My dear Hooker

Thank you for telling me about obscurity of style. But on my life no nigger with lash over him could have worked harder at clearness than I have. But the very difficulty to me, by itself leads to probability that I fail. Yet one lady who has read all my M.S. has found only 2 or 3 obscure sentence.¹ But M^rs. Hooker having so found it, makes me tremble.—² I will do my best in proofs. You are a good man to take trouble to write about it—

With respect to our mutual muddle, I never for a moment thought we could not make our ideas clear to each other by talk or if either of us had time to write in extenso.

I imagine from some expressions (but if you asked me what, I could not answer) that you look at variability as some necessary contingency with organisms, & further that there is some necessary tendency in the variability to go on diverging in character or degree.³ If you do, I do not agree. “Reversion” again, (a form of inheritance) I look at as no way directly connected with variation, though of course inheritance is of fundamental importance to us, for if a variation be not inherited, it is of no signification to us.— It was on such points as these I fancied that we perhaps started differently.—

I fear that my Book will not deserve at all the pleasant things you say about it & good Lord how I do long to have done with it:—

Since the above was written I have received & been much interested by A. Gray. I am delighted at his note about my & Wallace’s paper:⁴ He will go round, for it is futile to give up very many species, & stop at an arbitrary line at others. It is what my grandfather called Unitarianism, “a feather-bed to catch a falling Christian”.—⁵

The geology at p. 447 seems to be inextricable confusion.⁶

Some time ago A. Gray wrote to me for my notions on recent migration during late periods, & I gave him the passage before Glacial period by the almost continuous circumpolar land.— I presume he alludes to this, not correctly, by putting me before E. Forbes Hooker & De Candolle.—⁷

But he has changed my doctrine, apparently after consulting Dana.—⁸ I knew there was some slight evidence from range of the shell Gnathodon in U. States of warmer climate since Glacial epoch; but I do not believe there is any such evidence for Europe.— I once consulted Lyell on this point & he seemed to know little & be very doubtful about this warmer period since Glacial. I doubt whether Megatherium & Co. have really been found together with the northern Elephant; nor do I at all admit that Megatherium, Mylodon & Co are by themselves proof of warmer climate. The argument from the woolly Elephant & woolly Rhinoceros I look at as false.⁹

If my letter did start these speculations, I am sorry I ever wrote it, for in my opinion they botch the subject.—

Yours affect | C. Darwin

I return the Paper by this Post