To J. D. Hooker   16 January [1869]¹

My Dear Hooker

Your two notes and remarks are of the utmost value, and I am greatly obliged to you.² Your criticism on the term “morphological” seems quite just, but I do not see how I can avoid using it.³ I found after writing to you in Vaucher about the rue but from what you say I will speak more cautiously.⁴ It is the Spanish Chesnut that varies in divergence.⁵ Seeds named “Viola nana” were sent me from Calcutta by Scott; I must refer to the plants as an “Indian species”, for though they have produced hundreds of Closed flowers, they have not boarn one perfect flower⁶ You ask whether I want illustrations “of ovules differing in position in different flowers on the same plant”. If you know of such cases, I should certainly much like to hear them. Again you speak of the angle of leaf-divergeance varying, and the variations being transmitted; was the latter point put in in a hurry to round the sentence; or do you really know of cases?⁷

Whilst looking for notes on the variability in the divisions of the ovarium, position of the ovules, æstivation, &c, &c, I found remarks, written 15 or 20 ago, showing that I then supposed that characters which were nearly uniform throughout whole groups must be of high vital importance to the plants themselves; consequently I was greatly puzzled how with organisms having very different habits of life this uniformity could have been acquired through Natural Selection.⁸ Now I am much inclined to believe, in accordance with the view—given towards the close of my MS., that the near approach to uniformity in such structures depends on their not being of vital importance and therefore not being acted on by natural selection.⁹ If you have reflected on this point, what do you think of it? I hope that you approved of the argument deduced from the modifications in the small closed flowers.

Hearty thanks for all you assistance and I will give you no more trouble on this subject.

Yours affectionately | Ch. Darwin

It is rich about Babington, but I daresay many others have said the same thing.¹⁰ It is only about 2 years since last Edit. of Origin, & I am fairly disgusted to find how much I have to modify & how much I ought to add; but I have determined not to add much.—¹¹ Fleming Jenkins has given me much trouble, but has been of more real use to me, than any other Essay or Review.¹²