Un quite shocked to find how easily I am muddled, for I had before thought over the subject much, and concluded my way was fair. It is dreadfully erroneous.
What a disgraceful blunder you have saved me from. I heartily thank you.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--It is enough to make me tear up all my MS. and give up in despair.
It will take me several weeks to go over all my materials. But oh, if you knew how thankful I am to you!
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, August [1857].
My dear Hooker, It is a horrid bore you cannot come soon, and I reproach myself that I did not write sooner. How busy you must be! with such a heap of botanists at Kew. Only think, I have just had a letter from Henslow, saying he will come here between 11th and 15th! Is not that grand? Many thanks about Furnrohr. I must humbly supplicate Kippist to search for it: he most kindly got Boreau for me.
I am got extremely interested in tabulating, according to mere size of genera, the species having any varieties marked by Greek letters or otherwise: the result (as far as I have yet gone) seems to me one of the most important arguments I have yet met with, that varieties are only small species--or species only strongly marked varieties. The subject is in many ways so very important for me; I wish much you would think of any well-worked Floras with from 1000-2000 species, with the varieties marked. It is good to have hair-splitters and lumpers. (Those who make many species are the "splitters," and those who make few are the "lumpers.") I have done, or am doing:--Babington.......................
Henslow......................... British Flora.
London Catalogue. H.C. Watson...
Boreau.......................... France.
Miquel.......................... Holland.
Asa Gray........................ N.U. States.
Hooker.......................... New Zealand.
Fragment of Indian Flora.
Wollaston....................... Madeira insects.
Has not Koch published a good German Flora? Does he mark varieties? Could you send it me? Is there not some grand Russian Flora, which perhaps has varieties marked? The Floras ought to be well known.
I am in no hurry for a few weeks. Will you turn this in your head when, if ever, you have leisure? The subject is very important for my work, though I clearly see MANY causes of error...
CHARLES DARWIN TO ASA GRAY.
Down, February 21st [1859].
My dear Gray, My last letter begged no favour, this one does: but it will really cost you very little trouble to answer to me, and it will be of very GREATservice to me, owing to a remark made to me by Hooker, which I cannot credit, and which was suggested to him by one of my letters. He suggested my asking you, and I told him I would not give the least hint what he thought. I generally believe Hooker implicitly, but he is sometimes, Ithink, and he confesses it, rather over critical, and his ingenuity in discovering flaws seems to me admirable. Here is my question:--"Do you think that good botanists in drawing up a local Flora, whether small or large, or in ****** a Prodromus like De Candolle's, would almost universally, but unintentionally and unconsciously, tend to record (i.e., marking with Greek letters and giving short characters) varieties in the large or in the small genera? Or would the tendency be to record the varieties about equally in genera of all sizes? Are you yourself conscious on reflection that you have attended to, and recorded more carefully the varieties in large or small, or very small genera?"I know what fleeting and trifling things varieties very often are; but my query applies to such as have been thought worth marking and recording. If you could screw time to send me ever so brief an answer to this, pretty soon, it would be a great service to me.
Yours most truly obliged, CH. DARWIN.
P.S.--Do you know whether any one has ever published any remarks on the geographical range of varieties of plants in comparison with the species to which they are supposed to belong? I have in vain tried to get some vague idea, and with the exception of a little information on this head given me by Mr. Watson in a paper on Land Shells in United States, I have quite failed; but perhaps it would be difficult for you to give me even a brief answer on this head, and if so I am not so unreasonable, I ASSURE YOU, as to expect it.
If you are writing to England soon, you could enclose other letters [for] me to forward.
Please observe the question is not whether there are more or fewer varieties in larger or smaller genera, but whether there is a stronger or weaker tendency in the minds of botanists to RECORD such in large or small genera.
CHARLES DARWIN TO J.D. HOOKER.
Down, May 6th [1858].
...I send by this post my MS. on the "commonness," "range," and "variation"of species in large and small genera. You have undertaken a horrid job in so very kindly offering to read it, and I thank you warmly. I have just corrected the copy, and am disappointed in finding how tough and obscure it is; I cannot make it clearer, and at present I loathe the very sight of it.
The style of course requires further correction, and if published I must try, but as yet see not how, to make it clearer.
If you have much to say and can have patience to consider the whole subject, I would meet you in London on the Phil. Club day, so as to save you the trouble of writing. For Heaven's sake, you stern and awful judge and sceptic, remember that my conclusions may be true, notwithstanding that Botanists may have recorded more varieties in large than in small genera.
It seems to me a mere balancing of probabilities. Again I thank you most sincerely, but I fear you will find it a horrid job.
Ever yours, C. DARWIN.
P.S.--As usual, Hydropathy has made a man of me for a short time: I hope the sea will do Mrs. Hooker much good.
CHARLES DARWIN TO A.R. WALLACE.
Down, December 22nd, 1857.
My dear Sir, I thank you for your letter of September 27th. I am extremely glad to hear how you are attending to distribution in accordance with theoretical ideas.