Dear Darwin

I take it very hard & not a little unkind that, after having by a series of unprecedented wriggles, got my Ins. Flora into the shape of a plausible though perhaps rather sophistic form—you (& Etty especially) should call on me to wriggle out of any mere contradictions of facts, or irreconcileable statements.¹

I thought I had modified the sentence you objected to (& which did appear I grant irreconcileable) & I have not looked since;— now I must: so here goes—for a contortuplication of wriggles (a regular colic) if I find that I must.²

Meanwhile I send Naudins letter, & return your note— there is no need to refer to me at all in the matter.³ N. puts no restriction on the communication, & no doubt it will be published long before you are in print. Fruit or Drupe is the proper word.⁴ I shall see N. in Paris early in April & let you know. I shall send them to L. S.⁵ tomorrow. I was not aware that you had similar cases.

I am dying to understand Pangenesis that haunts me at night. Huxley told me that he had referred you to something of the kind in Bonnet.⁶ I cannot conceive a Pangenesis without a correlative Panexodus (the Great God Pan is not yet dead, that’s clear)— What I mean is this, that if every previous attribute (infinitely subdivided) of all its ancestors, exists in an organism, any of these may come out/turn up in its progeny— but I suspect I am talking nonsense to you. I was so very blind to the force of the derivative hypothesis, that I always feel too inclined to take your views au coup de (I forget what, I am coaching up french, hard, for Paris Exposition.⁷

That poor Clark is simply mad, & has been in confinement.⁸ You have grasped the reason why no one attacks his theory—which by the way he will alter to suit your tastes as much as you please. When I point out a fact or structure to him he always accepts it, however subversive of his theory whose Elasticity is delightful. Thank God he is off on Zoology⁹

I am extremely interested, as is Smith, in your Ipomœa experiment.¹⁰

Scott has been telling me of his success in cultivating Temperate plants in thatched houses in Calcutta, he seems to be getting on capitally & his experiments are all in your favor.¹¹

Now for p. 9. of my Lecture— I cannot see the error.¹² That the plants of no affinity are commonest, appears carried out by the Laurels being so abundant, forming forests, in the Canaries & I think also in Madeira, & Clethera¹³ is certainly very common at least I think so. It is the peculiar genera of European affinity that are so rare—as Merugia, Melanoselinii, & Dracæna ajari is abundant in Canaries & has no European affinity. so with Plocama, Visnea, Bosea, &c.¹⁴ Please look again & let me know.

NB. This is not a wriggle.

Thanks for the note about Azorean birds.¹⁵

I have written to ask Sir H. Barkly about Mammals bones in Mauritius¹⁶

I do not attempt to read Andrew Murray in G. C. the most bumptious, conceited, muddle pated pig in print.— true he cannot reason. He was Secy. Hort. Soc. but they had to chassée him: his treatment of Lyell is refreshingly civil—¹⁷

I am wearying very much to see you again, but cannot conceive when.

Next week I go to Paris. More & more S^t Helena plants prove to have Cape affinities.¹⁸

I have just identified another very marked & peculiar genus common to Chili & New Zealand   it is Griselinia of Foster, with which I find Decostea to be generically identical & by Jove there is a species undescribed on the top of the Organ M^ts!¹⁹ so go ahead— As usual it is one of those genera most difficult to preserve the seeds of—a small fleshy berry. It is not a glacial genus.²⁰

Ever dear old Darwin | yrs aff | J D Hooker

When you write, do tell me about p. 9: and do say I was right about Asa Gray!!!!²¹