[[1]]
THE CAMP,
SUNNINGDALE.
26th Dec[ember] 1899 *1
My dear Strachey *2
I have digested the letters herewith returned -- they suggest two chief points for
consideration, & sundry minor:-The chief are, 1) Whether the lists should be printed without the species of your own
collecting being indicated by their numbers & then Hall--marked" by a comparison of the names
specimens with the types of Fl[ora]. B[ritish]. Ind[ia] -- 2) whether the list are is
sufficiently brought up to date for the purpose of great analytic tables treatments[?].
1) I agree with Clarke & Dyer, that your own collections should be indicated by their
original numbers, & that be regarded as verified there[sic] nomenclature be authentic.
The omission of your own numbers takes away all my interest in the work, it simply
emascu--
[[2]] --lates it. My great wish has always been to see your list published with
authenticated names as being the first serious attempt ever made to collect &
determine the elements of the Flora of a section of the Himalaya at all elevations
from the planes[sic] to Tibet. In this you succeeded, now just half a century ago,
were no other list ever to appear, that, with its appended observations would [6 words crossed
out, illeg.] still give the only satisfactory view of the vegetation of [9 words crossed out,
illeg.] the Himalaya as it is obtainable from one section.
*3 From
it might be drawn a sketch for the first time an adequate sketch of the vegetation
of the three Himalayan regions, their relations to one another, & to the; floras of
Europe, of the [1 word crossed out, illeg.] Western section & Northern area & of S. India &
Malaya: of the proportions of the great groups of Phaenogams (as Monocots to
Dicots.) in each region; & it afforded formed a basis for comparison with the flora of
other sections of the Himalaya.
It is hence of great historic value. You have merged [4 words crossed out, illeg.] with
a general more extended list. I should not object to that were your collection, properly
indicated therein. *4 The only admissible substitute for the numbers would be a column with
St[rachey]. & W[interbottom] opposite of affixed to each species gathered by
yourselves. As to Hall--marking, your nomenclature, that I take it is has been done, by
the nucleus if (as I suppose you have) you have adopted same
[[3]] for the species the names & nomenclature of Fl[ora]. B[ritish]. Ind[ia]. [1 word
crossed out, illeg.] during the compilation of which all your collection came under
review. There may be some names to reconsider -- & some genera to revise with
recept recent monographs (to which latter I shall allude hereafter *5 under the bringing up to
date) but this cannot involve serious labor.
I agree with Clarke in the [1 word crossed out, illeg.] necessity of indicating in the
new list alterations of names adopted in the old [5 words crossed out, illeg.]. These
cannot be very numerous, & would be relegated to foot notes or to an appendix of
altered names.
2 As to the list being brought up to date -- that depends on how far Duthie has kept
to date in what you have added from him. I do not agree with Clarke that you should
wait for or be deterred from printing by any forthcoming work by Duthie. I agree with
you that your list will be of great value to Kumaon collectors
[[4]] & despite its imperfections to Botanists. There are [2 words crossed out, illeg.]
monographs of genera subsequent to Fl[ora]. B[ritish]. I[ndia]. that I should not be
hope Duthie has not overlooked as Prain's monograph of Indian Pedicularis & Corydalis.
Of Pedicularis he has 17 Kumaon species. His Kumaon is Sutlej & Karnalid[? Karnal?], &
may include species not in your Kumaon; but 14 certainly are -- of which 4 have names
altered from Fl[ora]. B[ritish]. I[ndia]. -- Of Corydalis he has 50 Indian species against
24 in Fl[ora]. B[ritish]. I[ndia].! I have not exhausted the Kumaon
One more point: I protest emphatically against your proposal in regard of expenses
of confining the issues to 150 copies distributing a few & sending the rest to Dehra.
Such privately offered[?] works are night mares, sneaks, intolerable nuisances. Their
importance gets exaggerated, & they are vainly sought for & are cited by those who
have them though inaccessible to others. Print 500 & put them on sale by commission -the sale will for more than cover the expense of the extra 300 not copies.*6
ENDNOTES
1. This is an annotation which appears to be a later addition, not written in the hand
of Joseph Hooker. Written in pencil to the left of the address.
2. Lieutenant--General Sir Richard Strachey GCSI, FRS (1817--1908). British
soldier and administrator in British India. He spent most of his life in India chiefly
employed with public works. Accompanied Joseph Hooker and Asa Gray on their
botanising tour of the USA in 1877.
3. The wording from here to "sections of the Himalaya" is written on a separate
page, marked with a symbol to indicate it should be inserted here.
4. The wording from here to "yourselves" is written vertically up the left hand margin
of page 2.
5. This insertion has been made in pencil, not in the hand of Joseph Hooker. The
rest of the sentence has also been crossed through in pencil.
6. The letter is not signed but it is written in the hand of Joseph Hooker. This copy
was believed to be a draft by Hooker's wife Hyacinth, see also JDH/2/14.
Please note that work on this transcript is ongoing. Users are advised to study
electronic image(s) of this document where possible.