skip to content

Darwin Correspondence Project

From Gaston de Saporta1   6 September 1868

Aix-en-provence | Bouches du Rhône

6 | Septembre 1868

Monsieur,

J’achève la lecture de votre nouveau et excellent livre sur les variations des animaux et des plantes2 et comme je me trouve avoir, à propos de ces dernières, quelques observations nouvelles à vous fournir, je profite de cett⁠⟨⁠e⁠⟩⁠ occasion pour me mettre en rapport avec vous, surtout dans l’espoir de contribuer à l’avancement de votre doctrine que je crois ferment être la vérité ou du moins s’en rapprocher assez pour nous frayer une voie capable de nous y conduire. toutes mes observations sur les plantes fossiles, remonta⁠⟨⁠nt⁠⟩⁠ maintenant à plus de 10 années d’étu⁠⟨⁠des⁠⟩⁠ consécutives, m’ont confirmé de plus en plus dans la confiance que les idées propagées par vous se trouvent conformes avec la marche suivie par la nature; j’ai surtout insisté dans mes écrits sur la continuité des phénomènes de la vie depuis sa première origine jusqu’à nous.3 Ainsi, absence complète de créations successives et intermittentes, ce qui conduit nécessairement à admettre la filiation des espèces les unes par les autres— Je ne me suis un peu séparé de vous que sur un seul point, à propos du quel je pense du reste que nous concordons aussi, c’est que l’essentiel pour le moment est de recueillir des faits et d’avancer pas à pas, c’est à dire de prouver d’abord la liaison intime des espèces entr’elles, puis des genres, avant de chercher à se rendre compte de la filiation des groupes d’un ordre supérieur, pour les quels les documents sont encore trop imparfaits— J’ai donc été particulièrement satisfait de voir que dans votre dernier ouvrage vous suiviez cette voie qui pour le moment est la plus sage. Au reste je conviens que votre premier livre était nécessaire dans la forme même que vous lui avez donnée pour poser la question. Aussi quelle impulsion vous avez donné aux esprits en France! quel progrès immense d’année en années, malgré la clameur des hommes arriérés et de ceux même qui avouent tout bas que vous avez raison!4

Je pense dans le rapport de la paléontologie végétale avoir beaucoup de faits à vous communiquer, faits que du reste j’ai mis en lumière dans mes travaux publiés dans les Annales des sciences naturelles—mais il vaut mieux quelquefois d’expliquer directement.5 Pour ce qui est des plantes fossiles, il faut distinguer soigneusement les genres herbacés dont nous ne connaisso⁠⟨⁠ns⁠⟩⁠ à peu près rien des genres ligneux, arborescents et frutescents sur les quels nous possédons maintenant de riches et curieux documents. Ce que l’on peut conclure dès maintenant c’est que la plupart de ces genres remontent fort loin dans le passé; je serais porté à croire que le plus grand nombre existaient déjà, je parle des genres ou types, dès la fin de la craie, m⁠⟨⁠ais⁠⟩⁠ les documents sont insuffisants, sauf pour quelques uns comme les Magnolia dont le type était déja alors ce qu’il est maintenant—6 Mais si je laisse les genres pour considerer les espèces je vois aussi que certaines formes actuelles existaient déja, très peu differentes ou même semblables à celles qui existent encore aux mëmes lieux dès le miocène inférieur— C’est bien visible en Provence où l’on voit que certains types spécifiques comme l’érable de Monpellier, le Térébinthe, le buisson ardent, l’aubépine, le Cercis etc. etaient des lors réprésentés par des formes peu différentes de celles que nous avons sous les yeux et n’ayant pas depuis subi de variation plus grande que celles que vous indiquez dans les plantes cultivées—7 Outre ces plantes qui une fois fixées sur notre sol ne l’ont plus quitté, il en est d’autres qui y croissaient jadis et qui depuis se sont retirées dans d’autres contrées, où bien souvent elles n’ont plus pour représentant que des formes isolées, sur le point de disparaître— Il en est d’autres encore qui n’ont fait que passer sur notre sol; c’est à dire qui y sont venues du nord, sous l’influence de la fraicheur et l’ont quitté depuis lorsque cette influence a cessé— J’ai cité dernièrement et figuré un hêtre miocène qui ne se rattache pas précisément au hêtre indigène, Fagus sylvatica, mais reproduit trait pour trait le hêtre d’amérique, F. ferruginea 8—ainsi ce type existait tout formé en Europe dès le miocène inférieur—le prototype du F. sylvatica existait également, mais le premier n’a pas persisté sur notre continent; les formes strictement intermédiares entre deux espèces actuelles très distinctes sont aussi assez fréquentes; et je viens de signaler un Térébinthe qui me parait tenir le ⁠⟨⁠milie⁠⟩⁠u entre les Pistacia terebinthus et lentiscus. 9 ⁠⟨⁠Pour ne⁠⟩⁠ pas prolonger ces détails, sauf à revenir ⁠⟨⁠  ⁠⟩⁠d sur ceux qui pourraient vous interesser—je ⁠⟨⁠va⁠⟩⁠is ⁠⟨⁠ter⁠⟩⁠miner en transcrivant quelques observation⁠⟨⁠s⁠⟩⁠ ⁠⟨⁠r⁠⟩⁠élatives à des espèces vivantes et actuelles qui me paraissent susceptibles de vous interésser—

1o. certaines races que l’on peut considérer comme des espèces en voie de formation, mais encore reliées ⁠⟨⁠en⁠⟩⁠semble par des intermédiares, sont cependant très anciennes dans la forme qui les distinguent. Ainsi notre Quercus pubescens Wild. qu’on regarde comme une variété de Q. sessiliflora se trouve revetu de ses caractères distinctifs, dans les tufs de l’âge quaternaire—depuis il n’a plus varié.10

2o. L’ormeau à grandes feuilles se reproduit naturellement de semis dans mon parc—un très vieux sujet greffé l’a propagé partout; il a gardé les caractères, au milieu des autres—11

3o. La vigne existe dans nos tufs quaternaires, comme dans ceux de Montpellier. elle est abondante dans ceux de Saint Antonin près d’Aix—des silex taillés ont fait voir que cette formation remontait au moins à l’âge du renne.12

