My dear Hooker

The very next morning after posting my last letter (I think on 23^d of March)¹ I received your two interesting gossipaceous & geological letters; & the latter I have since exchanged with Lyell for his.— I will write higglety-pigglety just as subject occurs.— I saw the Review in the Athenæum,² it was written in an illnatured spirit, but the whole virus consisted in saying that there was not novelty enough in your remarks for publication. No one, now a days, cares for reviews; I may just mention that my Journal got some real good abuse, “presumption” &c. & ended with saying that the volume appeared “made up of the scraps & rubbish of the author’s portfolio”.—

I most truly enter into what you say & quite believe you that you care only for the review with respect to your Father; & that this alone would make you like to see extracts from your letters more properly noticed in the same periodical. I have considered to the very best of my judgment whether any portions of your present letters are adapted for the Athenæum (in which I have no interest; the beasts not having even noticed my 3 Geolog: volumes which I had sent to them) & I have come to the conclusion it is better not to send them: I feel sure, considering all the circumstances, that without you took pains & wrote with care a condensed & finished sketch of some striking feature in your travels, it is better not to send anything. These two letters, are moreover, rather too geological for the Athenæum & almost require woodcuts.— On the other hand there are hardly enough details for a communication to the Geolog. Soc.—

I have not the smallest doubt that your facts are of the highest interest with regard to Glacial action in the Himmalaya, but it struck both Lyell & myself that your evidence ought to have been given more distinctly; describing for instance any one moraine (if moraines they are) & stating whether any of the boulders are scored or perched, or the underlying rocks polished or scored; whether the latter are mamillated &c; & positively whether some of the largest boulders are from distant rocks in situ. Again I cannot make out whether your Glacial deposits lie far (& how far?) beneath existing glacial action; which is of course the most interesting point with respect to the glacial action of Europe.— If you can remember it, I sh^d. be really curious to hear how this is whenever you write. Lyell thinks that your lakes are connected with old Glacial action; but I do not see how.— At first I thought that your Terraces were curiously like those which I have described in my Geolog. vol. in detail in the Cordillera, & which I have no doubt are of ancient marine origin; but your singular lakes quite puzzle me.— Your terraces are not described sufficiently in detail, viz the state, size & nature of the pebbles; the kind of stratification & whether there are layers of sand or clay occasionally intercalated. &c.— Do the rivers after cutting through terraces generally reach the hard underlying rocks? With respect to the red clay over the mountains; can it be gneiss decomposed in situ, as happens to so surprising a thickness in Brazil?; I suppose not, as you state that it lies on your terraces.

Altogether your excursion amidst the snow-heights must have been very grand; I fear, however, that Botanically it can hardly have repaid you the immense fatigue; how fortunate it is that your health stands so well & Heaven grant this may continue.—

I forgot to say that I will carefully preserve all your letters: none have been destroyed, but those portions which did not contain any facts which I wanted to refer to again have been spitted & the other parts put in my portfolios, but half-an-hour’s work will get them all together & it shall be done on my return home.—³

I have written so lately that I have nothing to say about myself; my health prevented me going on with a crusade against “mihi” & “nobis” of which you warn me of the dangers: I showed my paper to 3 or 4 naturalists & they all agreed with me to a certain extent: with health & vigor, I w^d not have shown a white feather, but with aid of $\frac{1}{2}$ a dozen really good naturalists, I believe something might have been done against the miserable & degrading passion of mere naming species.⁴ In your letter you wonder what “Ornamental Poultry” has to do with Barnacles; but do not flatter yourself that I shall not yet live, to finish the Barnacles & then make a fool of myself on the subject of Species, under which head ornamental Poultry are very interesting.— Thank you much for all your news about Falconer: his conduct does seem really most inexplicable & lamentable: it is a thousand pities.—

In my last letter I said I had not read your Coal Paper,⁵ because I had not yet borrowed the Volume: that same evening lo & behold I found your Paper amongst my Books: when starting & packing for this place I received the parcel from your Father & somehow overlooked the Coal Paper in a manner, which I cannot even now understand. I have read it with the greatest interest. Your preliminary remarks strike me as excellent, as well as your various discussions. What beautiful Plates!— I remember in conversation you said you thought that the upright Coal flora might have been fresh-water aquatic; I regret you did not strongly insert this, for it strikes me as removing some of the geological difficulties & as agreeing so well with your curious facts about the seeds in the hollow trunks: Why on earth sh^d not the fern-leaves have been drifted to the spot where the upright vegetables grew?— But my Paper is full— Farewell, all success attend you.—

Your’s affectionately. C. Darwin.