My Dear Hooker

I have to thank you for a nice letter of June 12, and later, for the draft on your bankers for £72.12 for Parry.² The latter send profound thanks, and is quite set up by his venture on seeds. He ought to be (and is) very thankful to you.

A note from Bentham³ came in your envelope. Let me answer one of his enquiries to you—who will let him know my answer: for I infer that this will not reach him at Kew until after his holiday, so I address to you

He asks whether the Major John Le Conte, Deceased, of Philadelphia, is the Entomologist and F.L.S.⁴ Yes, doubtless, if a Fellow of long standing. His son John L. Le Conte is the more distinguished entomologist:⁵ but he could have been chosen only a few years ago,—and I suppose you do not now elect Fellows in foreign parts. Whereas the old Major Le Conte was probably chosen about the same time with his contemporary D^r. Bigelow.⁶

Now I am to discourse, partly for Bentham, partly for you, anent Bentham’s Anniversary address.⁷—which I like greatly, and yet have some flaws to pick at.— Here—far away from the great centres of scientific activity, we “are nothing if not critical”.⁸

He rightly blames Huxley for his use of the term Biology.⁹ I take the word to be essentially equivalent to Physiology and a better term. It certainly is not = Nat. History.

Darwin may well be pleased and satisfied at having made such an impression on Bentham. The latter’s conclusion as to “the tide of opinion,” on p. 13, I am pleased to see—;¹⁰ both because it is evidently true, and because I had lately in Amer. Journal. been saying the same.¹¹ Natural Selection he does not quite appreciate, I think; but few do.

The caution, in p. 10, is well enough. But few, I imagine, fit to handle such questions, ever take an illustration for an argument, at least for a proof.¹² A comparison is sometimes a capital argument for its purpose.— An analogous case may perfectly rebut an objection, tho’ it establishes nothing for itself.

As to my Essay in Atlantic—which has been made so much of—Bentham seems to misapprend a little its object and the occasion.¹³ It was not to “remove the prejudices excited by religious views” or to deprecate attack on Darwin in this regard, but to rebut and turn aside attacks which had been made on this ground, and partly by scientific men. To show the futility and unreasonableness of such attacks was only to remand the discussion to its proper court. “His opponents reply that his Natural Theology is not Religion” Bree, I suppose.¹⁴ But the same line of argument holds as well. It is easy to show that the very same principles have been admitted in respect to astronomy & geology, and so may just as well be in Natural history.— But all this is of no account. But as a review of Darwin’s Theory on scientific grounds, why did not B. mention my much earlier review, in Silliman’s Journal,—perhaps the better of the two, and addressed to scientific men instead of ad populum.¹⁵

I am pleased to see him pitch into Owen for ill-treating Carpenter.¹⁶ But, in the Heterogeny question, the prejudice (in which I share) against spontaneous generation, and too great deference to French Academy, has made him unjust to Wyman,—who is one of the most conscientious and accurate of observers.¹⁷ Wyman will now probably publish the results of a lot of experiments, which he did not think were worth while.¹⁸ As respects the heat employed to destroy germs, Wyman’s experiments are better than Pasteur’s. The latter subjected them to dry heat only, and to say 230^o Fahr. But Wyman in the experiments under pressure, boiled at 250$\frac{1}{2}$ ^o and 307$\frac{1}{2}$ ^o Fahr.. You know how great the difference between the two modes.

I enclose you a brief mem. by D^r. Wyman.¹⁹ By the way, when you want a new Foreign Member of Linn. Soc^y. you should think of Wyman.²⁰ He is pure gold.

As to canvassing for scientific honors—for which you blame A.DC,²¹ one may be led into it, and I suspect it is not uncommon on the Continent. Last summer Ruprecht,—whom I know little of, wrote to ask me to furnish him with what I could to enable him to put me in nomination for a vacancy in Acad. Petro[ff].²² I declined to have anything to do or say in the matter, telling him to refer to any botanists he chose. Where upon I supposed the matter was dropped. But, last week, the diploma came to me.

I should have thought that they would have preferred Bentham or yourself. By the way, now that I am writing of myself I have, against my will been put into the chair of Amer. Acad. on the retirement of D^r. Bigelow. I could have succeeded in avoiding it had it not been that Agassiz and his small clique set to work with all their might against me,— —the result was a demonstration that made A open his eyes, and has, I hear, mortified him exceedingly.²³

Bond is at home again, much pleased with his trip.²⁴ He says that the greatest thing to see, and the most satisfactory, on the other side of the water, is Kew Gardens & museum. We were pleased to see one who had lately seen you all, and brought such pleasant accounts of you and Mrs. Hooker, I should suppose that Mrs. Hooker is as well as possible.²⁵

The sudden death of an aged and very dear Great Aunt of Mrs. Gray’s took us to Connecticut last week, where we remained some while.²⁶ The good soul has bequeathed to my wife property which would amount in ordinary times to about £2000:—a great help to us. I now see my way clearer than ever to shaking off other things before long and taking myself to Fl. N. Amer. ²⁷

Flora Australiensis is a nice vol.²⁸ Mesembryanthemum was truly collected in California by Fremont²⁹ and by others—I think also by Coulter.³⁰—said to be common on the coast. I always supposed it must have been introduced by the Spaniards.³¹

I note what you write of Seemann.³² I never liked the fellow, and always had just as little as possible to do with him, while being civil distantly. I looked upon him as a sort of adventurer.— I shall keep very clear of him.

Ovules bearing pollen is a very curious business. But I do not see what use can be made of the case.

I take issue with you square, and say that the radicle is 1^st internode. I support the proposition thus— 1. It is in the place of internode, i.e. below the first node; 2. It grows like an internode whenever (as is usual) it lengthens at all. 3. It produces roots like an internode, i.e. all internodes favorably placed, e.g. 2^nd. 3^rd. &c—