My dear Hooker

I write to say that we are going on Monday for a month to my Father’s at Shrewsbury:¹ when, therefore, you can quite spare Cosmos² w^d you send it directed to me. “Shrewsbury”: please not send anything else with it.— I will not trouble you for the Asiatic Journal, as I can see it at the Club.— I send my Journal today for you.— N.B. If by chance you sh^d. have sent Cosmos either to the Athenæum or Geolog. Soc. I can get it forwarded, if you will inform me.

Many thanks for your letter received yesterday, which, as always, sets me thinking: I laughed at your attack at my stinginesss in changes of level towards Forbes, being so liberal towards myself; but I must maintain, that I have never let down or upheaved our mother earth’s surface, for the sake of explaining any one phenomenon, & I trust I have very seldom done so without some distinct evidence. So I must still think it a bold step, (perhaps a very true one) to sink into depths of ocean, within the period of existing species, so large a tract of surface. But there is no amount or extent of change of level, which I am not fully prepared to admit, but I must say I sh^d. like better evidence, than the identity of a few plants, which possibly (I do not say probably) might have been otherwise transported. Particular thanks for your attempt to get me a copy of L’Espece³ & almost equal thanks for your criticisms on him: I rather misdoubted him & felt not much inclined to take as gospel his facts. I find this one of my greatest difficulties with foreign authors, viz. judging of their credibility.

How painfully (to me) true is your remark that no one has hardly a right to examine the question of species who has not minutely described many.⁴ I was, however, pleased to hear from Owen (who is vehemently opposed to any mutability in species) that he thought it was a very fair subject & that there was a mass of facts to be brought to bear on the question, not hitherto collected. My only comfort is, (as I mean to attempt the subject) that I have dabbled in several branches of Nat. Hist: & seen good specific men work out my species & know something of geology; (an indispensable union)⁵ & though I shall get more kicks than half-pennies, I will, life serving, attempt my work.— Lamarck is the only exception, that I can think of, of an accurate describer of species at least in the Invertebrate kingdom, who has disbelieved in permanent species, but he in his absurd though clever work has done the subject harm, as has M^r. Vestiges, and, as (some future loose naturalist attempting the same speculations will perhaps say) has M^r. D.—

Is not Aug. St. Hilaire a good Botanist? I presume he follows his father & Brother’s views?⁶

It is a shame to plague you with this long note; but I did not sit down, with malice prepence.

Farewell; I shall long to hear the result in October.— | Ever your’s | C. Darwin