I suppose you will answer that the European forms are prepotent, but this is riding prepotency to death.
R.T. Lowe has written me a capital letter on the Madeiran, Canarian, and Cape Verde floras.
I misled you if I gave you to understand that Wollaston"s Catalogue said anything about rare plants. I am worked and worried to death with this lecture: and curse myself as a soft headed and hearted imbecile to have accepted it.
LETTER 368. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, Monday [August 6th, 1866].
Again thanks for your letter. You need not fear my not doing justice to your objections to the continental hypothesis!
Referring to page 344 again (368/1. "Origin of Species," Edition III., pages 343-4: "In some cases, however, as by the breaking of an isthmus and the consequent irruption of a mult.i.tude of new inhabitants, or by the final subsidence of an island, the extinction may have been comparatively rapid."), it never occurred to me that you alluded to extinction of marine life: an isthmus is a piece of land, and you go on in the same sentence about "an island," which quite threw me out, for the destruction of an isthmus makes an island!
I surely did not say Azores nearer to Britain and Newfoundland "than to Madeira," but "than Madeira is to said places."
With regard to the Madeiran coleoptera I rely very little on local distribution of insects--they are so local themselves. A b.u.t.terfly is a great rarity in Kew, even a white, though we are surrounded by market gardens. All insects are most rare with us, even the kinds that abound on the opposite side of Thames.
So with sh.e.l.ls, we have literally none--not a Helix even, though they abound in the lanes 200 yards off the Gardens. Of the 89 Dezertas insects [only?] 11 are peculiar. Of the 162 Porto Santan 113 are Madeiran and 51 Dezertan.
Never mind bothering Murray about the new edition of the "Origin" for me. You will tell me anything bearing on my subject.
LETTER 369. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, August 7th, 1866.
Dear old Darwin,
You must not let me worry you. I am an obstinate pig, but you must not be miserable at my looking at the same thing in a different light from you. I must get to the bottom of this question, and that is all I can do. Some cleverer fellow one day will knock the bottom out of it, and see his way to explain what to a botanist without a theory to support must be very great difficulties. True enough, all may be explained, as you reason it will be--I quite grant this; but meanwhile all is not so explained, and I cannot accept a hypothesis that leaves so many facts unaccounted for. You say the temperate parts of N. America [are] nearly two and a half times as distant from the Azores as Europe is. According to a rough calculation on Col. James" chart I make E. Azores to Portugal 850, West do. to Newfoundland 1500, but I am writing to a friend at Admiralty to have the distance calculated (which looks like cracking nuts with Nasmyth"s hammer!)
Are European birds blown to America? Are the Azorean erratics an established fact? I want them very badly, though they are not of much consequence, as a slight sinking would hide all evidence of that sort.
I do want to sum up impartially, leaving the verdict to jury. I cannot do this without putting all difficulties most clearly. How do you know how you would fare with me if you were a continentalist! Then too we must recollect that I have to meet a host who are all on the continental side--in fact, pretty nearly all the thinkers, Forbes, Hartung, Heer, Unger, Wollaston, Lowe (Wallace, I suppose), and now Andrew Murray. I do not regard all these, and snap my fingers at all but you; in my inmost soul I conscientiously say I incline to your theory, but I cannot accept it as an established truth or unexceptionable hypothesis.
The "Wire bird" being a Grallator is a curious fact favourable to you...How I do yearn to go out again to St. Helena.
Of course I accept the ornithological evidence as tremendously strong, though why they should get blown westerly, and not change specifically, as insects, sh.e.l.ls, and plants have done, is a mystery.
LETTER 370. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 8th [1866].
It would be a very great pleasure to me if I could think that my letters were of the least use to you. I must have expressed myself badly for you to suppose that I look at islands being stocked by occasional transport as a well-established hypothesis. We both give up creation, and therefore have to account for the inhabitants of islands either by continental extensions or by occasional transport. Now, all that I maintain is that of these two alternatives, one of which must be admitted, notwithstanding very many difficulties, occasional transport is by far the most probable. I go thus far further--that I maintain, knowing what we do, that it would be inexplicable if unstocked islands were not stocked to a certain extent at least by these occasional means.
