FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   438   439   440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462  
463   464   >>  
y 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 prog
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   438   439   440   441   442   443   444   445   446   447   448   449   450   451   452   453   454   455   456   457   458   459   460   461   462  
463   464   >>  



Top keywords:
Thomson
 

Sphagnum

 
LETTER
 

article

 
review
 

History

 

lumpers

 
HOOKER
 

nomenclature

 

trinomial


splitters
 

Burbidge

 

science

 

Review

 

principles

 
elements
 

excepting

 
Botany
 
Zoology
 

struck


Jordan

 

Diagnoses

 

original

 

thought

 

especes

 

nouvelles

 

Geology

 

number

 

meconnues

 

sincerely


recommend
 

formally

 

author

 
pretty
 

species

 

subspecies

 

discussed

 

systematic

 
Natural
 
adjusts

claims

 

greatest

 
questions
 

judgment

 

clearness

 

remarkable

 

impartially

 

subject

 

interested

 

greatly