My dear Hooker

I have read your paper with great interest. It seems all very clear; & will form an admirable introduction to the N.Z. Flora,¹ or to any Flora in the world. How few generalisers there are amongst systematists; I really suspect there is something absolutely opposed to each other & hostile in the two frames of mind required for systematising, & reasoning on large collections of facts.— Many of your arguments appear to me very well put: & as far as my experience goes, the candid way in which you discuss the subject is unique. The whole will be very useful to me, whenever I undertake my volume;² though parts take the wind very completely out of my sails, for I have for some time determined to give the arguments on both sides, (as far as I could) instead of arguing on the mutability side alone.—

I shall like very much seeing the remainder. I really have nothing to say or gainsay; an expression of p. 21. & p. 22. (marked) rather puzzled me at first. In my own cirripedial work (by the way, thank you for the dose of soft solder, it does one, (or at least me) a great deal of good),³ —in my own work, I have not felt conscious that disbelieving in the permanence of species has made much difference one way or the other; in some few cases (if publishing avowedly on doctrine of non-permanence) I sh^d. not have affixed names, & in some few cases sh^d. have affixed names to remarkable varieties.⁴ Certainly I have felt it humiliating, discussing & doubting & examining over & over again, when in my own mind, the only doubt has been, whether the form varied today or yesterday ⁵ (to put a fine point on it, as Snagsby⁶ would say). After describing a set of forms, as distinct species, tearing up my M.S., & making them one species; tearing that up & making them separate, & then making them one again (which has happened to me) I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, & asked what sin I had committed to be so punished: But I must confess, that perhaps nearly the same thing w^d. have happened to me on any scheme of work.—⁷

I am heartily glad to hear your Journal is so much advanced: how magnificently it seems to be illustrated. An “Oriental naturalist”, with lots of imagination, & not too much regard to facts, is just the man to discuss species! I think your title of a “Journal of a Naturalist in the East” very good; but whether in the Himmalaya w^d. not be better, I have doubted, for the East sounds rather vague.—⁸

I should much like to see your notice of the German’s views on geograph. distrib. consequent on emersion of river-barriers.—⁹

I have finished Esmond, but hardly begun on the other books: I like reading Esmond very much, on the principle that the worst novel is better than the best of other books; but I must say I think Esmond after the first vol. rather heavy, & the dear mistress rather mawkish.¹⁰

Farewell, good luck to your work,—whether you make the species hold up their heads or hang them down, as long as you don’t quite annihilate them or make them quite permanent; it will be all nuts to me;¹¹ so farewell yours most truly | C. Darwin