numbers. I will ask him, as he is a reliable person. But 450 feet is
rather too tall.
So they would talk about the tree that was felled being 3,000 years old
(and took in Lindley), whereas it was not quite 1,300! It appears to
grow much faster than S. sempervirens.[30] ...
A great loss in Forbes’s death. I have been trembling lest I should hear
that Dr. Hooker is chosen to the chair at Edinburgh, which would give
him very good pay, I suppose, and he would fill the place well, but it
would take him away from special botany, which would be a great pity....
TO A. DE CANDOLLE.
May 29, 1855.
The class which leaves college this summer have bespoken photographic
likenesses, on paper, of their professors,--my colleagues and
myself,--and this gives me an opportunity of obtaining from the artist
some duplicate copies of that for which I sat, and which Mrs. Gray
pronounces a very good likeness.
It is not so much vanity that induces me to ask you to accept of the
copy I inclose, as the hope of getting yours in return, if that same
style be adopted in Geneva, and be as little expensive as here,--to add
to the already considerable number of portraits of botanists which make
the chief adornment of my rooms,--among which the fine engraving of your
distinguished father is conspicuous. I need not say that I should be
glad to place the likeness of the son near to that of the father. Ever,
my dear De Candolle,
Your sincere and faithful,
ASA GRAY.
TO CHARLES WRIGHT.
August 28, 1855.
For a long while now I have been waiting for a good evening when I was
not too tired to write you a long letter to meet you in California, in
return, though a poor return, for your several nice letters from China.
It is now time my letter was off,--when lo and behold!--
Yesterday morning I was sitting here busy with steady work and not
expecting much interruption; now, this evening, my passage is taken, my
trunk packed, I am hurriedly closing up affairs, and to-morrow morning
go on board steamer America and sail for Liverpool. I have to go and
look after my brother-in-law, who is sick in Paris of a fever. No one of
the family can go but me, and I manage to find the time. Mr. Loring pays
the traveling charges, and off I go, to be gone, however, not over two
months, perhaps not so long; a week in Paris, another at Kew, a few days
more in England; this must repay me (besides the consciousness of having
done my duty) for some twenty odd days of discomfort at sea!
What have I been doing of late? Not much accomplished, i. e., published.
Of my “Plantæ Novæ Thurberianæ” and “Notes on Vavæa and Rhytidandra” I
have sent you copies already, but I will send you more.
A useful article on the Smithsonian Institution, in July number of
“Silliman,” probably you have seen in the “Journal;” never mind, I send
you a separate copy by mail. Some critical notices which I have no
copies of.
What I am about doing, I can always talk largely of. I am preparing a
new edition of the “Manual of Botany of the Northern United States,” and
a new elementary work[31] of a familiar character, to go with it,
separate and with original pictures on wood by Sprague, and I am to
finish the “Flora” volume and “Plantæ Wrightianæ” with it. I have
determined Berlandier’s plants up to end of Compositæ. Also I have
done, along with Torrey, the botany of several expeditions across the
continent for railroad surveys, which are soon to be published. Work
goes slowly and I grow old. This little holiday will not be a bad thing
for me, though it puts me back a little.
TO W. J. HOOKER.
CAMBRIDGE, October 23, 1855.
Now that I am quietly settled at home again, my episode seems almost
like a dream,--a very pleasant one, however, since it gave me the
pleasure of seeing once more some most valued and near friends. I was
absent only six weeks and one day, of which twenty-two days were passed
upon the water.
I found all well here on my return, but I was deeply grieved to learn
the news of our beloved friend Dr. Torrey’s bereavement. It was about a
month ago that the companion of his life, almost from his youth, was
removed to a better world, after an illness of only a few days.... She
was one of the most actively good, self-denying persons I ever knew.
There are many to mourn at her departure out of her own family,
especially among the poor and the distressed.... She was one of my
earliest and best friends, one to whom I owe more than to almost any
person; and I feel the loss as I should that of a near and dear
relative.
I wrote you a line, with some inclosures, while at sea, and posted it at
Halifax, N. S....
When I send the package from Holton,[32] I wish also to send you live
seedlings of a palm from Sonora, Mexico, raised from seeds gathered by
Thurber, and one or two other things.
I do not forget the large “cypress knees” I promised, which will be
rather striking in your famous museum, and I look out for an opportunity
to send by sailing vessel direct to London.
Remember me affectionately to Lady Hooker (for whom Mrs. Gray incloses a
few lines) and most cordially to Mr. Bentham, who so kindly came down
from the country to give me the opportunity of seeing him, for which I
am greatly obliged.
P. S.--I forgot to tell you that, by the hands of Hon. Miss Murray (who
returns to England by this week’s steamer), I send you the September
number of “Silliman’s Journal.” Should she forget to send it to you,
please remind her when she comes to Kew, as assuredly she will, to talk
about her Florida new fern. I have filled up the Ward case which she
brought over, also a box of American plants which she takes, I suppose,
for Mr. Fox Strangways. Her various boxes and packages will nearly fill
the ship, I should think.
Miss Murray is a most lively, most active person, has traveled widely
through the country, and traversed rough places, such as no other woman
past sixty ever did. She has seen a great deal, but heard very little, I
should think, as she talks incessantly, and in a lively, interesting
way, too.
You will not be disappointed by the suppression of her manuscript by her
English friends, I suppose, for she is fully determined to rush into
print, to print her journal just as it was written from day to day; for
she now feels she has a mission to rescue the South from the obloquy
and wrong heaped upon it by us of the North, and by England. Save the
mark!
At any rate, her journal will be piquant.
