My dear Darwin

I have just read through the glacial part of Murchisons address, & agree that it is a smasher to Ramsays theory.¹ The summary of subject appears an apt one, though weakened by a few inconsequent observations, & over-much stress on the opinions of “all geologists” all “practical geologists”, all “old geologists”—for whose opinions (bless their old gums) Ramsays do not care a pin. Falconers objections,² as put by Murchison are simply unintelligiable to me.

Thanks for telling me of Beppo.³ I like Quits much,⁴ all but the end, but ends do not trouble me.

I did not mean that it was beneath your dignity or really below the dignity of your subject to answer Kollicker,⁵ but what I think is, that when such subjects are dragged into periodicals for discussion, ⁠⟨⁠the⁠⟩⁠ public are apt to form a low opinion of them & their disputants. The subject is a great one, there are acknowledged organs for its discussion, accessable to all taking a true interest & capable of appreciating the men & their arguments, & to fling these down to be scrambled for in a weekly periodical, is somehow derogatory— I dare say I do not explain my meaning, nor should convince you if I did. Of one thing I can assure you, that it is never worth your while, whose working moments are worth so much to us, to waste one thought on this discussion. After all you could only impress outsiders—who would forget & turn like the wind to the next writer, & it is the dignity of the subject, more than of the proceeding which I am considering.

Falconer was very jolly on Thursday.⁶

Ever yrs affec | J D Hooker

Begonia Tweedyana⁷ is one of that unguis set of things.