4o. Lorsqu’on ne possède que des pieds femelles du Pistacia vera il est fréquemment fécond⁠⟨⁠é na⁠⟩⁠turellement par le térébinthe, P. ter⁠⟨⁠ebinthus, et⁠⟩⁠ il en résulte, conformément à vos observ⁠⟨⁠ations⁠⟩⁠ sur l’influence des mâles, des fruits deux fois plus petits que ceux qui constituent la pistache ordinaire.13

5o. d’après mes observations, confirmées par plusieurs découvertes, le Noyer serait indigène aussi bien que la vigne—cela ne signifierait pas que l⁠⟨⁠es⁠⟩⁠ races cultivées n’aient pu être importées du deho⁠⟨⁠rs,⁠⟩⁠ mais il aurait existé de tout temps des races in⁠⟨⁠di⁠⟩⁠gènes à coté des domestiques, qui se seraient conf⁠⟨⁠ondus⁠⟩⁠ depuis avec elles—14 Le Figuier et le Laurier actuels sont certainement indigènes par les mêmes raisons. leur existence étant assurée lors de l’âge quaternaire.15

6.o Pour ce qui est du poirier—il existe à coté de la souche probablement unique d’où est sorté cet arbre, des espèces ou sous espèces, très distinctes botaniquement et qui cependant fournissent des passages insensibles vers le type du pyrus domestica lorsqu’on s’attache à les suivre vers le extrémités de leur aire d’habitation. Cette opinion parait être celle de M. Decaisne, qui cependant ne l’exprime à cet égard qu’avec une sorte de réserve—16 En provence, entr’autres ⁠⟨⁠nous⁠⟩⁠ possédons comme poirier indigene le ⁠⟨⁠Pyrus am⁠⟩⁠ygdaliformis, très distinct à certains ⁠⟨⁠egards⁠⟩⁠. quand on examine les formes les plus saillants, celle⁠⟨⁠s⁠⟩⁠ qui sont le mieux adaptées au climat sec et au sol compacte et stérile dont se contente cette espèce; mais il donne des variétés qui se confondent presque avec le poirier ordinaire, même en provence l’arbre est souvent greffe en poirier et probablement il se produit des hybrides entr’eux, ce que pourtant je n’ai pas vérifié—17 les fruits de ce poirier servent ici à la nourriture des bestiaux. Cette espèce a du se propager en Provence et y revêtir les caractères qu’elle a, lorsque le climat de notre pays est devenu sec et chaud, vers la fin du Quaternaire— durant cette époque, notre pays était beaucoup plus humide, ce qui est prouvé par l’ancienne abondance des eaux et la masse de concrétions tufacées qu’elles ont produites et que les faibles sources actuelles qui coulent à leur pied seraient incapables d’accumuler. la végétation de cet âge connue par ces même tufs reflète cette humidité par la nature des espèces qu’elle renferme.18 plusieurs ne jouent plus dans le pays qu’un role de plus en plus restreint— je citerai particulièrement le Pyrus acerba qui était alors partout et qui maintenant est relegué dans certains b⁠⟨⁠ornes⁠⟩⁠ et poids— le Pyrus amygdaliformis ⁠⟨⁠n’a pas⁠⟩⁠ laissé de lui aucune trace— Le pyrus ac⁠⟨⁠erba était⁠⟩⁠ un pommier— je ne le crois pas la s⁠⟨⁠ouche de tou⁠⟩⁠s pommiers qui végètent assez mal en ⁠⟨⁠Provenc⁠⟩⁠e19 et sont toujours plus ou moins cotonneux, ⁠⟨⁠tand⁠⟩⁠dis que le pyrus acerba est toujours glabre; il a le bois luisant et d’un brun (acajou) clair; il est cependant possible que ses fruits aient été utilisés, comme tant d’autres durant l’âge de pierre. dans l’âge du renne ⁠⟨⁠en⁠⟩⁠ Provence (où par parenthèse le renne ne se montre pas, par suite probablement de l’éloignement ⁠⟨⁠des⁠⟩⁠ glaciers) tout indique une grande misère pour les races qui habitaient le pays—les stations sont rares et les instruments très informes. Le Lapin parait avoir formé la base de l’alimentation; quant aux grands animaux, le cerf ordinaire et le Chevreuil remplaçaient le renne absent du pays.20 il me serait facile de vous procurer des os de ces lapins quaternaires.21

7o. il existe chez nous souvent des hybrides ou du moins des formes intermédiaires entre les quercus ilex et coccifera, espèces très distinctes en apparence puisque dans le premier la maturation du gland est annuelle et bisannuelle dans le second, outre le port qui n’a rien de commun—22 on trouve cependant des formes ambiguës, qui s’élèvent en arbre comme le Q. Ilex et ont les feuilles du coccifera; les glands mettent deux ans à murir dans d’autres cas une année seulement⁠⟨⁠    ⁠⟩⁠ les cupules de ces hybrides? ne sont pas hérissées de pointes, comme celles du Q. Coccifera— ces races ont été signalées sous le nom de pseudo-coccifera, auzandri etc.... est ce bien des hybrides, ne serait ce pas plutot des retours à un type antérieur, progéniteur commun des deux formes actuelles?23 il faut remarquer que l’espèce fossile qui se rapproche le plus de notre Q. Ilex—le Quercus mediterranea Ung. ressemble beaucoup par les feuilles au moins au Q. pseudo-coccifera— cette espèce fossile se montre très abondamment en Grèce, à Coumi, et en Italie, mais je ne l’ai pas observée, jusqu’ici en Provence—24 je n’ai même jamais rencontré le Q. Ilex ni le coccifera dans nos tufs quaternaires, ces deux espèces ont du se répandre dans le pays en même temps que le pin d’Alep qui n’y était pas non plus et qui remplaçait le pin de Montpellier (Pinus Salzmanni Dun.)—25 Cette différence tirée de la maturation annuelle ou bisannuelle du gland, n’a pas du reste l’importance qu’on semblerait devoir lui attacher, puisque le Chêne à liège des Landes et celui de Provence si voisins qu’on les avait confondus jusqu’en ces dernier temps, ne sont séparés l’un de l’autre que par ce seul caractère—26 les Chênes verts fossiles tertiaires de Provence que j’ai eû occasion de décrire ren⁠⟨⁠tren⁠⟩⁠t tous dans les types américains, ils sont très voisins des Quercus Virens, cinerea, etc—27

