WCP5351

[1]

Down Bromley Kent

May 3^d /[18]59¹

My dear Hooker

Thanks about N[ew]. Zealand plants & the Nelumbium & I will put in "probably".—

The pamphlet shall be returned in [a] day or two —

With respect to reversions; I have been raking up vague recollections of vague facts; & the impression on my mind is rather more in favour of reversions, than it was when you were here.— [2] In my abstract I give only a paragraph on the general case of reversions, though I enter on detail on some cases of special reversions of special characters.—

I have not as yet put all my facts on this subject in mass, so can come to no definite conclusion. But as single characters may revert, I must say that I see no improbability in [3] several reverting. As, I do not believe any well founded experiment or facts are known, each must form his opinion from vague generalities.— I think you confound two ^rather distinct considerations: a variation arises from any cause, & reversion does is not opposed to this, but solely to its inheritance. Not but what I believe, what we must call ^perhaps a dozen [4] distinct laws are all struggling against each other in every variation which ever arises.—

To give my impression, if I were forced to bet, whether or not, after a 100 generations of growth in a poor sandy soil, a cauliflower & red-cabbage would or or would not revert to [the] same form, I must say I would rather stake my money [5] that they would.— But in such a case the conditions of life are changed ^{(& here comes question of direct influence of conditions.)}, & there is to be no selection; the comparatively sudden effects of man’s selection being ^are left to the free play of reversion. In short I darenot to come to any conclusion without comparing all facts, which I have collected, & I do not think there are many.²

Please do not say to anyone that I thought my Book on species³ would be fairly popular & have a fairly remunerative sale (which was the height of my ambition) for if it prove a dead [6] failure, it would make me the more ridiculous.—

I enclose a criticism, —. a taste of the future. —

I have had [an] invite ^{to dinner} from Gassiot⁴., & have sent to say I w[oul]^d subscribe ^£100, & gave my opinion on some points, which we talked over.—

Ever yours | C. Darwin [signature]

[7]

Rev^d S. Haughton⁵ Address to Geolog[ical] Soc[iety] [of] Dublin[.]⁶

"This speculation of M^ess. Darwin & Wallace would not be worthy of notice, were it not for the weight of authority of names [ie Lyell’s⁷ & yours] under whose auspices it has been brought forward. If it means what it says, it is a truism; if it means anything more, it is contrary to fact."—

Q. E. D.—

[8]

Since writing the enclosed note, I have thought I would expand a little on the subject of Reversion ^{for my Abstract}; & I send it uncorrected, as you may possibly like to see what I say. Please return it soon; but I am not quite sure whether or not I shall insert it.— I have already separately touched on most of the points.—

[9]

P.S. 2^d

I return by this Post A[sa] Gray⁸, which I have just read.— I see he adopts the notion I sent him, of the one[?] homogeniety [sic] of the flora on the circumpolar land before the Glacial period, when the climate was warmer, & there was an open highway— What rubbish, [10] Agassiz⁹ talks.—