 

cordially

 
November
 
relief

kindly

 

honour

 
Darwin
 

geographical

 

paragraph

 

relieved

 

opinion

 

published

 

Letters

 

Hooker