Je terminerai cette longue lettre en vous priant de l’excuser par le désir que j’ai de contribuer par la communication des documents que je possède à la propagation d’une doctrine destinée à triompher et désormais inséparable de votre nom— Tous les amis de la vérité scientifique doivent se rallier sous le drapeau que vous avez arboré et vous regarder comme leur chef, c’est ce que je fais en vous priant d’agreer l’expression de mes sentiments les plus devoués | Cte Gaston de Saporta

vous pouvez employer la langue anglaise en me répondant

CD annotations

2.27 mais le … lentiscus. 2.30] scored pencil; ‘Fossil species’ in margin, pencil
2.30 ⁠⟨⁠milie⁠⟩⁠u … lentiscus.] underl blue crayon
3.4 se trouve … varié 3.5] scored blue crayon; ‘ancient sp.’ in margin, blue crayon
6.1 il est fréquemment … ordinaire. 6.4] scored blue crayon; ‘direct action of pollen.’ in margin, blue crayon
7.1 5o. d’après … du pays 8.32] crossed pencil
7.1 Noyer] underl blue crayon
9.4 on trouve … auzandri etc. 9.8] crossed blue crayon; ‘natural hybrids’ blue crayon
9.7 ne sont pas … actuelles? 9.9] scored blue crayon

CD note:

cont | Gaston de Saporta

(1) Intermediate fossil species p. 5

(2) Ancient variety of Oak [‘Oovero’]— Fossil [pubesc]

*(3) Direct action of pollen.— (p. 6.) [crossed pencil]

*4 Origin of Fruit trees valuable [crossed pencil]

(5 On litle [interl] value of character in Oaks of acorns ripening in 1 or 2 years.

Cap. Var. under Nature

Footnotes

For a translation of this letter, see Correspondence vol. 16, Appendix I.
Saporta’s name appears on the presentation list for the French edition of Variation (see Correspondence vol. 16, Appendix IV).
CD had learned indirectly of Saporta’s support for his ideas in 1863 (see Correspondence vol. 11, letter to J. D. Hooker, 30 January [1863] and n. 8, and letter to Asa Gray, 31 May [1863] and n. 16). For comments on Saporta’s view of CD’s theory, see Tort 1996, and Conry 1972, pp. 66–81. See also Saporta 1869. Saporta may already have sent CD his early papers, copies of which are now in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL (Saporta 1862, 1864a, and 1866a).
For the reception of CD’s theory in France, see Stebbins 1988 and J. Harvey 1997.
Saporta was publishing a series of articles in Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Botanique); the first five were titled ‘Etudes sur la végétation du sud-est de la France à l’époque tertiaire’ (Saporta 1862–5). He had also by this date published the first, and possibly the second, of two articles in the journal, entitled ‘Etudes sur la végétation du sud-est de la France’ (Saporta 1867–8).
Recent publications noting discoveries from the Cretaceous period included Capellini and Heer 1867 (see pp. 12, 20–1) and Lesquereux 1868. For an account of the discoveries in the 1850s and 1860s of Cretaceous fossil plants from Nebraska, including Magnolia species, see Lesquereux 1874, pp. 3–8. Saporta mentioned Cretaceous magnolias in, for example, Saporta 1867, p. 503. He discussed recent discoveries of early Magnolia specimens in Saporta 1868b; there is an inscribed and annotated copy of Saporta 1868b in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Oswald Heer had also recently published articles on Tertiary fossils (including a Magnolia species) in Greenland (see, for example, Heer 1868), and the first volume of his Flora fossilis arctica included a description of the Magnolia species (Heer 1868–83, 1: 120).
Saporta refers to the Montpellier maple (Acer monspessulanum; see Saporta 1862–5, p. 180, and Saporta 1867–8, pp. 22, 104, for Tertiary species. For Saporta’s discussions of Miocene species of the extant terebinth or turpentine tree, Pistacia terebinthus, see n. 9, below. The firethorn, Mespilus pyracantha, is now known as Pyracantha coccinea; see Saporta 1867–8, pp. 54–7 (vol. 9), for his description of the Tertiary ‘Mespilus palæo-pyracantha’. See Saporta 1862–5, p. 285 (vol. 17), and p. 98 (vol. 19), for descriptions of Tertiary Crataegus (hawthorn) species and their resemblance to extant species. For Tertiary species resembling Cercis siliquastrum, the Judas tree, see Saporta 1867–8, pp. 117–19 (vol. 8). CD considered the variation of some cultivated plants in Variation 1: 305–72.
Saporta described Fagus pristina in Saporta 1867–8, pp. 69–70 (vol. 8), where he noted its similarity to F. ferruginea (the American beech); see also plate 6, figs. 1–3. The American beech is now known as F. grandifolia. Fagus sylvatica is the European beech.
Saporta described and discussed Pistacia miocenica (a synonym of P. terebinthus, the turpentine tree) in Saporta 1867–8, pp. 52–4 (vol. 9), noting its similarity to the extant P. terebinthus and P. lentiscus.
Saporta described Quercus pubescens (the downy oak) in ‘La flore des tufs quaternaires en Provence’ (Saporta 1866b, pp. 12–13 of the offprint); see also Saporta 1864b. There is an inscribed offprint of Saporta 1866b in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. For a later discussion of the relationship between these oaks, see Saporta 1888, pp. 179–80. Quercus sessiliflora, the sessile oak, is a synonym of Q. petraea subsp. petraea; for a recent differentiation between Q. pubescens and Q. petraea, see Bruschi et al. 2000. By ‘tufa’, Saporta meant a calcium carbonate (see, for example, Saporta 1866b, p. 1).
Saporta refers to Ulmus glabra, the wych elm. He referred to Ulmus glabra under its former name, U. montana, in Saporta 1862–5, p. 53 (vol. 19). Saporta had inherited a large property, including gardens, in Provence (Tort 1996). In Variation 1: 362, CD mentioned the tendency of ‘peculiar varieties’ of trees to reproduce themselves by seed.
Saporta described the Quaternary Vitis vinifera in Saporta 1866b (p. 15 of offprint; see pp. 27–9 and 32 for his discussion of earlier, indigenous races). For V. vinifera in the tufas of Saint Antonin near Aix, see Saporta 1881, p. 864. The ‘Reindeer Age’, a division of the upper Palaeolithic, was designated by Edouard Lartet; he based his classification on his discoveries of human fossils with fossils of animals no longer extant in France (see Daniel 1975, pp. 99–109, and Van Riper 1993, pp. 195–6.) Lartet’s publications were later collated with those of Henry Christy in Lartet and Christy 1875.
CD added this information on Pistachia to the second edition of Variation, citing Saporta (see Variation 2d ed., 1: 432); he used it as one example of the ‘action of the male element, not in the ordinary way on the ovules, but on certain parts of the female plant’ (ibid. 1: 428).
The common walnut is Juglans regia. See Saporta 1866b (offprint, pp. 22, 29), for discussions of the walnut. In Variation 2d ed., 1: 379, CD wrote that Saporta had told him of a Tertiary fossil of Juglans; see also Saporta 1867–8, p. 109 (vol. 8). For a later discussion of fossil Juglans, see Saporta 1888, pp. 292–6.
Saporta discussed Ficus carica (the common fig) and its indigenous characters in Saporta 1866b (offprint, pp. 13, 27–9, 32). See Saporta 1866b (offprint, pp. 14, 24), for his discussion of Laurus nobilis (bay laurel). See Saporta 1864b, pp. 498–9, for a discussion of indigenous and exotic fig and laurel in the Quaternary period. For Tertiary predecessors of Laurus nobilis, see Saporta 1867–8, pp. 75–6 (vol. 8), and 37–40 (vol. 9).
CD discussed Joseph Decaisne’s conclusions regarding the pear tree in Variation 1: 350–1; CD cited Decaisne 1863, but see also Decaisne 1858–75, 1: 3–20. Pyrus domestica is a synonym of Pyrus communis, the common pear.
CD mentioned the grafting of pears in Variation 1: 376. For modern use of Pyrus amygdaliformis (a synonym of P. spinosathe almond-leaved pear) as a rootstock, see Bonany et al. 2005.
Saporta referred to the humid climate of the late Quaternary period and the calcareous concretions in Saporta 1864b and Saporta 1881.
Pyrus acerba is a synonym of Malus sylvestris subsp. sylvestris (European crab apple). Saporta described a Quaternary Pyrus acerba in Saporta 1866b (offprint, p. 16); see also Saporta 1888, p. 307.
For the Reindeer Age, see n. 12, above. For Saporta on human populations in the Quaternary period, see Saporta 1868c and 1881; there is an inscribed and annotated copy of Saporta 1868c in the Darwin Archive–CUL. Saporta is presumably referring to the extant fallow deer, Dama dama, and the roe deer, Capreolus capreolus (Nowak 1999, 2: 1098, 1131).
Saporta added this sentence in the margin of the letter. CD had considered the origin and variation of domestic rabbits in Variation 1: 103–30.
In southern Europe, Quercus ilex, the ilex, holm, or holly oak, typically grows in association with Q. coccifera, the Kermes oak, a shrubby species (Elwes and Henry 1969–72, 5: 1280).
Quercus pseudococcifera is a synonym of Q. coccifera. Elwes and Henry 1969–72, 5: 1279, list Q. auzandrii (an accepted species) as one of a number of varieties of Q. coccifera; however, the authors add that in the south of France, it may be a hybrid of Q. ilex and Q. coccifera.
Saporta discussed Quercus mediterranea (a synonym of Q. pubescens, the downy oak) in Saporta 1862, p. 4 (also published in Gaudry 1862–7, 1: 413). Saporta discussed the relative abundance of different oaks in Coumi and Provence in Saporta 1868a, pp. 326–7. Coumi or Koumi (now transliterated Kimi or Kymi) is a town on the north-east coast of the island of Eubée or Euboea (Evvia).
See Saporta 1864b, pp. 497–9, for the supposed replacement of Pinus salzmanni (now P. nigra salzmannii), now usually called the Corsican or Salzmann’s pine, by Pinus halepensis, the Aleppo pine.
The Landes region is in south-west France; Provence is in the south-east. The cork oak, native to southern Europe and northern Africa, is Quercus suber. See Elwes and Henry 1969–72, 5: 1292, on variation in the timing of acorn production in French cork oaks. See also Elena-Rossello et al. 1993.
Saporta listed the analogous American species to the Tertiary ‘Quercus elæna’ in Saporta 1862–5, p. 143 (vol. 3). See also Saporta 1862–5, pp. 112–16 (vol. 4), and Saporta 1867–8, pp. 67, 127 (vol. 8). Quercus virens, the live oak, is now Q. virginiana; Q. cinerea, the bluejack oak, is now Q. incana.