I am anxious to know how far we can economically use the post for the
transmission of printed matter. Perhaps I could safely send you
“Silliman’s Journal” in this way. As an experiment I now send you our
University catalogue. No, it will not do, I see, for anything weighing
over two ounces or three. Beyond this the rates increase woefully....
TO GEORGE ENGELMANN.
18th October, 1855.
Yours of August 30th (answered by my wife) was written when I was one
day at sea. Yours of October 13, which arrived to-day, was written two
days after I reached home again. I had two very pleasant voyages, on the
whole, and not long, ten and a half and eleven and a half days; eleven
days in Paris (where I was detained a little by a severe cold on my
lungs) and a week in England, mostly at London and Kew. I found my
brother-in-law so convalescent that I might have stayed at home, and I
brought him home with me in good condition. We had hoped, till the last
moment, to get places in the steamer of the 13th October, and to have
had a fortnight more in England. But all the places had been engaged for
months, and nobody was giving up berths up to the time we sailed; so we
had to come in steamer of the 29th ult., where we got a good stateroom
by great luck, though the vessel was greatly crowded. Dr. Joseph D.
Hooker (whom I had wanted to see for some time) being away in Germany,
and time being extremely valuable to me here, I was on the whole very
glad to get home. The naturalists at Paris were en vacance, and mostly
away. I saw only Brongniart, Spach, Gay, Dr. Montagne, and Trécul (who
sent, I believe, some pamphlets for you; the package is not yet
unpacked), and my good friend Vilmorin. Boissier was there from Geneva.
In England I spent all the little time I could command at dear Hooker’s
at Kew; and Bentham, then in the country, came down to see me. I made a
long and interesting call on Robert Brown, who is very old, but full of
interest. I shall not again see this Nestor of botanists, as well as
facile princeps, in this world.
Hooker was much delighted when I told him you were coming next spring to
see him at Kew. He insisted upon taking me over to see the Cactus house,
and all through it, so that I might tell you what a mass of Cacteæ there
are there; and he will be much pleased to have you work among them. He
spoke about his Cuscuteæ, but was not at all displeased at your
retaining them; begged you would work them up if possible before
returning them. You will be charmed with Sir William when you see him.
As to the “Manual,” my plan, as at present advised, is to cross the line
of slavery a little, to take in Kentucky and Virginia; this makes the
real division, in botanical geography, between North and South. It
should be Northern ground, too, down to this line: for north of it slave
labor is good for nothing; and there would be no slaves there, except
for the Southern market. I cannot take in Missouri, for I must make the
Mississippi my boundary. But all your St. Louis plants cross into
Illinois, do they not? Tell me how this is. I shall get at work at the
new edition soon. I shall first press on the “Lessons” a little
further.
About Fouquiera; I have examined it here repeatedly on the live plant,
which every year prolongs its main axis an inch or two. And I took
leaves to Providence to show there, especially to remove any lingering
doubt on Torrey’s mind. For Torrey would long have it that the spine was
a primary leaf, and that an axillary leaf adhered to it by its petiole.
He now knows better.
I just saw Agassiz. He looks well and strong....
I read Alphonse De Candolle’s “Géographie Botanique Raisonnée” on the
voyage home: a most able work it is, full of interesting matter very
methodically arranged. Hooker and Thomson’s “Flora Indica,” vol. i., is
famous for its able introductory essay, etc.
TO A. DE CANDOLLE.
October 27, 1855.
Your welcome letter of the 7th of August duly reached me. I meant to
have surprised you by an answer dated at Paris; but the eleven days I
passed there were too busily occupied to allow it. M. Boissier will have
told you of my sudden voyage, and the cause of it. I was absent from
home only six weeks and a day; and twenty-two days of the forty-three
were passed on the water. On returning home I found here:
1. The excellent lithographed portrait of yourself, a pleasing and
pretty good likeness. Of the three copies I have offered one to Torrey,
the other to Short.
2. The copy of “Géographie Botanique,” which you so kindly addressed to
me. (I have already learned that Agassiz and Darlington have theirs; but
Torrey not his, and I have directed inquiries to be made.) This was not
my first introduction to the book; for I bought a copy of Masson in
Paris, to read on the voyage, when I could have more leisure than at
home. And I carefully read it then (after having dispatched Hooker and
Thomson’s “Flora Indica”) up as far as to p. 1087, when I was obliged by
the close of the voyage to break off, at a very interesting point; and I
cannot yet resume the reading.
I cannot sufficiently express my profound admiration of this book, so
thorough and conscientious, so capital in its method, and embodying such
a vast amount of facts well discussed; it might well be the work of a
long life. I have marked in many places points on which I may have a
word to say, sometimes little details to add or correct, sometimes a
criticism to hazard.
If time (which is now precious to me) permit, I will write a series of
articles on it for “Silliman’s Journal,” which will serve to make the
work generally known to our people, and in which I can insert any
commentaries I have time and room for. One article I will devote to
plants introduced into this country from Europe. Now that you have so
well collected and digested the principal information, it will be easy
to complete and correct some points; and this may be useful to you
hereafter, as well as to me....
I will procure from Dr. Harris any information he has collected about
the potato, which, if Raleigh took it from Virginia to England, must
have been brought to Virginia from South America. It was certainly
unknown to our aborigines, who, however, along with maize, cultivated
beans (Phaseoli) and squashes (Cucurbitæ).
Dr. Hooker had written to me, eulogizing your work in the highest terms.
I missed seeing him when in England.
Agassiz speaks most highly of it; but I think he has only looked rapidly
through its pages as yet....
I am at this moment preparing to begin the printing of the 2d edition of
my “Manual of the Botany of the Northern States.” ...
In consequence of your book, I shall take pains to classify the
introduced plants, according to the degree of naturalization, etc.
