From J. D. Hooker 18 January 1869
Royal Gardens Kew
Jany 18/69.
My dear Darwin
I do not see either how you can avoid using the term “Morphological”, but can you not use it, without leaving the reader to suppose that it has no definite sense: a very slight modification of what you say when alluding to Nægelis limitation of it would effect this I think.1
I am writing to Scott who has writ a clever & good paper on fern cultivation in Calcutta about Viola nana.2
I should not have implied that variations in leaf divergence were transmitted, but that they might be inherited (like any other variation)—that they are there to be acted upon by N.S. (ie to be propagated but that if such a variation occurs, there is no reason why it should not be transmitted, & if transmitted why N.S. should not determine its prevalence & subsequent constancy as a specific mark.—3 If you have kept my letter please look & let me know if I have implied more than this.— I should extremely like to graft a Chesnut branch in such a variation from the normal leaf divergence occurred, & sow the seed a similar branch produced.
I know no case of ovules differing in position in the different flowers of one plant, except perhaps in monsters— I think Henslow gave me a Primrose in which the ovules were basal (as normally they should be) in most flowers, & they were parietal in others.—4 it was otherwise monstrous.
I was much struck with your conclusion that the near approach to uniformity in an organ throughout a group, implied it’s functional inutility— it is no doubt true.5 I had a sort of gleam of this truth when considering the fact you once pointed out to me, that the calli of Oncidium though so essential to the plant for physiological purpose—are still very variable—6 it then suggested the converse, which you have so well evolved. But what an apparent contradiction it involves—or paradox at least—that classification & system is founded on the least useful modifications:—& this explains a very common observation, that physiology i.e. the operations of active plant life, does not much help the systematist. And yet there is something uncomfortable in the idea that system is based on modifications the active exigencies of which are no longer in play. It seems frightfully paradoxical to say that the quinary arrangement of Dicotyledons is a matter of no moment to the Dicotyledons as such;—& yet that this is true is proved by the fact that such Dicots: as are ternary or quaternary are as good Dicots: as their quinary brethren. It is a tremendous upset to Owen’s doctrines, or rather his writings, for these in no way rise to the dignity of doctrines. The “law of necessary correlation” is—nowheres.—7
Have you seen Herbert’ Spencers “Appendix”— it appears to me to be astonishingly able, & the wriggle out of Materialism to be worthy of — — (i.e you or me)—8 But how dreadfully difficult he is to read mark or digest, (for no human creature ever did or ever will do all three)— The subtlety of his reasoning is to me wonderful—
I have got tremendously pitched into for quoting him in my address as I expected: & for declaring the power above us to be inscrutable.9 My last flagellation is from Pritchard the Astronomer who blames me for not being—complimentary enough to the Almighty— I have answered him that I think the concluding 3 Verses of Palgrave’s poem is enough for the occasion—10 He says I have quoted you Erroneously about Lythrum pollen— I have no time to look— I hope not—& it is too late if I have.11
Ever yrs affec | J D Hooker
CD annotations
Footnotes
Bibliography
Collected papers: The collected papers of Charles Darwin. Edited by Paul H. Barrett. 2 vols. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. 1977.
Dressler, Robert L. 1981. The orchids: natural history and classification. Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press.
Hooker, Joseph Dalton. 1868. Address of the president. Report of the thirty-eighth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held at Norwich, pp. lviii–lxxv.
Nägeli, Carl Wilhelm von. 1865. Entstehung und Begriff der naturhistorischen Art. 2d edition. Munich: Verlag der königl. Akademie.
Orchids 2d ed.: The various contrivances by which orchids are fertilised by insects. By Charles Darwin. 2d edition, revised. London: John Murray. 1877.
Orchids: On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1862.
Rupke, Nicolaas A. 1994. Richard Owen, Victorian naturalist. New Haven, Conn., and London: Yale University Press.
Scott, John. 1869. A list of the higher cryptogams cultivated in the Royal Botanical Gardens, Calcutta. Journal of the Agricultural and Horticultural Society of India n.s. 1 (1869): 200–64.
Spencer, Herbert. 1860–2. First principles. London: George Manwaring; Williams & Norgate.
Spencer, Herbert. 1864–7. The principles of biology. 2 vols. London: Williams & Norgate.
‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’: On the sexual relations of the three forms of Lythrum salicaria. By Charles Darwin. [Read 16 June 1864.] Journal of the Linnean Society (Botany) 8 (1865): 169–96. [Collected papers 2: 106–31.]
Summary
Replies to CD’s questions. Advice on use of term "morphology". Is much struck by CD’s idea that uniformity of an organ throughout a group implies functional inutility; the paradox of this position for classification.
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-6560
- From
- Joseph Dalton Hooker
- To
- Charles Robert Darwin
- Sent from
- Kew
- Source of text
- DAR 103: 4–7
- Physical description
- ALS 8pp †
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 6560,” accessed on 19 May 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-6560.xml
Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 17