WCP2211

[1]¹

13 Kew Gardens Road,

Kew

14 May 1894

Dear Sir,

I am flattered that you take so much interest in my "tabulation areas". I do not think the political line I proposed to separate region I from Region III is defensible. Prof. Oliver² (and others here) think my paper³ logically strong but they say that my map does not agree with the principles of my paper. I am most willing to accept any Map that everybody else accepts for tabulation.

I fear that your proposed upper limit of trees will do not do for our tabulations. Of course I could to a great extent, tabulate my own collections on it. And, as regards future collections, if each collector marks on his collecting ticket whether it was collected in Area I or Area III, we can tabulate however [sic] the areas are defined. But firstly, how can I tell, as regards all the vast mass of Cyperaceae⁴ in Kew and the other European herbaria, whether n each was collected in the woods or in the open? I cannot tell it in the case of 1 in 1 specimen in 50. You would hardly propose to discard all these (many "type" specimens) and begin afresh. Then, secondly, there is a dispute how our north upper limit of trees is to be measured. In Khasia⁵ above 4000 feet (about) there are no trees (very insignificant isolated patches occur); and many species of plants occur which are only found in the Himalaya [at] 10 000 feet alt[itude]., [2]⁶ Khasia alt[itude]. 4[000] — 6000 feet is very rare indeed, but many believe that the wood has been destroyed, not many hundred years ago, by annual grass burning — and I incline to that view.

I had a bad line in my map, separating the Europa Frigidior[?] from the Mediterranea[n]; and it was only, at the last moment, after the paper was in type that I altered this line to that of 45° N[orth]. L[atitude]? — one of the greatest improvements I have made, as I soon found in working tabulations. But I have since discovered that I ought to have carried this 45° line, right across the Old World. It would have divided China in a very useful and natural manner. Moreover, I find my line not only along the Himalaya but all the way to Japan very bad.

I need hardly stop a moment to say that I regret any errors I made in the number of your subregions or the 100° of West Longitude, or any other point in which I misrepresented you — I think none of these errors touch the subject matter of the paper.

At the reading of the paper, W. T. Blanford⁷ pointed out to me that the sub-sub-areas for tabulation might be brought much nearer [3]⁸ the sub-sub-regions, than subareas can the subregions. In the lowest subdivision used, the regio sub-sub-sub-region might be made = the sub-sub-sub-area, and possibly at some future day the whole thing may be worked upwards, and any separate tabulation areas avoided. But the practical problem is with the chief & primary divisions, for the present scientific age. I find that the botanists lean to a rough geographic division viz[.] Europe — Africa — Australia — North America — South America. Then they require to divide off the Indo-Chinese region, the moist-warm region somehow (that is their great problem). Then they require some way of attaching Mongol-Siberia to North Europe and the "Orient" (of Brosier⁹[?] &c) to North Africa. This comes tolerably near your primary divisions. Believe me to be, Dear Sir,

Yours with great esteem | C B Clarke¹⁰ [signature]

A. R. Wallace Esq[ui]^re