Bibliography

Conry, Yvette. 1972. Correspondance entre Charles Darwin et Gaston de Saporta. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Correspondence: The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 29 vols to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985–.

Daniel, Glyn. 1975. A hundred and fifty years of archaeology. 2d edition. London: Duckworth.

Decaisne, Joseph. 1858–75. Le jardin fruitier du Muséum ou iconographie de toutes les espèces et variétés d’arbres fruitiers cultivés dans cet établissement avec leur description, leur histoire, leur synonymie, etc. 9 vols. in 5. Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, fils & Cie.

Decaisne, Joseph. 1863. De la variabilité dans l’espèce du poirier; résultat d’expériences faites au Muséum d’histoire naturelle de 1853 à 1862 inclusivement. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences 57: 6–17. [Reprinted in Annales des sciences naturelles (botanique) 4th ser. 20: 188–200.]

Gaudry, Albert. 1862–7. Animaux fossiles et géologie de l’Attique, d’après les recherches faites en 1855–56 et en 1860 sous les auspices de l’Académie des Sciences. 1 vol. and atlas. Paris: Libraire de la Société Géologique de France.

Heer, Oswald. 1868–83. Flora fossilis arctica. Die fossile flora der Polarländer. 7 vols. Zurich: J. Wurster & Comp.

Heer, Oswald. 1868. On the Miocene flora of the polar regions. Translated by W. S. Dallas. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 1 (ser. 4): 61–9.

Lesquereux, Leo. 1868. On some Cretaceous fossil plants from Nebraska. American Journal of Science and the Arts 46: 91–105.

