FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   395   396   397   398   399   400   401   402   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   >>   >|  
it appeared to me that the six heads of your Essay included almost every point which could be desired, and therefore that I had little to say. LETTER 326. TO J.D. HOOKER. (326/1. On July 5th, 1856, Darwin wrote to Sir J.D. Hooker:-- "I am going mad and am in despair over your confounded Antarctic island flora. Will you read over the Tristan list, and see if my remarks on it are at all accurate. I cannot make out why you consider the vegetation so Fuegian.") Down, 8th [July, 1856]. I do hope that this note may arrive in time to save you trouble in one respect. I am perfectly ashamed of myself, for I find in introduction to Flora of Fuegia (326/2. "Flora Antarctica," page 216. "Though only 1,000 miles distant from the Cape of Good Hope, and 3,000 from the Strait of Magalhaens, the botany of this island [Tristan d'Acunha] is far more intimately allied to that of Fuegia than Africa." Hooker goes on to say that only Phylica and Pelargonium are Cape forms, while seven species, or one-quarter of the flora, "are either natives of Fuegia or typical of South American botany, and the ferns and Lycopodia exhibit a still stronger affinity.") a short discussion on Tristan plants, which though scored [i.e. marked in pencil] I had quite forgotten at the time, and had thought only of looking into introduction to New Zealand Flora. It was very stupid of me. In my sketch I am forced to pick out the most striking cases of species which favour the multiple creation doctrine, without indeed great continental extensions are admitted. Of the many wonderful cases in your books, the one which strikes me most is that list of species, which you made for me, common to New Zealand and America, and confined to southern hemisphere; and in this list those common to Chile and New Zealand seem to me the most wondrous. I have copied these out and enclosed them. Now I will promise to ask no more questions, if you will tell me a little about these. What I want to know is, whether any or many of them are mountain plants of Chile, so as to bring them in some degree (like the Chonos plants) under the same category with the Fuegian plants? I see that all the genera (Edwardsia even having Sandwich Island and Indian species) are wide-ranging genera, except Myosurus, which seems extra wonderful. Do any of these genera cling to seaside? Are the other species of these genera wide rangers? Do be a good Christian and not hate me. I began last night to r
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   395   396   397   398   399   400   401   402   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   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
species
 

plants

 
genera
 

Tristan

 
Fuegia
 

Zealand

 

Fuegian

 
common
 

wonderful

 

botany


island
 

introduction

 

Hooker

 

confined

 

hemisphere

 
America
 

wondrous

 
southern
 
forced
 

sketch


striking

 

favour

 

stupid

 

multiple

 

creation

 

admitted

 

strikes

 

extensions

 

continental

 

doctrine


copied
 

Myosurus

 

ranging

 
Sandwich
 

Island

 

Indian

 

seaside

 

rangers

 
Christian
 
Edwardsia

questions

 

promise

 
mountain
 

category

 

Chonos

 

degree

 

enclosed

 

vegetation

 

remarks

 

accurate