Many thanks for sending me your portrait. I am already quite rich in the
likenesses of botanists, many of which adorn the walls of my
apartments....
Believe me to remain, my dear friend, yours very faithfully and truly,
ASA GRAY.
TO W. J. HOOKER.
CAMBRIDGE, February 25, 1856.
MY DEAR SIR WILLIAM,--Holton is bringing out a book upon New Granada
which will be interesting....
The cypress knee sent was the best and handsomest I had, though not the
largest. I am glad it pleases you. But you mistook what I said, or meant
to say, which was, that tucked away in the hollow you would find placed
a specimen of a forming knee, not much bigger than your knuckle, on a
piece of root a foot or so long. Was this overlooked or lost? Please
tell me; for I can replace it with another, and physiologically it would
be well to show the formation in its various stages....
I want to send you a book by a young friend of ours, Olmsted, on the
seaboard slave States,[33] an admirable volume, full of information, and
lively withal. I wait for an opportunity. Lady Hooker will be
interested in it. Our united warm regards to her.
Thanks to the Duke for anything to facilitate transmission of printed
matter. But it is still high; for example, your “Journal,” which I get
by post, costs 6d. each number, paid in London, and about 1d. more paid
here. There is still room for improvement. I dare not send you
“Silliman’s Journal” yet by post.
June 30, 1856.
Charles Wright, who was in the North Pacific Expedition under Ringgold
and Rogers, has left his ship at California instead of making the voyage
round Cape Horn, and crossed over the Nicaragua route, intending to
botanize there some months. Finding himself there among our vile
filibustering people, and all in confusion, however, he was soon obliged
to come on home. He is awaiting the arrival of his ship, and will not
till this autumn be able to touch his Pacific collections, of which the
best and principal were made in Hongkong, Bonin, and the Loo Choo
Islands and Japan. That they are not larger is not his fault.
Wright has a perfect passion for collecting plants; and already begins
to plan other explorations. To satisfy his cravings for a while, I have
proposed to him to go to St. Iago de Cuba, and explore that end of the
island. What do you think of it? Has any botanist collected there? Would
it be too like Jamaica to offer much novelty? But to return. In
Nicaragua, Wright collected a goodly quantity of seeds, one set of which
he wishes me to send to you; a present to Kew Gardens, as I understand
it....
By the way, it was most lucky that I hurried up and had sent on to you
the copy of Brackenridge’s “Filices;” for a fire in Philadelphia has
consumed all of the poor fellow’s edition of the volume except ten
copies which had been sold mostly in Europe. A sad and a heavy loss to
B., who had no insurance, and something to me who had advanced to him
the paper for printing it on, which now the poor fellow is in no
condition to pay for. I have not even a copy of the atlas myself, but I
shall get one from the government plates, which are preserved.
Brackenridge utterly despairs of reprinting it. But possibly the
government will set up the type for him again, as they have also lost a
part of their small impression. Otherwise the book will have the value
of excessive rarity, if it has no other....
May 25, 1857.
I hear with delight that you are meditating a trip to America, and I
write forthwith to express my own and Mrs. Gray’s and my good
father-in-law’s earnest hope that you will come over, even if it be for
a few weeks only. The rest of the voyage cannot but be useful to so busy
a person as you constantly are, and a run through the country, and a
sight of the Yankee world, would interest you. At the Montreal
scientific meeting you would see several old friends and many new ones.
Torrey, Greene, Darlington,[34] James,[35] etc., would be half frantic
with pleasure at the thought of seeing you; so it will not do to hint at
such a thing, until you give me authority; and as for my wife and me,
we will look after you like dutiful children, will go with you to
Niagara, or to Lake Superior, if you will go so far, for there is
nothing would give us so much pleasure as a visit from you; and if you
would bring Lady Hooker or Mrs. Evans, or both, with you, it would be
charming. The voyage is nothing to speak of, traveling here is easy and
rapid, although not so very comfortable, as in England, and a good deal
of the country can be seen in a few weeks without much fatigue. Pray do
come, and exceedingly gratify,
Your affectionate and faithful
A. GRAY.
TO JAMES D. DANA.
December 13, 1856.
MY DEAR DANA,--I duly received the sheets I asked for.
The right way to bring a series of pretty interesting general questions
towards settlement is perhaps in hand (though I do not expect myself to
bring anything important to bear on it), viz., for a number of totally
independent naturalists, of widely different pursuits and antecedents,
to environ it on all sides, work towards a common centre, but each to
work perfectly independently. Such men as Darwin, Dr. Hooker, De
Candolle, Agassiz, and myself,--most of them with no theory they are
bound to support,--ought only to bring out some good results. And the
less each one is influenced by the other’s mode of viewing things the
better. For my part, in respect to the bearings of the distribution of
plants, etc., I am determined to know no theory, but to see what the
facts tend to show, when fairly treated.
On the subject of species, their nature, distribution, what system in
natural history is, etc., certain inferences are slowly settling
themselves in my mind, or taking shape; but on some of the most vexed
questions I have as yet no opinion whatever, and no very strong bias,
thanks, partly, to the fact that I can think of and investigate such
matters only now and then, and in a very desultory way.
I cannot say that I believe in centres of radiation for groups of
species. From Darwin’s questions to me I think I perceive some of the
grounds on which he would maintain it. One is attended to on page 77 of
the January number [of “Silliman’s Journal”], but I am not clear that
they are not just as susceptible of other interpretation.
But as to a centre of radiation for each separate species, I must say I
have a bias that way. You seem to have also, and you can best judge
whether this, combined with geological considerations, would not involve
centres of radiation for groups of species as well, to a certain extent.
Would not the fact that the members of peculiar groups (in Vegetable
Kingdom) are to a great extent localized favor that view?