Lesquereux, Leo. 1874. Contributions to the fossil flora of the western territories. Part 1: the Cretaceous flora. Vol. 6 of the \Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Nowak, Ronald M. 1999. Walker’s mammals of the world. 6th edition. 2 vols. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Saporta, Gaston de. 1862–5. Etudes sur la végétation du sud-est de la France à l’époque tertiaire. Annales des sciences naturelles (botanique) 4th ser. 16 (1862): 309–45; 17 (1862): 191–311; 19 (1863): 5–124; 5th ser. 3 (1865): 5–152; 4 (1865): 5–264.

Saporta, Gaston de. 1867–8. Études sur la végétation du sud-est de la France. Annales des sciences naturelles (botanique) 5th ser. 8 (1867): 5–136; 9 (1868): 5–62.

Saporta, Gaston de. 1869. L’école transformiste et ses dernièrs travaux. Revue des deux mondes 2d ser. 83: 635–74.

Saporta, Gaston de. 1888. Origine paléontologique des arbres cultivés ou utilisés par l’homme. Paris: J. B. Bailliere & Fils.

Saporta, Louis Charles Joseph Gaston de. 1862. Notice sur les plantes fossiles de Coumi et d’Oropo. Paris: [privately printed]. [Reprinted in Animaux fossiles et géologie de l’Attique d’après les recherches faites en 1855–56 et en 1860 sous les auspices de l’Académie des Sciences. With atlas. By Albert Gaudry. Paris: F. Savy. 1862–7.]

Saporta, Louis Charles Joseph Gaston de. 1867. Analyse d’un mémoire intitulé: sur la température des temps géologiques, d’après des indices tirés de l’observation des plantes fossiles. [Read 15 April 1867.] Bulletin de la Société Geologique de France 2d ser. 24 (1866–7): 501–4.

Saporta, Louis Charles Joseph Gaston de. 1881. Les temps quaternaires: I. L’extension des glaciers. II. Le climat, les plantes, les populations. Revue des Deux Mondes 3d ser. 47: 335–69, 835–66.

Stebbins, Robert E. 1988. France. In The comparative reception of Darwinism, edited by Thomas F. Glick. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Tort, Patrick. 1996. Dictionnaire du Darwinisme et de l’evolution. 3 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Van Riper, A. Bowdoin. 1993. Men among the mammoths: Victorian science and the discovery of human prehistory. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Variation 2d ed.: The variation of animals and plants under domestication. By Charles Darwin. 2d edition. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1875.

Variation: The variation of animals and plants under domestication. By Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1868.

Translation

From Gaston de Saporta1   6 September 1868

Aix-en-provence | Bouches du Rhône

6 | September 1868

Dear Sir,

I am finishing reading your new and excellent book on the variations of animals and plants2 and as I find that I have some new observations to offer you on the latter subject, I am profiting from this opportunity to make contact with you, above all in the hope of contributing to the advancement of your doctrine, which I firmly believe to be the truth or at least to approach it so closely as to clear a path capable of leading us to it. All my observations on fossil plants, which now go back over more than 10 years of consecutive study, have increasingly confirmed my confidence that the ideas propagated by you are in conformity with the course of nature; in my writings I have above all emphasised the continuity of the phenomena of life from its earliest origin to our time.3 Hence a complete absence of successive and intermittent creations, which necessarily entails an admission of the filiation of species with one another— I have only distanced myself from you on a single point, on which I think moreover that we are also in agreement, which is that the essential thing at present is to gather facts and to advance step by step, in other words, to start by proving the intimate relationship between species, then that between genera, before seeking to give an account of the filiation of groups of a higher order, for which the records are still too imperfect— So I was especially satisfied to see that in your latest book you follow that route which for the time being is the wisest. Moreover, I agree that to pose the question your first book was necessary in the very form that you gave it. And what an impetus you have given to the minds of France! What an immense progress year after year, despite the outcry of backward men and even of those who admit in a whisper that you are right!4

In reporting on plant palaeontology I think that I have plenty of facts to communicate to you, facts which I have also exposed in work I have published in the Annales des sciences naturelles—but sometimes it is better to explain directly.5 As regards fossil plants, one needs to distinguish with care the herbaceous genera, about which we know virtually nothing, from the woody, arborescent and frutescent genera, on which we now possess rich and curious records. At the moment, what can be concluded is that most of these genera go far back into the past; I would be inclined to believe that the majority already existed—I am speaking of genera or types—at the beginning of the Cretaceous period, but the records are inadequate, except for some, such as the Magnolias, whose type was already then what it is now—6 But if I move from the genera to the species, I also see that certain forms, differing very little from, or even the same as, those that still exist in the same places today, were already in existence in the Lower Miocene— This is very visible in Provence, where one sees that certain specific types such as the Monpellier maple, the Turpentine tree, the firethorn, the hawthorn, Cercis etc. were then represented by forms little different from those that we have before our eyes and have not since undergone a variation greater than the one you indicate in cultivated plants—7 Besides these plants that, once fixed on our soil, have never left it, there are others that once grew here and that have subsequently withdrawn to other regions, where they are often only represented by isolated forms, on the point of disappearing— There are still others that have only passed through our soil; in other words that have come here from the North, under the influence of the cold, and have since departed when that influence ended— I recently described and drew a Miocene beech that is not exactly the same as the indigenous beech, Fagus sylvatica, but that replicates the American beech, F. ferruginea, trait for trait8—thus this type existed ready formed in Europe in the Lower Miocene— the prototype of F. sylvatica also existed, but the former did not persist on our continent; strictly intermediate forms between two current species that are very distinct are also fairly common; and I have just drawn attention to a Turpentine tree which seems to me to be halfway between Pistacia terebinthus and lentiscus.9 So as not to prolong these details, other than by returning ⁠⟨⁠    ⁠⟩⁠ to those that might interest you—I shall end by transcribing some observations relating to living and current species that seem to me likely to interest you.

