Old Orchard,
Broadstone,
Wimborne.
Novr. 24th. 1908
Dear Mr. Hemsley1
Many thanks for the figures you have sent me, which is just what I wanted.
I had for the moment quite forgotten the wonderful mass of statistical information as to plants you had given in the "Biol. Cent. Am." every word of which I had read with great interest when you sent it me 20 years ago. On turning to it [2] and beginning to read I again became so interested that I could hardly put it down, though I have much work I must get on with.
I found in "Nature" in a notice of the completion of "Bentham2 & Hookers3 Gen. Plant.", a statement that the total species there given was 100,220, but I presume a part of the increase since is due to the German authors taking a narrower view of "species".
Spruce4 gives, in one of his letters to Bentham, an estimate of what he thinks the probable number of species actually existing in the [3] great Amazonian valley — founded on the rate of change of species he actually observed for each degree of Lat. & Long. I have lent my set of proofs, but I rather think he makes that total, about half the present estimate of the world!
Considering what you say (in the Biol. C. Am.) of the proportions of new species in each new collection even in fairly known trop. regions — and the immense areas still totally unknown botanically in both America & Africa, & possibly in Asia & New Guinea — the numbers existing may be double those [4] now known.
yours very truly | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]
Status: Draft transcription [Letter (WCP1453.3865)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
[1] 1
To W.B. Hemsley2, Esq.) Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne.
Nov. 24th. 1908
Dear Mr. Hemsley
Many thanks for the figures you have sent me, which is just what I wanted.
I had for the moment quite forgotten the wonderful mass of statistical information as to plants you had given in the "Biol[ogia] Cent[rali-]Am[ericana]3" every word of which I had read with great interest when you sent it me 20 years ago. On turning to it and beginning to read I again became so interested that I could hardly put it down, though I have much work I must get on with. I found in "Nature4" in a notice of the completion of "Bentham5 & Hooker's6 Gen[era] Plant[arum]7", a [1 word crossed out, illeg.] statement that the total species there given was 100,220, but I presume a part of the increase since is due to the German authors taking a narrower view of "species". Spruce8 gives, in one of his letters to Bentham9, an estimate of what he thinks the probable number of species actually existing in the great Amazonian valley — founded on the rate of cha change of species he naturally observed for each degree of lat[itude] & long[itude]. I have lent my set of proofs, but I rather think he makes that total, about the present estimate of the world!
Considering what you say (in the Biol[ogia] C[entrali-]Am[ericana]) of the proportion of new species in each new collection even in fairly known trop[ical] regions — and the immense areas still totally unknown botanically both in America & Africa, & possibly in Asia & New Guinea — the numbers existing may be double those now known.
Yours very truly | Alfred R. Wallace. [signature]
Status: Draft transcription [Transcription (WCP1453.4255)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
[1]1
To H.B. Hemsley, Esq.) Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimbourne.
Nov. 24th 1908
Dear Mr. Hemsley[,] Many thanks for the figures you sent, which is just what I wanted.
I had for the moment quite forgotten the wonderful mass of statistical information as to plants you had given in the "Biol. Cent. Am."2 every word of which I just read with great interest when you sent it me 20 years ago. On turning to it and beginning to read it again became so interested that I could hardly put it down, though I have much work I must get on with. I found in "Nature" in a notice of the completion of "Bentham3 & Hooker's4 Gen[era]. Plant[arum].", a steatmentstatement that the total species there given was 100,320, but I presume a part of the increase since is due to the German authors taking a narrower view of "species". Spruce5 gives, in one of his letters to Bentham, an estimate of what he thinks the probable number of species actually existing in the great Amazonian valley — founded on the rate of and change of species he actually observed at each degree of lat[itude]. & long[itude]. I have lent my set of proofs, but I rather think he makes that total, about the present estimate of the world!
Considering what you say (in the Biol. C. Am.) of the proportion of new species in each new collection even in fairly known trop[ical]. regions — and the immense areas still totally unknown botanically both in America & Africa, & possibly in Asia & New Guinea — the numbers existing may be double those now know.
Yours very truly, | Alfred R. Wallace.
Status: Draft transcription [Transcription (cc) (WCP1453.1232)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
Please cite as “WCP1453,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on