I am glad to hear that your idea of the unity of the human species is
confirmed more and more. The evidence seems to me most strongly to favor
it. And you well discriminate the separate questions of unity of
birthplace and unity of parentage....
As to the physical question, surely you do not suppose that, in a fresh
race, the one or two necessary close intermarriages would sensibly
deteriorate the stock. Look at domestic animals of peculiar races,--how
long you can breed in and in without much abatement of health or vigor!
Did you ever consider the question of the cause of deterioration from
interbreeding?
I think I have somewhere in the “Journal” stated my notion about it, or
hinted at it. If not, I will, some day; for I have a pretty decided
opinion about it: that hereditary transmission of individual
peculiarities involves also, among them, the transmission of disease, or
tendency to disease,--a constantly increasing heritage of liability as
interbreeding goes on; in plants well exemplified by maladies affecting
old cultivated varieties long propagated by division.
I should much enjoy a visit with you at New Haven, and so would my wife,
no less. Hope we may some day....
Yours faithfully,
A. GRAY.
TO A. DE CANDOLLE.
March 26, 1857.
Fendler is back again in the country of Venezuela, and making fine
collections. He will complete the sets of his former distribution, but
not send the same things over again. He has found many more Filices.
Will you and M. Dunant continue?
On Wright’s return home he was troubled with rheumatism, and longed for
a warm climate to pass the winter in. So I sent him to the east end of
Cuba (where I wished the Huets to go). He is doing very well there.
Oregon is still in a disturbed and unsafe state. But I should inform you
that a commission has been raised to run our northwestern boundary with
the British government; and it will probably be commenced this year. The
party would have a sufficient escort, and this would give the Huets a
safe opportunity for botanizing across the continent in a high latitude,
if they are so disposed. I know not any details, but I could learn
them, if need be, and there would be no difficulty in procuring needful
protection for the Huets, they finding their own subsistence.
I have published two statistical articles, based on my “Botany of the
Northern States,” in “Silliman’s Journal,” and a third is now printing
in that journal for May. I shall have extra copies to send you. There
are other topics I mean to take up, if I can find time....
TO GEORGE BENTHAM.
May 4, 1857.
Since your letter came I have looked up and read the article in the
“Edinburgh,” and like it much. Your few words about Genera, page 517,
appear to comprise the gist of the whole matter. As to your fuller
exposition, not being able to lay hands on the “Literary Gazette,” I
wait to see your article in the “Journal of the Linnæan Society.”
I am particularly interested in what you write of your popular “British
Flora,” and the English names; and I am going to ask you to explain to
me more fully the principles on which you proceed. For, if practicable,
I am going to have occasion to do something of the sort here. Pray
illustrate your plan a little; as I see much difficulty in carrying it
out, except in so small a flora as the British, where every plant has a
popular name. One additional difficulty here is that our common English
names are mostly misapplied ones, and the plants that have indigenous
trivial names have too many of them, varying in different parts of the
country.
How do you name the orders? What relation will you have between your
specific names and your generic, and how many words will you allow each
to consist of?
Give me your names through some family, say Ranunculaceæ. If I can see
my way clear, I shall follow your lead, or cause it to be followed on an
occasion which will soon be presented.
I wish I had known of Clitoria Mariana-acuminata, etc., in time to add
it to my list in the last number of “Silliman’s Journal;” a copy of the
article was sent to Dr. Hooker by post last week. I will send more, from
my extras, presently.
I am quite prepared for what you say about interchange of species of
United States and Europe taking place via Asia, instead of across the
Atlantic; but you will see there are a few, besides aquatics (Subularia,
Eriocaulon, etc.), which would seem to have taken the shorter cut.
As respects identical species, interchange is the only thing that, on
our views of what a species is, will explain the occurrence of the same
species here and there. But as to genera, I do not yet feel free to
assume an interchange, or a former continuity of land, between two
widely separated regions on account of their having identical genera or
closely related species. I see no reason why cognate species may not
have been originally given to most widely separated stations; and, as to
the facts of association, can we say more than this, that the species of
a genus are apt to be confined to one part of the world? Are there not
too many cases to the contrary to warrant our suspecting former
continuity of two remote districts on account of common genera? Peculiar
genera, such as Torreya, Illicium, Philadelphus, Astilbe, etc., divided
between Japan and the United States of America, indicate some peculiar
relation, and are most noteworthy, but I do not see why it points to
connection.
I am very glad you are turning your good, logical mind and immense
knowledge to this class of topics; but do not let it run off with too
much of your valuable time. I take far more satisfaction in discussing
questions of botanical affinity; and long to get back to that sort of
work. Just now, I must needs be absorbed in elementary work and
teaching, but look to see an end of this.
I have been watching the development of the ovules of Magnolia; nothing
can be more normal than they are, in the early stages.
When Wright comes home from Cuba I expect to get hold of his
considerable north Japan collection, which I expect to find very
interesting on questions of distribution, the very questions you ask me
to consider.
I doubt if our “mountain backbone” actually stops any species, itself,
from advancing east or west.
I wish you would compare our White Birch with the European B. alba, and
let me know the result. Also the Chestnuts....
TO R. W. CHURCH.
CAMBRIDGE, May 15, 1857.
An acquaintance en route for Scotland has offered to take some small
parcels for me.
Among them is one I have taken the liberty to address to you, a copy of
a very elementary book[36] I have prepared as an introduction to my
favorite science, finding there was no one in use here which I thought
fit to put into the hands of young beginners. Here botany is taught,
somehow or other, in most schools, and generally by incompetent teachers
from wretched books, i. e., those used in the ordinary schools and for
young people.
I have endeavored, in the little book I send you, to make real science
as easy and simple as possible. I doubt if I have yet aimed low enough;
but the book seems to take, and promises to be useful.