1o. certain races, which may be considered species in the course of formation, but which are still joined together as a whole by intermediaries, are nevertheless very ancient in the form that distinguishes them. Thus our Quercus pubescens Wild., which is regarded as a variety of Q. sessiliflora, possesses its distinctive characters in tufa of the Quaternary period—since then it has not varied further.10

2o. The large-leafed elm reproduces naturally from seed in my park—a very old grafted specimen has propagated itself everywhere; it has retained its characters in the midst of the others—11

3o. The vine is found in our Quaternary tufas, as in those of Montpellier. It is abundant in those of Saint Antonin near Aix—knapped flints have shown that this formation goes back at least as far as the Reindeer Age.12

4o. When one only has female plants of Pistacia vera it is frequently fertilised naturally by the turpentine, P. terebinthus, ⁠⟨⁠and⁠⟩⁠ in conformity with your observations on the influence of males, the results are fruits half the size of those which constitute the ordinary pistachio.13

5o. according to my observations, confirmed by several finds, the Walnut ought to be indigenous just like the vine—this would not mean that the cultivated races might not have been imported from outside, but indigenous races would always have coexisted with the domesticated ones, which would later have become blended with them—14 The Fig and the Bay of today are certainly indigenous for the same reasons. their existence being assured in the Quaternary period.15

6o. As regards the pear tree—besides the stock, which is probably unique, from which this tree comes, species or subspecies also exist that are botanically very distinct and that nonetheless offer imperceptible transitions towards the type of pyrus domestica when one sets out to follow them to the extremes of their area of occupation. This opinion seems to be that of M. Decaisne, who however only expresses it in this respect with a sort of reserve—16 In Provence, ⁠⟨⁠we⁠⟩⁠ have ⁠⟨⁠Pyrus am⁠⟩⁠ygdaliformis, among others, as an indigenous pear, very distinct in certain ⁠⟨⁠respects⁠⟩⁠. When one examines the most striking forms, those that are the best adapted to the dry climate and compact, infertile soil that this species likes; but it yields varieties that virtually blend with the ordinary pear tree, even in Provence the tree is often grafted as a pear and hybrids between them are probably produced, something I have not however verified—17 the fruit of this pear tree serves as animal fodder here. This species must have propagated itself in Provence and have borne the characters that it has here, when the climate of our region became dry and hot, towards the end of the Quaternary— during this era, our region was far wetter, as is proven by the former abundance of water sources and the mass of tufaceous concretions that they produced and that the weak springs that flow at their bases today would be incapable of building up. The vegetation of this age, which is known from the same tufas, reflects that wetness in the nature of the species it includes.18 Several no longer play anything more than a very limited role in the region— I will mention Pyrus acerba in particular, which was once everywhere and is now relegated to within certain ⁠⟨⁠boundaries⁠⟩⁠ and densities— Pyrus amygdaliformis ⁠⟨⁠has not⁠⟩⁠ left any trace of it— Pyrus acerba ⁠⟨⁠was⁠⟩⁠ an apple— I do not think it the ⁠⟨⁠stock of all⁠⟩⁠ apple trees, which grow pretty poorly in ⁠⟨⁠Provence⁠⟩⁠19 and are always more or less downy, while pyrus acerba is always glabrous; it has shining wood of a light (mahogany) brown; however it is possible that its fruits were used, like so many others during the Stone Age. In the Reindeer Age in Provence (where by the way the reindeer was not present, probably as a result of the distance ⁠⟨⁠of the⁠⟩⁠ glaciers) everything indicates great misery for the races that inhabited the region—settlements are rare and the tools are very shapeless. The Rabbit seems to have formed the staple foodstuff; as for the larger animals, the common deer and the Roe deer replaced the reindeer, which was absent from the region.20 it would be easy for me to procure you bones of these Quaternary rabbits.21

7o. here there are often hybrids or at least intermediate forms between quercus ilex and coccifera, species which are very distinct in appearance since in the first the acorns ripen annually, but biennially in the second, besides the habit which has nothing in common—22 however, ambiguous forms are to be found, which grow to tree stature like Q. Ilex and have the leaves of coccifera; the acorns take two years to ripen, and in other cases just one year ⁠⟨⁠    ⁠⟩⁠ the cups of these hybrids? are not spiny like those of Q. Coccifera— attention has been drawn to these races under the name of pseudo-coccifera, auzandri etc.... are they really hybrids, might they not be reversions to an earlier type, the common progenitor of the two current forms?23 It should be noted that the fossil species that comes closest to our Q. Ilex—Quercus mediterranea Ung. greatly resembles Q. pseudo-coccifera, at least in the leaves— this fossil species appears in great abundance in Greece, at Coumi, and in Italy, but I have never so far observed it in Provence—24 I have never even encountered Q. Ilex or coccifera in our Quaternary tufas, these two species must have spread into the region at the same time as the Aleppo pine, which was also not here and which replaced the Montpellier pine (Pinus Salzmanni Dun.)—25 Moreover, this difference based on the annual or biennial ripening of the acorns has not the importance that it would seem one ought to attach to it, since the Cork Oak of the Landes region and that of Provence, which are so close that they have been confused until recently, are only separated from one another by this single character—26 The Tertiary fossil Evergreen Oaks of Provence that I have had occasion to describe all go back to American types, being very close to Quercus Virens, cinerea, etc—27

I shall end this long letter, asking you to forgive it on the basis of the desire I have to contribute, by communicating records that I possess, to the propagation of a doctrine destined to triumph and henceforth inseparable from your name— All friends of scientific truth must rally around the flag that you have raised and regard you as their leader; and so do I in begging you to accept the expression of my most devoted sentiments | Ct Gaston de Saporta

