[[1]]
Dear Asa Gray
Many thanks for your letter & the swishing review of [Reverend Miles Joseph]
Berkeley -- it serves him right, but he certainly will not like it. He has made no
remarks on my review in the Journal of Botany; I suppose that like another friend of
mine (the last letters of whose names are Asa Gray) he thinks I am wrong wherever I
find faults! *1
I am charmed with your criticisms on my ideas of Physiology &c &c Your ideas remind
me of a fire work called the serpent which makes fiery circles -- ascends, makes
more circles, -- descends then flares up & goes out. mine you may compare to a
similar work called a whirlygig cracker, which does the same in a less methodical
form. They both end as your our ideas may end -- in a blaze, a bang & a stink[.] We
neither understand one another
[[2]] nor our[?] subject in one another’s eyes. & the stink of each alone remains to
each. I shall be very glad to take any amount of account of vital force when I find any
one else doing so -- with me it stands in the same relation to[?] other forces that
magnetism does to Heat, Electricity; Sound, Sight; each of[?] which is a tertium quid
investigated by then following up the laws of the others[.] With you Physiology =
Biology -- with us they have a totally different meaning. I mention this to show you
how far we are at cross--purposes in diction. Developement [sic] = growth, I agree &
generally use the latter term, but it is raw & undignified.
Heaven defend me from my friends I put [George] Bentham up to Ranunculanths! I
who cannot tolerate English names in any shape/-- They are [John Stevens]
Henslow[']s children, & bad; though they best, being infinitely better than =ads. =
worts & =aceae. I think Bentham right to adopt them, because they are now solemnly
sanctioned by Her
[[3]] Majestys Government, no less; for the delectation of National Schools. & as the
Henslow diagrams will be the great engine of instruction for Schools, ladies, parsons
& the like, it would "meo sensu" be most unwise of us B[entham]. to have ignored
them or adopted any new fangled ones. I hate & despise the whole English system
both for ordinal & generic names. You know how difficult it is to get any really good
books put into gov[ernmen]t: circulation, & it would be a most serious draw--back to
the good Benthams would do were he not to make his uniform with the system in
vogue. These things are trifles to us, but terminology is a serious affair to the classes
the book is intended for. So whatever you do do not put Bentham off using anths -- I
advised saying Ranunculaceae -- Ranunculus family & in brackets (Ranunculanths)
after.
[[4]] I think that you will find [John] Lindley right in referring Podostemons to to near
Lentibulariaceae I did to Scrophs [Scrophulariaceae] originally, which Lindley
followed I think first -- by proposing Plantaginea (through Littorella) & then
Lentibulariceae[sic]. I am sure that Scrophs or Lentib[ulariaceae]. are their place.
I must break off | Ever y[ou]r aff[ectionate] | J D Hooker [signature]
ENDNOTES
1. Probably refers to reviews of Berkeley's book Introduction to Cryptogamic Botany
(1857).
Please note that work on this transcript is ongoing. Users are advised to study
electronic image(s) of this document where possible.