Although not adapted for your meridian (where you have doubtless good
elementary books enough), yet when your boy, who must now be five or six
years old, if he has been spared to you, gets a few years older, I shall
be much gratified if this little volume should interest him, and aid you
somewhat in developing in his mind a love for the study of nature in one
of its pleasantest branches....
I want to offer you my new “Manual of the Botany of the Northern United
States,” not that it can be of any use or of much interest to you, but
must not load my kind acquaintance with more parcels. I wait for an
opportunity of sending through the booksellers, before long.
TO JAMES D. DANA.
November 7, 1857.
If you have plenty, please send me two more copies of your “Thoughts on
Species.”
I first read it carefully, a week ago, and I meant to write you at once
how I like it, and a few remarks, but something prevented at the time,
and I have been very busy and preoccupied ever since.
For the reason that I like the general doctrine, and wish to see it
established, so much the more I am bound to try all the steps of the
reasoning, and the facts it rests on, impartially, and even to suggest
all the adverse criticism I can think of. When I read the pamphlet I
jotted down on the margin some notes of what struck me at the time. I
will glance at them again, and see if, on reflection, they appear likely
to be of the least use to you, and if so will send them, taking it for
granted that you rather like to be criticised, as I am sure I do, when
the object is the surer establishment of truth.
In your idea of species as specific amount or kind of concentrated
force, you fall back upon the broadest and most fundamental views, and
develop it, it seems to me, with great ability and cogency.
Taking the cue of species, if I may so say, from the inorganic, you
develop the subject to great advantage for your view, and all you say
must have great weight, in “reasoning from the general.”
But in reasoning from inorganic species to organic species, and in
making it tell where you want it and for what you want it to tell, you
must be sure that you are using the word “species” in the same sense in
the two, that the one is really an equivalent of the other. That is what
I am not yet convinced of. And so to me the argument comes only with the
force of an analogy, whereas I suppose you want it to come as
demonstration. Very likely you could convince me that there is no
fallacy in reasoning from the one to the other to the extent you do. But
all my experience makes me cautious and slow about building too much
upon analogies; and until I see further and clearer, I must continue to
think that there is an essential difference between kinds of animals or
plants and kinds of matter. How far we may safely reason from the one
to the other is the question. If we may do so even as far as you do,
might not Agassiz (at least plausibly) say, that as the species Iron was
created in a vast number of individuals over the whole earth, so the
presumption is that any given species of plants or animals was
originated in as many individuals as there are now, and over as wide an
area, the human species under as great diversities as it now has
(barring historical intermixture)?--so reducing the question between you
to insignificance, because then the question whether men are of one or
of several species would no longer be a question of fact, or of much
consequence.
You can answer him from another starting-point, no doubt; but he may
still insist that it is a legitimate carrying out of your own
principle....
The tendency of my mind is opposed to this sort of view; but you may be
sure that before long there must be one more resurrection of the
development theory in a new form, obviating many of the arguments
against it, and presenting a more respectable and more formidable
appearance than it ever has before....
I wanted to say something on the last two pages, but as I have nothing
in particular to except to, and much to approve, and as it is late
bedtime, I spare you further comments.
I set out to find flaws, as likely to be more suggestive and therefore
far more useful to you than any amount of praise, with which I could
fill page after page.
TO W. J. HOOKER.
CAMBRIDGE, December 6, 1857.
Your first letter is now gone to Sullivant, because you speak of him so
handsomely, and say that Mitten is instructed to prepare a set of Mosses
for him. A noble fellow is Sullivant and deserves all you say of him and
his works. The more you get to know of him the better you will like him.
Let me tell you about my “Manual of the Botany of the Northern United
States.” It was quite impossible, of course, that the publishers should
provide such illustrations as the fourteen plates and keep the book at a
salable price, so Sullivant, on his own motion, had the eight plates of
Musci engraved in copper, at his own cost, for $630 (about £126), and
gave them to the work, after printing 250 copies for his separate
booklet I sent you. I gave the six plates of Ferns, etc., cut on stone
by Sprague to complete the plan. In the “Journal” you are wrong in
supposing that the Musci were even drawn by Sprague. If in time please
correct this when you notice his book. Sullivant drew them all with his
own hands (as he did those of former memoirs which pleased you well),
and had them copied and reduced to proper size by a German artist he
employs. So that besides his labor, he has expended at least £180 in
money, on these plates. They were executed on copper by a young engraver
in Boston.
Your second letter, begun the day the other was dispatched, reached me a
few days ago, while dear Torrey was here on a visit. He has just
returned to New York. We called to see Greene, but he was not in....
TO GEORGE BENTHAM.
November 16, 1857.
I have noted with interest Naudin’s doings in Cucurbitacæ. It has
induced me to look a little into the geographical question, and I begin
really to think C. Pepo, and perhaps others, are American. Mr.
Sophocles, our Greek tutor, who knows cultivated plants well, and
everything about mediæval and ancient Greek, is quite clear that the
ancients knew nothing of pumpkins and winter squashes, and is able to
correct De Candolle’s lucubrations in one or two points. Our New England
and Canadian aborigines had beans, too. Those and Cucurbita came north
from a warmer climate with maize, I presume....
When I got your proof-sheet of the “British Flora” and your long letter
of 28th May, there was something I wanted to talk about, I dare say, but
there was no writing then, as you had gone abroad, and now the subject
is all out of my head. But I have occasion to take up the subject of
popular names of plants quite seriously in a week or two, and I may have
something to remark.
