My dear Darwin

I return you with a thousand thanks (p^r Bookpost) your pamphlets—¹ I have read them all—with several others—till I got quite bewildered. My object was to say a few words in my address on the present state of the question and on some logical confusion in the arguments it has given rise to and my wish has been to do you full justice but not being gifted with your powers of expressing thoughts I fear I have only talked nonsense especially as age is beginning to tell upon me— you must look upon it however with an indulgent eye—and I sincerely trust you will find nothing in it really to annoy you.— I will send you a copy when printed²

I had intended saying something of what I considered the weak points of your hypothesis (not in its principle but in the generality of its application) but I found I could not give the necessary time and thought to it. There is one thing that I would wish you would further work out— What is that principle to a certain degree counteracting divergent variation which keeps certain species immutable for periods which further researches only lengthen— Not to speak of the Antiquity of Man   How to account for the absolute identity (I mean identity within present small limits of variation) of species of plants of the temperate northern hemisphere and of Tasmania and the Victorian Alps when first discovered—plants that must have gone through so many thousand generations in both hemispheres unaltered³   It is too much for me to suppose that Natural Selection has had no opportunity for acting upon these when others which appear to have been in similar circumstances have by her agency altered so much that the common origin of northern and southern representatives is difficult to recognise

The observed immutability of a large number of species (if taken within extended limits) which I had so long maintained continually haunts me although at the same time I feel the full force of your principle of Natural Selection the moment I divest it of that figurative personification which leads Asa Gray to say that your book on Orchids introduces the doctrine of final causes into the vegetable kingdom.⁴ I feel that I am one of your converts but I cannot satisfy myself that I am right at all points, and therefore cannot go all lengths with you.

I agree with your notes on the merits of some of your reviewers except that I cannot see much to approve either in Hopkins or Maw.⁵ I am amused by Huxley’s publications, admire his raciness of style engrafted upon solidity of thought and correctness of views⁶   I cordially agree in his opinions of your works but I have a great dislike to personal controversy and knock-down arguments. I have it is true been unable myself to refrain from a word or to on the unfairness of the Athenæum reviewer who quotes as authorities Pouchet and C^o and ignores Pasteur but that is supposed to be anonymous and anonymous misrepresentations delivered ex cathedra ought I think to be put down by facts authenticated by a signature⁷

I shall endeavour as I get on with the Australian Flora to put together some notes on the comparative distribution of Australian British and other plants which I have specially worked upon—although Hooker has really done so much as to discourage one from pursuing the subject and some of my own ideas for instance as the connection between Europe and America through NE Asia have been taken up and worked out by more competent hands—so that I may after all be left to my old plodding task of systematic description which I have now carried on for nearly 40 years⁸

Ever yours most sincerely | George Bentham