, November 4th [1862].

I have read the pages (356/1. The paper on Arctic plants in Volume
XXIII. of the Linnean Society's "Transactions," 1860-62.) attentively
(with even very much more admiration than the first time) and cannot
imagine what makes Dr. D. accuse you of asserting a subsidence of Arctic
America. (356/2. The late Sir J.W. Dawson wrote a review (signed J.W.D)
of Hooker's Arctic paper which appeared in the "Canadian Naturalist,"
1862, Volume VII., page 334. The chief part of the article is made up of
quotations from Asa Gray's article referred to below. The remainder is
a summary of geological arguments against Hooker's views. We do not
find the accusation referred to above, which seems to have appeared in
a lecture.) No doubt there was a subsidence of N. America during
the Glacial period, and over a large part, but to maintain that the
subsidence extended over nearly the whole breadth of the continent, or
lasted during the whole Glacial period, I do not believe he can support.
I suspect much of the evidence of subsidence during the Glacial period
there will prove false, as it largely rests on ice-action, which is
becoming, as you know, to be viewed as more and more subaerial. If
Dawson has published criticisms I should like to see them. I have heard
he is rabid against me, and no doubt partly in consequence, against
anything you write in my favour (and never was anything published more
favourable than the Arctic paper). Lyell had difficulty in preventing
Dawson reviewing the "Origin" (356/3. Dawson reviewed the "Origin" in
the "Canadian Naturalist," 1860.) on hearsay, without having looked at
it. No spirit of fairness can be expected from so biassed a judge.

All I can say is that your few first pages have impressed me far more
this reading than the first time. Can the Scandinavian portion of the
flora be so potent (356/4. Dr. Hooker wrote: "Regarded as a whole the
Arctic flora is decidedly Scandinavian; for Arctic Scandinavia, or
Lapland, though a very small tract of land, contains by far the richest
Arctic flora, amounting to three-fourths of the whole"; he pointed out
"that the Scandinavian flora is present in every latitude of the globe,
and is the only one that is so" (quoted by Gray, loc. cit. infra).) from
having been preserved in that corner, warmed by the Gulf Stream, and
from now alone representing the entire circumpolar flora, during the
warmer pre-Glacial period? From the first I have not been a