I wish to follow your lead, but should be disposed to go rather farther
than you do in adopting English names. For instance, I would certainly
adopt Mousetail instead of Myosure. Myosure is hardly more English than
before clipping its tail a little, and Mousetail is the exact
equivalent. Corydal and Astragal I quite like, as they have really no
English names. I incline to Crowfoot as a generic appellation. To extend
it over the whole genus is only doing what is so often done with
scientific generic names. In the case of genera having very strongly
marked subgenera, would it not be possible to let the subgeneric name
govern the popular nomenclature? as say--
Pear; genus=Pyrus, under it
Pear, with its species;
Apple, 1. Common Apple,
2. Crab-Apple, etc.
There are formidable difficulties about this popular nomenclature, yet
they must be surmounted in some way or other.
As we are making much of English, why not say “rootstock” instead of
“rhizome.” I do not like French forms. I would even say “pod” instead of
“capsule,” in popular parlance.
Kindly send me proofs as you go on. I want much to see them.
Wright’s collections in North Pacific Expedition are here, and he is
turning over his Behring Straits collection and trying to work it out,
with some help from me. There is a Hongkong collection; there may be
some of these he would like to ask you to name, so far as you may off
hand. The Japan collection I will elaborate myself. There is not so much
from the north as I expected. They had no chance to explore the small
islands connecting with the Kurile Islands. I have only peeped into one
or two parcels; but in one I saw two things which will interest you as
much as they did me. Imagine the two most characteristic possible
eastern United States plants, Caulophyllum and Diphylleia, both, I
believe, our very species. Tell this to Dr. Hooker!
The only domestic news I have to tell you is, that on a hot August day
our beloved Newfoundland dog was found dead,--really a sad loss. To
console us my brother-in-law, a fortnight after, sent me a puppy of the
same breed, an uneasy, frolicsome, awkward fellow yet, but promising to
be intelligent and very handsome. We could not bear to give him the
name of his lamented predecessor; so Mrs. Gray named him Hans,--a
souvenir of Pontrilas....
* * * * *
Dr. Gray’s dogs and cats were always well-recognized members of the
family. He had a great love of animals, which was warmly returned by his
different pets. In his early married life the kittens he helped raise by
feeding them with a dropping-tube from his microscope rather preferred
him to their young and careless mother, and, confounding all other men
with him, were perpetually scrambling into laps, to the surprise of
callers. Two grew into fine cats, who demanded a regular attention and
consideration from him, reminding him by gentle taps, one on each side,
when bedtime came.
Of his first dog, he always said that they stood more in the relation of
brothers than master and dog; and the dog felt a guardian care of him.
The different characters of his two Newfoundland dogs, and of the
smaller ones he had later, interested him, for they were singularly
different, though both the Newfoundlands shared his affection for a
pretty Maltese cat who had succeeded the other cats; they were
especially fond of her kittens and attentive to them, allowing them all
sorts of liberties. The cats and dogs always lived affectionately
together. Dr. Gray always recognized their good consciences, which
varied somewhat with the different type of animal, and considered that
the size of different breeds had much to do with their characteristics.
They always learned to eat what their master did; not so much, he would
say, from any preference for oysters and dry toast, as that they were
ambitious to do as far as possible what he did.
He was very skillful in the handling of animals, and they recognized it
in allowing him to perform small surgical operations, to dress wounds,
etc., with a touching trust and submission.
TO GEORGE BENTHAM.
March 9, 1858.
MY DEAR BENTHAM,--Many thanks for yours of February 14. Although much
pleased to hear from you, I cannot expect to hear often, unless you have
something special to say. No one but Hooker can write long and frequent
letters while he is doing such a vast amount of work, and keeping up
such a fresh, and keen, and scrutinizing interest in such a great
variety of subjects. I wonder how he does it. How well oiled the
machinery of his brain must be to do it all without great wear and tear!
If you or I had half these matters to think of at once, we should go
distracted. Warn Hooker to take good care of himself and not break down
in health. It is a facility which he inherits, that of turning from one
thing to another without loss of time or of working power.
I shall be pleased to see the “Handbook” when it is out. Never mind what
people say. I dare say the little book will do a great deal of good....
I am glad you will distribute more of Spruce’s plants. I want especially
any of his Andes collections, for Baños was one of our Exploring
Expedition stations. I am going to finish up our Exploring Expedition
this year (D. V.), and have done with it. That and some other things
done, and I dream of coming over to England, and working at nothing but
“North American Flora,” de novo. I hope I may, and that I shall find you
and Mrs. B. as fresh as ever, and enjoying yourselves to the full....
April 26.
My last book[37] in elementary botany is now just off my hands, and will
be out in a fortnight. I hope it will be of use. Forgive me for writing
horn-books, and I am now done with that sort of work. There were several
convincing reasons for doing it.
TO DANIEL CADY EATON.[38]
February 23, 1858.
I dare say you may learn something here as to teaching, etc., if you can
pick it up yourself, which, after all, is the only way anything worth
knowing is obtained. But from now to the end of April I am just
overwhelmed with work, and shall have no time to give any special
instruction.
At the opening of the term I begin my drilling of Sophomores in the
“Botanical Text-Book.” My lectures to a selection of Juniors, on
Systematic Botany, I do not ordinarily commence till April 1, but this
year I am able to begin early in March, though not much work is done
till May. You might attend Agassiz’s lectures, but he will not be back
from Florida as soon as the opening of the term.
Let me know how much instruction you have to give this year, and of what
sort, and I can see whether I can help you much. I dare say you will
teach very well.
There are certain little matters you might pick up about class
illustration and manipulation without it costing you much time. We were
just thinking of sending you Wright’s Hongkong ferns.