European birds are occasionally driven to America, but far more rarely than in the reverse direction: they arrive via Greenland (Baird); yet a European lark has been caught in Bermuda.
By the way, you might like to hear that European birds regularly migrate via the northern islands to Greenland.
About the erratics in the Azores see "Origin," page 393. (370/1.
"Origin," Edition VI., page 328. The importance of erratic blocks on the Azores is in showing the probability of ice-borne seeds having stocked the islands, and thus accounting for the number of European species and their unexpectedly northern character. Darwin"s delight in the verification of his theory is described in a letter to Sir Joseph of April 26th, 1858, in the "Life and Letters," II., page 112.) Hartung could hardly be mistaken about granite blocks on a volcanic island.
I do not think it a mystery that birds have not been modified in Madeira. (370/2. "Origin," Edition VI., page 328. Madeira has only one endemic bird. Darwin accounts for the fact from the island having been stocked with birds which had struggled together and become mutually co-adapted on the neighbouring continents. "Hence, when settled in their new homes, each kind will have been kept by the others in its proper place and habits, and will consequently have been but little liable to modification." Crossing with frequently arriving immigrants will also tend to keep down modification.) Pray look at page 422 of "Origin"
[Edition III.]. You would not think it a mystery if you had seen the long lists which I have (somewhere) of the birds annually blown, even in flocks, to Madeira. The crossed stock would be the more vigorous.
Remember if you do not come here before Nottingham, if you do not come afterwards I shall think myself diabolically ill-used.
LETTER 371. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, August 9th, 1866.
If my letters did not gene you it is impossible that you should suppose that yours were of no use to me! I would throw up the whole thing were it not for correspondence with you, which is the only bit of silver in the affair. I do feel it disgusting to have to make a point of a speciality in which I cannot see my way a bit further than I could before I began. To be sure, I have a very much clearer notion of the pros and cons on both sides (though these were rather forgotten facts than rediscoveries). I see the sides of the well further down more distinctly, but the bottom is as obscure as ever.
I think I know the "Origin" by heart in relation to the subject, and it was reading it that suggested the queries about Azores boulders and Madeira birds. The former you and I have talked over, and I thought I remembered that you wanted it confirmed. The latter strikes me thus: why should plants and insects have been so extensively changed and birds not at all? I perfectly understand and feel the force of your argument in reference to birds per se, but why do these not apply to insects and plants? Can you not see that this suggests the conclusion that the plants are derived one way and the birds another?
I certainly did take it for granted that you supposed the stocking [by]
occasional transport to be something even more than a "well-established hypothesis," but disputants seldom stop to measure the strength of their antagonist"s opinion.
I shall be with you on Sat.u.r.day week, I hope. I should have come before, but have made so little progress that I could not. I am now at St.
Helena, and shall then go to, and finish with, Kerguelen"s land.
(371/1. After giving the distances of the Azores, etc., from America, Sir Joseph continues:--)
But to my mind [it] does not mend the matter--for I do not ask why Azores have even proportionally (to distance) a smaller number of American plants, but why they have none, seeing the winds and currents set that way. The Bermudas are all American in flora, but from what Col. Munro informs me I should say they have nothing but common American weeds and the juniper (cedar). No changed forms, yet they are as far from America as Azores from Europe. I suppose they are modern and out of the pale.
...There is this, to me, astounding difference between certain oceanic islands which were stocked by continental extension and those stocked by immigration (following in both definitions your opinion), that the former [continental] do contain many types of the more distant continent, the latter do not any! Take Madagascar, with its many Asiatic genera unknown in Africa; Ceylon, with many Malayan types not Peninsular; j.a.pan, with many non-Asiatic American types. Baird"s fact of Greenland migration I was aware of since I wrote my Arctic paper. I wish I was as satisfied either of continental [extensions] or of transport means as I am of my Greenland hypothesis!
Oh, dear me, what a comfort it is to have a belief (sneer away).
LETTER 372. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 4th, 1866.
