WCP1442

To Mr Hemsley) Frith Hill, Godalming. Jan'y 14th. 1889

Dear Mr Hemsley Mr Goodman has been so good as to send me a copy of your "Introduction". No botanical work has interested me so much since Sir J. Hooker's "Introduction" to the flora of Australia & Tasmania. It is the work I have been expecting & longing for, for years,— because I felt sure that when the materials were collected & discussed plants would be certain to show some approximation to animals, in their distribution. I find, now, the approximation is much closer than I anticipated,— as close indeed as seems possible, considering that mammals and plants are at the two extremes as regards powers of dispersal, and also as regards antiquity of generic types. When we consider that many existing plant-genera have been undergoing dispersal since the Cretaceous epoch, with the enormous powers of dispersal indicated by the existence of such floras as those of the Azores & Sandwich Islands — as compared with the recent origin of most mammalian genera (far older than Miocene) & their absolute dependence on land-connections for their dispersal, it is marvelous that there should be any correspondence between the two. On the whole, I think your regions excellent,— but I, of co course, prefer Sir J. Hooker's separation of the Palaearctic & N. American, both as agreeing with our Zoological divisions, & also from the striking differences in the floras of <E?>.N.America & Europe, as noticed during my recent visit to the States.

You book will be a great source of pleasure & instruction to me, especially should I write again on Distribution.

There are two or three papers referred to by you I should like to get. (1) Gray & Hooker on Vegetation of R[ocky] Mountain Region. (2) Bolus' Sketch of Flora of S. Africa. (3) Comber, Gen Dist'n of British Plants. Can you tell me whether I can get these in London, & where? I have been thinking of writing to ask you if you can spare time to read for me some proofs of the parts relating to plants of my new book on "Darwinism". I am obliged to touch on the subject, & I am as ignorant of technical Botany that I am afraid of making some absurd slip, & if you could read, perhaps two or three sheets in all, & correct any misstatements of fact, I shall be much obliged. I also commit myself to some views which are rather heterodox, & if [2] you like to give me your criticisms of these, also, I shall be glad,— but it is the matter of facts that I am most anxious about.

If you are very busy & this would be a tax on you pray do not mind saying so,— in which case perhaps you can suggest any one you know who who not mind doing me this favour.

Believe me Yours faithfully Alfred R. Wallace.¹

To Mr Hemsley) Frith Hill, Godalming. Jan'y 14th. 1889

Dear Mr Hemsley Mr Goodman has been so good as to send me a copy of your "Introduction". No botanical work has interested me so much since Sir J. Hooker's "Introduction" to the flora of Australia & Tasmania. It is the work I have been expecting & longing for, for years,— because I felt sure that when the materials were collected & discussed plants would be certain to show some approximation to animals, in their distribution. I find, now, the approximation is much closer than I anticipated,— as close indeed as seems possible, considering that mammals and plants are at the two extremes as regards powers of dispersal, and also as regards antiquity of generic types. When we consider that many existing plant-genera have been undergoing dispersal since the Cretaceous epoch, with the enormous powers of dispersal indicated by the existence of such floras as those of the Azores & Sandwich Islands — as compared with the recent origin of most mammalian genera (far older than Miocene) & their absolute dependence on land-connections for their dispersal, it is marvelous that there should be any correspondence between the two. On the whole, I think your regions excellent,— but I, of co course, prefer Sir J. Hooker's separation of the Palaearctic & N. American, both as agreeing with our Zoological divisions, & also from the striking differences in the floras of <E?>.N.America & Europe, as noticed during my recent visit to the States.

You book will be a great source of pleasure & instruction to me, especially should I write again on Distribution.

There are two or three papers referred to by you I should like to get. (1) Gray & Hooker on Vegetation of R[ocky] Mountain Region. (2) Bolus' Sketch of Flora of S. Africa. (3) Comber, Gen Dist'n of British Plants. Can you tell me whether I can get these in London, & where? I have been thinking of writing to ask you if you can spare time to read for me some proofs of the parts relating to plants of my new book on "Darwinism". I am obliged to touch on the subject, & I am as ignorant of technical Botany that I am afraid of making some absurd slip, & if you could read, perhaps two or three sheets in all, & correct any misstatements of fact, I shall be much obliged. I also commit myself to some views which are rather heterodox, & if [2] you like to give me your criticisms of these, also, I shall be glad,— but it is the matter of facts that I am most anxious about.

If you are very busy & this would be a tax on you pray do not mind saying so,— in which case perhaps you can suggest any one you know who who not mind doing me this favour.

Believe me Yours faithfully Alfred R. Wallace.¹