Suppose you come on, count as a pupil, or as a visitor, as you like,
work away as you think best, making preparations for your course, in
which I will help you all I can. And at the same time work up Wright’s
Hongkong and Bonin and Japan ferns (bring any books you want which I
have not). I want to drill you a little at systematic work, and think
you will learn something that way. Come straight here. We shall want you
to stay with us, if the house is empty. And if not we shall make no
difficulty of sending you down to the Brattle House. But it would be so
much more convenient here.
I am very desirous that you should be duly established at Yale, and have
no doubt you will satisfy the college and fill the place with comfort
and credit.
We will talk over matters at odd moments when you come.
I shall be most glad to help you as a friend and fellow-worker; but I
cannot promise any special instruction, and shall take no fee. “Dog does
not eat dog,” is the saying, you know.
* * * * *
Judge Lowell writes, in 1888, “I was in college when Dr. Gray was
appointed to his professorship at Harvard, and ours was, I think, the
first or one of the first classes to whom he lectured. I remember his
lectures well, they were so full of knowledge and of enthusiasm and so
calculated to impress the young mind.
“I suppose he had not lectured much of late years; and in his many other
successes, his powers as a lecturer may have been overlooked by those
who have written of him.”
Dr. Rothrock, in his address before the memorial meeting of the
botanical section of the Academy at Philadelphia, speaks of Dr. Gray’s
patient drilling of him in writing his thesis, making him go over and
over it again, until it had been rewritten six times before he allowed
him to be satisfied with it. His pupils would always remember his
comment when satisfied,--“That is neatly stated.”
And Dr. Farlow shows the picturesque figure “hurrying down Garden Street
(on lecture mornings) so covered by the mass of branches and flowers
which were to illustrate the lecture that his head and body were hardly
visible.”[39]
“The few who gathered around the little table in Harvard Hall, in
pursuit of knowledge which did not count in the college reckoning, will
never forget the untiring patience with which he explained what then
seemed difficult, the contagious enthusiasm with which he led them on
from simple facts toward the higher fields of science, or the tender
personal interest which he showed in their hopes and half-formed plans
for the future; an interest which, on his part, only strengthened as
years passed on, and makes them now mourn, not so much the death of a
great botanist as the loss of a sympathizing friend.”[40]
TO W. J. HOOKER.
April 30, 1858.
I must tell you that in humble imitation of Kew, I am going to establish
a museum of vegetable products, etc., in our university.
The erection of a new building for the Museum of Comparative Anatomy and
for the Mineralogical Cabinet liberates the very fine hall used for the
Mineralogical Cabinet formerly. This I have applied for, and obtained
for my purposes, and am taking into it the various things I have picked
up from time to time. It is a room about forty-five feet long, with deep
alcoves the whole length of each side, already shelved, and with glass
doors to the cases, a window in each of the ten alcoves; the centre, or
nave, serves for my lecture-room. So now I shall beg all my students and
correspondents to send me every sort of vegetable thing; so if there is
anything you need still from this country you should let me know; and
whenever you are overrun with duplicate woods, etc., just think how
welcome such things would be here, and how they may stimulate our
collectors and travelers, who perchance may occasionally send me
something that would fill some gap in the Kew museum.
Mr. Wright is having a good training here, and when he goes again to
Cuba, or elsewhere, will do much better, both as to common botanical
specimens and for collecting vegetable products and curiosities.
Dr. A. A. Gould, who will bring a line to you, is a physician in Boston,
and one of our best zoölogists, especially in conchology, etc.; a most
excellent man. He takes a well-deserved holiday for three months or so,
mostly in a run over the Continent. He has London friends in plenty. He
may like to see Kew Gardens before one o’clock, and would be pleased to
pay his respects to you in person, if his time allows a flying visit to
Kew before he proceeds to the Continent.
Just at this moment, and since my parcel of books for you left the
house, the May number of “Silliman’s Journal” has come in. I will ask
Dr. Gould to take it to you....
June 21.
About the museum. Ours is to be not economical (except in the sense that
it must not cost anything to speak of) but for class illustration and
botanical research. So I want woods, fruits, seeds, etc., and must keep
all within narrow limits. All I could venture to ask from you is that
whenever your keeper or Dr. Hooker should be throwing out duplicates to
save room, you would have some such things boxed up for me. I should
indeed like to go over to you, and select for myself, as you and Dr.
Hooker suggest. Joseph suggests that I should be sent over by the
university for the purpose! His whole idea is as magnificent as my plan
is humble. I fear I must always travel and cross the ocean at my own
charges. But the proposition suggests to me that, when I am ready to
revisit England, this will be a good ground for asking leave of absence
without cutting off my pay. But there is much to be done before I can
leave home again, and when I shall be ready and able to do so, if it
please Providence that I may be, I want two full years and most of it at
Kew. How I hope it may be done in your day, and that I may receive your
cordial greeting, and find you as hale and as actively useful as ever.
But “l’homme propose,” etc. We are delighted to hear from Mrs. E. that
you are well and strong again.
Boott kindly writes me of Brown by every mail; by the next arrival we
must expect to hear that he is no more....
Wherever Wright goes, you may rely upon the fullest set of his
gatherings, and we may expect they will be better than formerly. For
(what I never thought he would have patience for) he has really taken
to studying botany, which he never did before, and digs away at his
dried specimens most perseveringly. At first it went against the grain,
and he used to wish himself far off in the woods. But he has kept on for
six or eight months, and now generally prefers to find out a plant by
his own skill, rather than have me tell him what it is; so he will be
able to collect more understandingly, and the year passed here will not
be lost time.
* * * * *
Dr. Robert Brown died shortly after the date of this letter. In Dr.
