To William Kemp 1 November [1843]
Down, near Bro⟨m⟩ley, | Kent
Nov. 1st.
Dear Sir
I have been detained from home, otherwise I shd have sooner answered your last communication.—1
I am sorry to say that Mr Babington (who from the te⟨s⟩timony of several Botanists, is a first-rate judge in the genus Atriplex) pronounces the plant reared at the Hort. Soc. to be A. angustifolium; I enclose his le⟨t⟩ter, as you might like to see it.—2 I am quite p⟨u⟩zzled what to recommend you about publication,—b⟨u⟩t first let me say, that, from what I have seen ⟨of⟩ your ardent love of natural science, I would as soon believe myself capable of playing a hoax o⟨n⟩ the public, as I would believe you to be so.— The most sceptical of the public wd only suspect an accidental error. For myself I believe the seeds had been deposited, as you describe & that they produced the plants, you sent to Prof. Henslow.— and I think I have shown by my correspondence, that I do not underrate the interest of the3 fact. But apparently only two kinds of seeds were sown, & with you, two species of Polygonum. P. aviculare & P. convolvulus (as Henslow informs me) & one of Atriplex came up,4 whereas at the Hort. Soc. another species or variety of Atriplex (for I shd have told you, that the Atriplex reared by you is undoubtedly according to Henslow the A. patula) & a Rumex R. acetosella:5 therefore 3. genera, and 4 or 5 species have come up from 2 kind of seeds.— Moreover unfortunately the plants are just those, which might be expected to come up from garden soil. If the Atriplex had turned out a new species that alone wd have been good evidence; or even if the same variety of this genus had come up with you and at the Hort. Soc, there wd have been some evidence. I daresay the Rumex at the Hort. Soc was from a seed in the soil, but the Public (when all the facts are stated, which of course you would, would I fear, say it is more probable that the seeds of all these plants were contained in the soil, than that such ancient seeds shd retain their vitality.— I believe differently myself; but I declare I do not see, how you can make your case sufficiently clear, to justify its publication.— I take great blame to myself that I did not urge Prof. Lindley to plant the seeds in a circle or in a perfectly straight line, for in that case, or had you done so, the evidence wd have been good for the majority of the plants which came up, though even then not for every individual one.
Let me hear what you think of what I have said.— I have all your papers safe & wd return them to you at anytime—6 I assure you, I feel extremely disappointed at the prospect ⟨of⟩ your trouble being thrown away, & of so curious (& as I believe real) ⟨a⟩ fact being lost— I trust you will credit me, when I say, that I have done as much in endeavouring to obtain information for you, as I could if I had discovered the seeds myself; & that I have advised you to the best of my judgment.—
Believe me, dear Sir | Yours very faithfully | C. Darwin
Footnotes
Summary
J. S. Henslow’s and C. C. Babington’s opinions on WK’s seeds.
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-710F
- From
- Charles Robert Darwin
- To
- William Kemp
- Sent from
- Down
- Postmark
- 1 NO 1843
- Source of text
- Cambridge University Library (MS Add. 10252/18) (gift of Ruth Cramond and David Cramond)
- Physical description
- ALS 4pp
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 710F,” accessed on 28 March 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-710F.xml
Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 18 (Supplement)