[[1]]
Kew
Ja[nuar]y 12th /[18]58
My dear Asa Gray
Yours of the 19th has just arrived & gratified me very much. I am, I need not tell you,
in the habit of saying at least as much as I think, when I have fault to make or find for
I hate to let it be supposed that I have held back any growl or grudge or store up
offence in hat or pocket. The fact is that my dear old Father as he gets older gets
suspicious, & finds it more difficult to take broad & unprejudiced views of such
matters. It often goes to my soul to have to take a different view from his, & to have
to set to work systematically to sap his opinion or to alter his course: & he is always
struggling against this inferiority of the flesh, giving into me grandly from the full
consciousness of his tendency but not from feeling that he is wrong even when he is so (for of
course it is often me) in the special case under discussion. His disposition conduct is noble in
these matters, feeling as he often acknowledges that his disposition is to be
conquered. I refer especially to suspicions of others that are often unworthy of him, &
suggest courses of conduct the opposite of what he would be natural to him. In these
cases (as in the journals) he is always ready to make the noble sacrifice, whilst it is
impossible
[[2]] to persuade him that there were no good grounds for an opposite course. The
journal was after all the most painful passage I ever had with him, for I knew in my
soul that he could not help thinking that his friends were hard on his exertions, that
they were unreasonably fault finding, that I took no interest & grudged the trouble I
took, & exalted my labour above his. Dear old Dad! he is now working away at his
Ferns hard & all the better & with more zest, & though I sigh every time I use the
journal & half repent in thoughtless mood its being discontinued, I am most heartily
thankful that we have nothing more to do with it, & heartily thank you for your kind
cooperation -- but for you indeed I should never have carried it out. I have not shown
you[r] last to my father, as it will only rake up an old an old sore and the subject is
better dropped for ever.
If you want any genera or species of Rubiaceae to examine I will send them over
without delay -- keep a list -- by you till the end of your Bot[anical]. work & I will send
all at once or bring them if I go over this year, though I would rather put off my going
till next. Except indeed the Leviathan would take an unprecedented trip& offer me a
passage which I could not resist!
I am deeply interested in your notes on
[[3]] vitality & consulted Huxley, whose lucubrations, I send you, I never talked the
matter over with you him: for in fact my notions on these subjects are very crude. I
have been cogitating over dedoublement I know nothing whatever about that branch
of Botany -- I do not know what side you take -- but intend to read it up of course I
once knew but have forgotten all about it. What I want to direct your attention to is
"dedoublement" in the abstract. -- What foundation is there for it: is it anything but an
unphilosophical idea (I hope I am not hitting you, on my honor I do not know but that
you may have snubbed it yourself). Some dogs have an additional claw if I
remember right, but surely no zoologist would call that a dedoublement of one of the
usual 3 claws. I have argued the point for half a minute or so with Bentham today &
indeed the oddity of the theory only struck me on accidentally turning over the pages
of the journal & finding him calling accounting for the increased stamina of Megacarpaea
by dedoublement but I find he can give me no rational explanation of dedoublement, it
is "nomen et praeterea nihil"*1 with him. I asked him if he supposed Goliath's sixth
finger & toe was a dedoublement, or a bicephalous childs head[.] If you have a
stamen too few no one calls that the remaining one, a halfling of an two theoretically existing
stamens -- I can understand an intercalated stamen or series of stamens, or a
halved stamen; but that one should be two passes my philosophy. quite as much as
that two should be only one
[[4]] I am glad you have taken up the Balanophoreae matter & that of high & low
specialization. I hope you note that I do not commit myself to the theory of perfection
being expressed by consolidation but state all hypothetically. I wish I could see my
way clearly through the maze of high & low amongst [one word crossed out, illeg.]
Dicotyledonous exogens.
Formerly I felt inclined to exalt Filiaceae, Malvaceae & Euphorbiaceae
& to assume as the highest type of flower that which has 1) complete series of
organs whorls 2) those organs [1 word crossed out, illeg.] whorls all high[?] distinct from one
another each other 3. all series Each whorl being of numerous members parts. 4 Each part
member being highly specialized 5. Each carpel to contain many perfect ovules &
albumeneous[sic] dicot. -- seeds -- thus in short returning to D[e]. C[andolle]. -- still
the question remains is a large imperfect group to be placed at the top of the vegetable
ladder because one or a few of its members presents these attributes in greater
degree than any other vegetable does. -- this cannot be conceded & so the whole
fabric falls to the ground. -- destroy all Euphorbs: Except the monandrous genus
Euphorbia & all clue to its affinities & value are lost. We must therefore turn to higher
considerations than mere organic complexity & perfection of whorls & make these last
secondary -- where the physiology of the reproductive organs at once suggests itself
& Gymnosperms jump up from the bottom of the scale to the top! for they superadd
[[5]] to the perfect phenogamic reproductive apparatus an exaggeration of that of the highest
Cryptogam, & this without showing the slightest trace of low developement[sic] in
trunk, embryo pollen or ovule, & without displaying any of the low peculiarities of which
keep Cryptogams below Phaenogams, except always the want of a stigma which does
not imply however any modification of pollen or pollen tube!!!