you can use the English language in replying to me

Footnotes

For a transcription of this letter in its original French, see part II: 721–4.
Saporta’s name appears on the presentation list for the French edition of Variation (see Correspondence vol.16, Appendix IV).
CD had learned indirectly of Saporta’s support for his ideas in 1863 (see Correspondence vol. 11, letter to J. D. Hooker, 30 January [1863] and n. 8, and letter to Asa Gray, 31 May [1863] and n. 16). For comments on Saporta’s view of CD’s theory, see Tort 1996, and Conry 1972, pp. 66–81. See also Saporta 1869. Saporta may already have sent CD his early papers, copies of which are now in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL (Saporta 1862, 1864a, and 1866a).
For the reception of CD’s theory in France, see Stebbins 1988 and J. Harvey 1997.
Saporta was publishing a series of articles in Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Botanique); the first five were titled ‘Etudes sur la végétation du sud-est de la France à l’époque tertiaire’ (Saporta 1862–5). He had also by this date published the first, and possibly the second, of two articles in the journal, entitled ‘Etudes sur la végétation du sud-est de la France’ (Saporta 1867–8).
Recent publications noting discoveries from the Cretaceous period included Capellini and Heer 1867 (see pp. 12, 20–1) and Lesquereux 1868. For an account of the discoveries in the 1850s and 1860s of Cretaceous fossil plants from Nebraska, including Magnolia species, see Lesquereux 1874, pp. 3–8. Saporta mentioned Cretaceous magnolias in, for example, Saporta 1867, p. 503. He discussed recent discoveries of early Magnolia specimens in Saporta 1868b; there is an inscribed and annotated copy of Saporta 1868b in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. Oswald Heer had also recently published articles on Tertiary fossils (including a Magnolia species) in Greenland (see, for example, Heer 1868), and the first volume of his Flora fossilis arctica included a description of the Magnolia species (Heer 1868–83, 1: 120).
Saporta refers to the Montpellier maple (Acer monspessulanum; see Saporta 1862–5, p. 180, and Saporta 1867–8, pp. 22, 104, for Tertiary species. For Saporta’s discussions of Miocene species of the extant terebinth or turpentine tree, Pistacia terebinthus, see n. 9, below. The firethorn, Mespilus pyracantha, is now known as Pyracantha coccinea; see Saporta 1867–8, pp. 54–7 (vol. 9), for his description of the Tertiary ‘Mespilus palæo-pyracantha’. See Saporta 1862–5, p. 285 (vol. 17), and p. 98 (vol. 19), for descriptions of Tertiary Crataegus (hawthorn) species and their resemblance to extant species. For Tertiary species resembling Cercis siliquastrum, the Judas tree, see Saporta 1867–8, pp. 117–19 (vol. 8). CD considered the variation of some cultivated plants in Variation 1: 305–72.
Saporta described Fagus pristina in Saporta 1867–8, pp. 69–70 (vol. 8), where he noted its similarity to F. ferruginea (the American beech); see also plate 6, figs. 1–3. The American beech is now known as F. grandifolia. Fagus sylvatica is the European beech.
Saporta described and discussed Pistacia miocenica (a synonym of P. terebinthus, the turpentine tree) in Saporta 1867–8, pp. 52–4 (vol. 9), noting its similarity to the extant P. terebinthus and P. lentiscus.
Saporta described Quercus pubescens (the downy oak) in ‘La flore des tufs quaternaires en Provence’ (Saporta 1866b, pp. 12–13 of the offprint); see also Saporta 1864b. There is an inscribed offprint of Saporta 1866b in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL. For a later discussion of the relationship between these oaks, see Saporta 1888, pp. 179–80. Quercus sessiliflora, the sessile oak, is a synonym of Q. petraea subsp. petraea; for a recent differentiation between Q. pubescens and Q. petraea, see Bruschi et al. 2000. By ‘tufa’, Saporta meant a calcium carbonate (see, for example, Saporta 1866b, p. 1).
Saporta refers to Ulmus glabra, the wych elm. He referred to Ulmus glabra under its former name, U. montana, in Saporta 1862–5, p. 53 (vol. 19). Saporta had inherited a large property, including gardens, in Provence (Tort 1996). In Variation 1: 362, CD mentioned the tendency of ‘peculiar varieties’ of trees to reproduce themselves by seed.
Saporta described the Quaternary Vitis vinifera in Saporta 1866b (p. 15 of offprint; see pp. 27–9 and 32 for his discussion of earlier, indigenous races). For V. vinifera in the tufas of Saint Antonin near Aix, see Saporta 1881, p. 864. The ‘Reindeer Age’, a division of the upper Palaeolithic, was designated by Edouard Lartet; he based his classification on his discoveries of human fossils with fossils of animals no longer extant in France (see Daniel 1975, pp. 99–109, and Van Riper 1993, pp. 195–6.) Lartet’s publications were later collated with those of Henry Christy in Lartet and Christy 1875.
CD added this information on Pistachia to the second edition of Variation, citing Saporta (see Variation 2d ed., 1: 432); he used it as one example of the ‘action of the male element, not in the ordinary way on the ovules, but on certain parts of the female plant’ (ibid. 1: 428).
The common walnut is Juglans regia. See Saporta 1866b (offprint, pp. 22, 29), for discussions of the walnut. In Variation 2d ed., 1: 379, CD wrote that Saporta had told him of a Tertiary fossil of Juglans; see also Saporta 1867–8, p. 109 (vol. 8). For a later discussion of fossil Juglans, see Saporta 1888, pp. 292–6.
Saporta discussed Ficus carica (the common fig) and its indigenous characters in Saporta 1866b (offprint, pp. 13, 27–9, 32). See Saporta 1866b (offprint, pp. 14, 24), for his discussion of Laurus nobilis (bay laurel). See Saporta 1864b, pp. 498–9, for a discussion of indigenous and exotic fig and laurel in the Quaternary period. For Tertiary predecessors of Laurus nobilis, see Saporta 1867–8, pp. 75–6 (vol. 8), and 37–40 (vol. 9).
CD discussed Joseph Decaisne’s conclusions regarding the pear tree in Variation 1: 350–1; CD cited Decaisne 1863, but see also Decaisne 1858–75, 1: 3–20. Pyrus domestica is a synonym of Pyrus communis, the common pear.
CD mentioned the grafting of pears in Variation 1: 376. For modern use of Pyrus amygdaliformis (a synonym of P. spinosathe almond-leaved pear) as a rootstock, see Bonany et al. 2005.
Saporta referred to the humid climate of the late Quaternary period and the calcareous concretions in Saporta 1864b and Saporta 1881.
Pyrus acerba is a synonym of Malus sylvestris subsp. sylvestris (European crab apple). Saporta described a Quaternary Pyrus acerba in Saporta 1866b (offprint, p. 16); see also Saporta 1888, p. 307.
For the Reindeer Age, see n. 12, above. For Saporta on human populations in the Quaternary period, see Saporta 1868c and 1881; there is an inscribed and annotated copy of Saporta 1868c in the Darwin Archive–CUL. Saporta is presumably referring to the extant fallow deer, Dama dama, and the roe deer, Capreolus capreolus (Nowak 1999, 2: 1098, 1131).
Saporta added this sentence in the margin of the letter. CD had considered the origin and variation of domestic rabbits in Variation 1: 103–30.
In southern Europe, Quercus ilex, the ilex, holm, or holly oak, typically grows in association with Q. coccifera, the Kermes oak, a shrubby species (Elwes and Henry 1969–72, 5: 1280).
Quercus pseudococcifera is a synonym of Q. coccifera. Elwes and Henry 1969–72, 5: 1279, list Q. auzandrii (an accepted species) as one of a number of varieties of Q. coccifera; however, the authors add that in the south of France, it may be a hybrid of Q. ilex and Q. coccifera.
Saporta discussed Quercus mediterranea (a synonym of Q. pubescens, the downy oak) in Saporta 1862, p. 4 (also published in Gaudry 1862–7, 1: 413). Saporta discussed the relative abundance of different oaks in Coumi and Provence in Saporta 1868a, pp. 326–7. Coumi or Koumi (now transliterated Kimi or Kymi) is a town on the north-east coast of the island of Eubée or Euboea (Evvia).
See Saporta 1864b, pp. 497–9, for the supposed replacement of Pinus salzmanni (now P. nigra salzmannii), now usually called the Corsican or Salzmann’s pine, by Pinus halepensis, the Aleppo pine.
The Landes region is in south-west France; Provence is in the south-east. The cork oak, native to southern Europe and northern Africa, is Quercus suber. See Elwes and Henry 1969–72, 5: 1292, on variation in the timing of acorn production in French cork oaks. See also Elena-Rossello et al. 1993.
Saporta listed the analogous American species to the Tertiary ‘Quercus elæna’ in Saporta 1862–5, p. 143 (vol. 3). See also Saporta 1862–5, pp. 112–16 (vol. 4), and Saporta 1867–8, pp. 67, 127 (vol. 8). Quercus virens, the live oak, is now Q. virginiana; Q. cinerea, the bluejack oak, is now Q. incana.

