From J. D. Hooker   14 September 1845

My dear Darwin

I am indeed pleased with the last Edition of the Journal, which you have so kindly sent me; both outside & inside are engaging. How doubly interesting you have made it to the common reader! I was so taken with the account of the poor Fuegians that I sat up I cannot say how long, till you bade farewell to Woollya & I went to bed quite melancholy at the fate of poor Fuegia Basket, doubtless too truly told in the cruel footnote at p. 229.¹

You have puzzled me beyond measure with one of your plants, it is a beautiful pea-flower from Cape Tres Montes, the only one of the kind from there; (another handsome pea-flower Lathyrus pubescens, is from Chonos Archip.) this is nothing more nor less than Lathyrus maritimus, a rare English plant found on all the N.W. coast of Europe, from the Channell to Archangel, Iceland, Shetlands Greenland & always littoral, in Asia it nowhere appears on this side the Okhotsk M^ts., i.e. at Kamschatka, it being replaced throughout Siberia & Russia (barring Archangel) by a similar but very distinct species. In America it commences at Oregon, runs up to Kotzebues sound inhabits the shores of all the great lakes & banks of the great rivers across the continent & on the E. coast is found from Labrador to N. York: behold its range! now what on earth brought it to Cape Tres-Montes of all places the only one South of 40^o N.?. It is not a pot-herb, & the idea of its introduction by man is almost untenable. Our Chilian collections are so extensive, that I am sure it is nowhere in S. Am. but Tres Montes. Your specimens are good: read me this riddle. Its Geog. distrib. in the North cost me many hours hunting & comparing specimens as it has brethren apt to be mistaken for it in the N., but nothing like it in South.² The “Anne Pink” cannot have brought it?, as Cook did the coral to Endeavour River (have you heard of that?)³

Are you sure that it is established “that plants propagated by buds, all partake of a common duration of life.—? v. p 203 of Journal.⁴

An now for species. To begin, I do think it a most fair & most profitable subject for discussion, I have no formed opinion of my own on the subject, I argue for immutability, till I see cause to take a fixed post.⁵ A knowledge of Botany alone will never clear up the question & alas I can bring nothing else to bear upon it, my Geology is nil: & thus you see I am ever ready to make it subservient to Botany instead of Botany to it, as must be the true relation. Do not think I meant to insinuate that you could not be a judge from not having worked out species, for your having collected with judgement is working out species: what I meant I still maintain, that to be able to handle the subject at all, one must have handled hundreds of species with a view to distinguishing them & that over a great part,—or brought from a great many parts,—of the globe. These elements your toils have fulfilled & well, M^r Gerard is neither a specific naturalist, nor a collector, nor a traveller, what the —— is he then? nothing but a distorter of facts; or what is as bad; a compiler without judgement. His work always has its value though, as a collection of instances which you will make better use of I doubt not.

I am sure your Geology is most moderate, & I would safely subscribe to the Patagonian plains being once under water & to the “Strait of Darwin” up by the river S^t. Cruz. Your evidence to my unskilled eyes at any rate is positive, Forbes’ is theory, but untill I ⁶

I am happy to think that this letter won’t cost you much thinking.