I have just finished the New Zealand "Manual" (372/1. "Handbook of the New Zealand Flora."), and am thinking about a discussion on the geographical distribution, etc., of the plants. There is scarcely a single indigenous annual plant in the group. I wish that I knew more of the past condition of the islands, and whether they have been rising or sinking. There is much that suggests the idea that the islands were once connected during a warmer epoch, were afterwards separated and much reduced in area to what they now are, and lastly have a.s.sumed their present size. The remarkable general uniformity of the flora, even of the arboreous flora, throughout so many degrees of lat.i.tude, is a very remarkable feature, as is the representation of a good many of the southern half of certain species of the north, by very closely allied varieties or species; and, lastly, there is the immense preponderance of certain genera whose species all run into one another and vary horribly, and which suggest a rising area. I hear that a whale has been found some miles inland.
LETTER 373. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 14th, 1866.
I do not see how the mountains of New Zealand, S. Australia, and Tasmania could have been peopled, and [with] so large an extent of antarctic (373/1. "Introductory Essay to Flora of New Zealand," page xx.
"The plants of the Antarctic islands, which are equally natives of New Zealand, Tasmania, and Australia, are almost invariably found only on the lofty mountains of these countries.") forms common to Fuegia, without some intercommunication. And I have always supposed this was before the immigration of Asiatic plants into Australia, and of which plants the temperate and tropical plants of that country may be considered as altered forms. The presence of so many of these temperate and cold Australian and New Zealand genera on the top of Kini Balu in Borneo (under the equator) is an awful staggerer, and demands a very extended northern distribution of Australian temperate forms. It is a frightful a.s.sumption that the plains of Borneo were covered with a temperate cold vegetation that was driven up Kini Balu by the returning cold. Then there is the very distant distribution of a few Australian types northward to the Philippines, China, and j.a.pan: that is a fearful and wonderful fact, though, as these plants are New Zealand too for the most part, the migration northward may have been east of Australia.
LETTER 374. TO J.D. HOOKER. December 24th [1866].
...One word more about the flora derived from supposed Pleistocene antarctic land requiring land intercommunication. This will depend much, as it seems to me, upon how far you finally settle whether Azores, Cape de Verdes, Tristan d"Acunha, Galapagos, Juan Fernandez, etc., etc., etc., have all had land intercommunication. If you do not think this necessary, might not New Zealand, etc., have been stocked during commencing Glacial period by occasional means from antarctic land? As for lowlands of Borneo being tenanted by a moderate number of temperate forms during the Glacial period, so far [is it] from appearing a "frightful a.s.sumption" that I am arrived at that pitch of bigotry that I look at it as proved!
LETTER 375. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. Kew, December 25th, 1866.
I was about to write to-day, when your jolly letter came this morning, to tell you that after carefully going over the N.Z. Flora, I find that there are only about thirty reputed indigenous Dicot. annuals, of which almost half, not being found by Banks and Solander, are probably non-indigenous. This is just 1/20th of the Dicots., or, excluding the doubtful, about 1/40th, whereas the British proportion of annuals is 1/4.6 amongst Dicots.!!! Of the naturalised New Zealand plants one-half are annual! I suppose there can be no doubt but that a deciduous-leaved vegetation affords more conditions for vegetable life than an evergreen one, and that it is hence that we find countries characterised by uniform climates to be poor in species, and those to be evergreens. I can now work this point out for New Zealand and Britain. j.a.pan may be an exception: it is an extraordinary evergreen country, and has many species apparently, but it has so much novelty that it may not be so rich in species really as it hence looks, and I do believe it is very poor. It has very few annuals. Then, again, I think that the number of plants with irregular flowers, and especially such as require insect agency, diminishes much with evergreenity. Hence in all humid temperate regions we have, as a rule, few species, many evergreens, few annuals, few Leguminosae and orchids, few lepidoptera and other flying insects, many Coniferae, Amentaceae, Gramineae, Cyperaceae, and other wind-fertilised trees and plants, etc. Orchids and Leguminosae are scarce in islets, because the necessary fertilising insects have not migrated with the plants. Perhaps you have published this.
LETTER 376. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 9th [1867].
I like the first part of your paper in the "Gard. Chronicle" (376/1.
The lecture on Insular Floras ("Gard. Chron." January 1867).) to an extraordinary degree: you never, in my opinion, wrote anything better.