Bibliography

Conry, Yvette. 1972. Correspondance entre Charles Darwin et Gaston de Saporta. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Correspondence: The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 29 vols to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985–.

Daniel, Glyn. 1975. A hundred and fifty years of archaeology. 2d edition. London: Duckworth.

Decaisne, Joseph. 1858–75. Le jardin fruitier du Muséum ou iconographie de toutes les espèces et variétés d’arbres fruitiers cultivés dans cet établissement avec leur description, leur histoire, leur synonymie, etc. 9 vols. in 5. Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, fils & Cie.

Decaisne, Joseph. 1863. De la variabilité dans l’espèce du poirier; résultat d’expériences faites au Muséum d’histoire naturelle de 1853 à 1862 inclusivement. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences 57: 6–17. [Reprinted in Annales des sciences naturelles (botanique) 4th ser. 20: 188–200.]

Gaudry, Albert. 1862–7. Animaux fossiles et géologie de l’Attique, d’après les recherches faites en 1855–56 et en 1860 sous les auspices de l’Académie des Sciences. 1 vol. and atlas. Paris: Libraire de la Société Géologique de France.

Heer, Oswald. 1868–83. Flora fossilis arctica. Die fossile flora der Polarländer. 7 vols. Zurich: J. Wurster & Comp.

Heer, Oswald. 1868. On the Miocene flora of the polar regions. Translated by W. S. Dallas. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 1 (ser. 4): 61–9.

Lesquereux, Leo. 1868. On some Cretaceous fossil plants from Nebraska. American Journal of Science and the Arts 46: 91–105.

Lesquereux, Leo. 1874. Contributions to the fossil flora of the western territories. Part 1: the Cretaceous flora. Vol. 6 of the \Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Nowak, Ronald M. 1999. Walker’s mammals of the world. 6th edition. 2 vols. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Saporta, Gaston de. 1862–5. Etudes sur la végétation du sud-est de la France à l’époque tertiaire. Annales des sciences naturelles (botanique) 4th ser. 16 (1862): 309–45; 17 (1862): 191–311; 19 (1863): 5–124; 5th ser. 3 (1865): 5–152; 4 (1865): 5–264.

Saporta, Gaston de. 1867–8. Études sur la végétation du sud-est de la France. Annales des sciences naturelles (botanique) 5th ser. 8 (1867): 5–136; 9 (1868): 5–62.

Saporta, Gaston de. 1869. L’école transformiste et ses dernièrs travaux. Revue des deux mondes 2d ser. 83: 635–74.

Saporta, Gaston de. 1888. Origine paléontologique des arbres cultivés ou utilisés par l’homme. Paris: J. B. Bailliere & Fils.

Saporta, Louis Charles Joseph Gaston de. 1862. Notice sur les plantes fossiles de Coumi et d’Oropo. Paris: [privately printed]. [Reprinted in Animaux fossiles et géologie de l’Attique d’après les recherches faites en 1855–56 et en 1860 sous les auspices de l’Académie des Sciences. With atlas. By Albert Gaudry. Paris: F. Savy. 1862–7.]

Saporta, Louis Charles Joseph Gaston de. 1867. Analyse d’un mémoire intitulé: sur la température des temps géologiques, d’après des indices tirés de l’observation des plantes fossiles. [Read 15 April 1867.] Bulletin de la Société Geologique de France 2d ser. 24 (1866–7): 501–4.

Saporta, Louis Charles Joseph Gaston de. 1881. Les temps quaternaires: I. L’extension des glaciers. II. Le climat, les plantes, les populations. Revue des Deux Mondes 3d ser. 47: 335–69, 835–66.

Stebbins, Robert E. 1988. France. In The comparative reception of Darwinism, edited by Thomas F. Glick. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Tort, Patrick. 1996. Dictionnaire du Darwinisme et de l’evolution. 3 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Van Riper, A. Bowdoin. 1993. Men among the mammoths: Victorian science and the discovery of human prehistory. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Variation 2d ed.: The variation of animals and plants under domestication. By Charles Darwin. 2d edition. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1875.

Variation: The variation of animals and plants under domestication. By Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1868.

Summary

Strong support for theory of descent.

Observations on palaeobotany of S. France. Most woody angiosperm genera date far back. Magnolia type unchanged. Intermediate fossil species. Ancient species of Quercus persists as variety of modern species. Fossil evidence of ice age.

CD’s works have been an inspiration in France.

Letter details

Letter no.
DCP-LETT-6352
From
Louis Charles Joseph Gaston (Gaston) de Saporta, comte de Saporta
To
Charles Robert Darwin
Sent from
Aix
Source of text
DAR 177: 31
Physical description
ALS 10pp (French) damaged †, CD note

Please cite as

Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 6352,” accessed on 28 March 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-6352.xml

Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 16

letter