[Arthur] Henfrey has just been working at Gnetum & has found the corpuscula[?], he
tells me that between the 2 & 3 coats of the ovule (proceeding from the outside) hair-like processes are developed after fecundation at the base of the ovule; arillus--like,
-- thus seeming to prove the 2 outer coats to be pericarpial! -- this is very important -he further suspects that Gnetum takes 7 years to ripen its seeds.
I am just now atrociously busy, as, if you knew anything about me, you would know
by this long letter. I am in the middle of hateful E[ast]. I[ndia]. C[ompany]. Ass[istan]t Surgeon
competitive examination papers, & doing a Royal Soc[iety]. Report for Livingstone's
exped[ition] takes out a good naturalist (to die of fever)[.]
You are the[sic] almost the only one who has described the fruit of Sambucus
correctly. By the way I have been poking at ovules Viburnum, Caprifol[iaceae].
Conv[olvulaceae]. Aral[iaceae]. Umbelli[ferae]. Rubiaceae & find all to have ovules
with one consolidated coat -- [thus] or often [diagrammatic sketches of ovules appear
here labelled: Viburnum, Section, Cornus]
[[6]] a, in both these genera is the first developed & only coat, as an annulus, & it
never grows beyond this but is carried up to the apex of the ovule in this form. Hence
it is either an ovule with connate[?] coat, or an ovule which grows from behind the
origin of the coat. Again is Brown right in defining Lonicerae as having raphe
extrorsee -- it is raphe lateralis in this as in all other ovules in a sufficiently young
state -- only in Lonicera (& very many others) it remains lateral. I have a great idea
that ovule structure will lead to affinities but not ovule position & insertion direction
which depends too much on evolution of ovary cavity.
I have been studying Chimonanthus & am satisfied of its being nearer Monimiaceae
& Annonads than Rosaceae. -- but oddly enough the
[[7]] Monims, & Calycanths are in one respect reciprocals thus Monims recede from
the great Annonad[?] or Ranunculaceae alliance in the definite gamopetalous calyx
(in just like being calycifloral in short) whereas it is just in not being calycifloral that
Chimonanthus differs from Rosaceae! -- the petals, & stamen of Chimonanthus are
inserted on a torus as much as in Nymphaea & Co. With Combretaceae which have
canolidded[sic?] carpels the alliance is nil -- indeed Combretaceae have little to do
where they are placed. -- The stamens of Chimon[anthus]. are not Rosaceous nor
any thing[sic] near it, & the inner abortive stamina are just the ditto of Eupomatia, to
which the genus is most closely allied in floral structure -- the absence of albumen is
an ugly fact but Nelumbium matches that. Then there is the smell, dotted wood,
ternary tendency, structure & color of petals (like Hyalostemma). & graduated floral
whorls.
[[8]] Cumming's Philophs 2d[?] No. 638 is not named it differs from all Morindas
known to me from very long petioles. I send fruit of Ceylon [Sri Lanka] Eupyrena.
Bentham recommends you to his notes on Rubiaceae in Linnean XXIII.
By all means send Linn[ean] Jour[nal] y[ou]r. notes on Timonius. Plenty of room
anent ovules of Morinda. Bentham says "I cannot lie -- I have no record of having
"examined them & do not recollect -- some "blunder or clerical error". Bentham has
not "Ixora[?] Bahiensis Affinia" &c
I have turned up your notes on dedoublement in Gen N. Am. I see you go the whole
hog with Duchartre worse luck -- it is to me incroyable. I do not see a ghost of
evidence.
I have not yet received proof of y[ou]r paper on Magnoli[a] ovules to correct. I have
charged Bennett to let me have it.
Ever in grievous haste | y[ou]r aff[ectionate] | J D Hooker [signature]
ENDNOTES
1. Latin phrase which translates as: "name and nothing more".
2. The text which runs from here to the end of the paragraph is written vertically
down the right margin of this page.
Please note that work on this transcript is ongoing. Users are advised to study
electronic image(s) of this document where possible.