# From Asa Gray   1 June 1857

Cambridge, Mass. U.S.A.

June 1st, 1857

My Dear Darwin

Yours of the 9th. came last week.

I do not wonder you were somewhat puzzled to make out just the 49 species spoken of in my note p. 387.1 It was a clear mistake my speaking of 6 species of Carex as belonging to 1st & 2d heads—as evidently there are only three of the 1st head and none of the 2d.

I mail you a fresh copy of the article, with the 49 species I must have had in view marked with a — in pencil.—

The 49 or rather 50, species belong to 46 genera,—which is as you would have it.—

I did not know at all that you suspected disjoined species to belong to small genera & small orders, as a general thing.

The monotypic genera of these 50 species are— Brasenia, Hippuris, Cryptotænia, Crantzia, Phryma, Monotropa (in the restricted sense) Anacharis(?) Hemicarpha(?), Zannichellia(?), Camptosorus.

The only good-sized genera are Anemone, Silene (S. Antirrhina is diffused as a weed & by the agency of man?) Cerastium, Potentilla, Plantago, Primula, Veronica, Carex, Poa, Festuca, Adiantum.

My 76 disjoined species belong to 34 families,—and I cannot see that they incline to belong to small families. diag 15 are Gramineæ which form $\frac{1}{13}$ of our Flora.

18 ’ Cyperaceæ ’ $\frac{1}{10}$

The 1 Leguminosa & 1 Composita are as you would like; but that is because these orders are remarkable for their species being of narrow range.

3 are Rosaceæ

2 ’ Scrophulariaceæ (the 1 orchid is to be erased)

3 ’ Ranunculaceæ. &c &c

6 ’ Umbelliferæramme

As to our trees, what proportion have flowers more or less separated. Number the orders on p. 400— 1. Magnoliaceæ, and so on. 2 And append diag p.= polygamous more or less. m = monœcious d = diœcious.

separated flowers 1. Magnoliaceæ 0 2 — 0 3 — 0 4 — 0 5 — 1 p 6 — 8 p. 7 — 2 d 8 — 0 9 — 1 m 10 — 1 p 11 — 2 p. d. 12 0 13 0 14 1-p 15 1 p 16 0 17 — 7 p. d. 18 — 2 p 19 — 8 p. d. 20 — 1 m 21 — 9 m 22 — 21 m. 23 — 5 m. 24 7 d 25 Coniferæ— 18 m. d.ramme

Out of 132 trees, those with separated flowers more or less—are 95.—and for the greater part very decidedly separated.

I must think it by chance—that your introduced plants are in so near the proportion by families that the indigenous species are.3 diag Indigenous Introduced Our Compositæ $\frac{1}{8}$ — nearly $\frac{1}{10}$.

’ Cyperaceæ $\frac{1}{10}$[ $\frac{1}{60}$ ]

’ Gramineæ $\frac{1}{13}$$\frac{1}{8}$

’ Leguminosæ $\frac{1}{24}$$\frac{1}{18}$

’ Rosaceæ $\frac{1}{29}$$\frac{1}{52}$. &

’ Orchidaceæ – 0

’ Ranunculaceæ $\frac{1}{43}$$\frac{1}{43}$ but ’ Labiatæ $\frac{1}{43}$$\frac{1}{11}$!ramme

I am very glad if my published notes or my jottings are of any use to you.

This is my season of greatest and most distracting occupation. I shall have no article in the July no. of Sill. Journal—nor in the Sept. either, I fear.

I wrote—or rather despatched a letter to you last week——4 Watson’s memoranda will be sent back to you a week or two hence—5

Ever Yours | A. Gray

## CD annotations

5.1 I did … thing. 5.2] crossed ink
10.1 As to … so on. 10.2] crossed ink
10.7 1… . 25 10.31] ‘These *nos of [interl] Families apply to A. Grays Paper p. 400’6 added ink; ‘95/132=.72’ added ink, circled ink; ‘17/25 Families’ added ink, circled ink
10.31 m. d.] ‘95’ added below pencil
12.1 I must … A. Gray. 16.1] crossed ink
Top of first page: ‘Trees & disjoined species’ pencil; ‘p. 387’ pencil

## Footnotes

See letters to Asa Gray, 1 January [1857] and [after 15 March 1857]. Gray refers to his tabulation of the trees of the northern United States in A. Gray 1856–7, p. 400.
See letter from Asa Gray, [c. 24 May 1857].
See letter to Asa Gray, [after 15 March 1857], in which CD enclosed some notes and a letter from Hewett Cottrell Watson.
A. Gray 1856–7. See n. 2, above.

## Summary

Comments on species with disjoined ranges; does not feel, despite CD’s expectations, that they tend to belong to small families.

Gives the proportion of U. S. trees in which the sexes are separate [see Natural selection, p. 62].

## Letter details

Letter no.
DCP-LETT-2098
From
Asa Gray
To
Charles Robert Darwin
Sent from
Cambridge, Mass.
Source of text
DAR 8: 47bA
Physical description
4pp †

Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 2098,” accessed on 21 January 2018, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2098

Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 6

letter