Gray’s memoir of him, he says:--
“Upon the death of Robert Brown, it was remarked that, next to Humboldt,
his name adorned the list of a greater number of scientific societies
than that of any other naturalist or philosopher. It was Humboldt
himself who, many years ago, saluted Brown with the appellation,
‘Botanicorum facile princeps,’ and the universal consent of botanists
recognized and confirmed the title.... Brown delighted to rise from a
special case to high and wide generalizations; and was apt to draw most
important and always irresistible conclusions from small selected data
or particular points of structure. He had unequaled skill in finding
decisive instances.... So all his discoveries and all his notes and
observations are fertile far beyond the reader’s expectation. Perhaps no
naturalist ever taught so much in writing so little.... Those who knew
him as a man will bear unanimous testimony to the unvarying simplicity,
truthfulness, and benevolence of his character, as well as to the
singular uprightness of his judgment.”[41]
TO R. W. CHURCH.
June 1, 1858.
Your gift of the “Oxford Essays” came to me, and was partly read with
much interest before the arrival of your kind letter of the 31st March.
Many thanks for both.
I know too little of French literature, early or late, but I admire your
article for its neat and delicate delineation and discrimination of
character. I read with interest, not unmingled with concern, Baden
Powell’s and Wilson’s articles. The latter person I heard preach one of
the Bampton lectures at Oxford, 1851. Into what will the latitudinarian
school, if I may so call it, develop at Oxford?
Gladstone’s article I have not had time to read yet, nor his large work,
which probably will reach us presently, through our book club,--I hope
at a time when I have more leisure than now.
Last week the publishers, at my request, sent to Trübner & Company,
American booksellers (12 or 20) Paternoster Row, a copy of a new and
more elementary book[42] of mine than the one you are pleased to
compliment. I intended that as a kind of horn-book, which Dr. Hooker
insists it is not; and as something more simple was wanted here, to lead
the way both to the “Lessons” and especially to the “Manual,” which is
rather strong for beginners, I have tried again, and you will see the
result. I should have made the little “Popular Flora” fuller if the
publishers had allowed more room.
Having last year reëdited my “Botanical Textbook” (of which, to complete
your set, a copy is also sent to you, through Trübner), I have now done
my part in elementary botanical writing, and I return with zest to my
drier investigations, in which I have much to do.
If I ever find time I am greatly disposed to write some day upon the
principles of classification,--the ground in nature for classification,
the nature and distribution and probable origin of species,--knotty
points, upon which I incline to differ decidedly from Agassiz, and
considerably from the common notions.
Some of the more immediate and best-established deductions I hope to
bring out in a paper I shall soon be occupied with, containing the
results of a comparison of the flora of Japan (in which I have new
materials) with our own of the United States of America.
My college work keeps me very busy at this season.
... I see no near prospect of revisiting the Old World. The commercial
troubles last autumn have reduced our moderate means and prospects a
little. But if I live I must yet have two years’ work in England and on
the Continent. With great regard, I remain,
Yours very faithfully,
ASA GRAY.
TO JOHN TORREY.
July 27, 1858.
I have to-day received a nice present from Vilmorin of Paris, i. e., the
copy of Robert Brown’s “Prodromus,” presented by him to A. L. de
Jussieu.
... I am kept here, too, by the attending suddenly to building a new
conservatory, for which a donation of $2,000 has been received. I cannot
leave till it is well under way.
I am deep in Japan botany; interesting results.
September 24.
At length we are home again, arriving night before last, very direct
from Quebec, where we had (as everywhere else upon our whole
route--Litchfield, New York, Palisades, Fairfield, Sauquoit, Montreal,
etc.) a delightful time. J. much stronger, except for a cold caught in
Quebec, which still lingers.
Colonel Munro[43] was very kind; is a jolly good fellow, as the English
say.
TO GEORGE ENGELMANN.
October 14, 1858.
By this time you are in your house, I hope, and all comfortable, and
ready soon to set to work.
I rejoice to hear that Mr. Shaw keeps up his zeal, and will make a
creditable establishment. I wish him all prosperity. If he will make and
keep up a general herbarium it will save you much time and money....
October 30.
I have yours of the 24th. Tatnall[44] is an old friend of Dr.
Darlington, new to me, but writing to me of late. I know not his age,
profession, character, etc., etc. But he appears to know the plants
around him very well....
Hope you are getting settled down and comfortable.
I met Agassiz at the Club. He is cordial and pleasant. He had not heard
of your return, which I wondered at....
Fendler is with you, at least in St. Louis. Short is ready to advance
something if he will fall to collecting again wherever you say. Get him
some appointment with the army at Utah. That is the place. What is the
good of your both being Democrats if you cannot get something for it!!
December 3.
Darwin asks me to find out if you medical men have ascertained or
noticed any difference in liability to take fevers of warm climates, say
yellow fever, between light-complexioned and dark-complexioned people of
the Caucasian race. If you know personally anything about it, or where
anything is published bearing on the point, kindly let me know, and
oblige
Your old friend,
ASA GRAY.
TO GEORGE BENTHAM.
December 13, 1858.
Boott writes in glowing terms of your paper on British flora and
distribution lately read; and I hope soon to read it in the “Linnæan
Journal.”
That the interchange of temperate species between North America and
Europe has taken place via Asia is now a patent fact; and now the whole
subject, and the probable explanation, begins to be clear to see.
December 31.
A happy New Year to you and Mrs. Bentham, and many thanks for your
letter promising me your paper on Hongkong plants to print here. Pray
give me passim any notes that occur to you upon Loo Choo plants, etc. I
shall now soon be done with my Japan studies, and shall print a paper
bringing to view curious facts of distribution, etc., and lay out a set
for the Kew herbarium. How true it is, as you intimated, that the
interchange in northern hemisphere has mainly been via Asia.
I heartily admire your “Handbook,” and await with great interest your
paper growing out of it; your experience is so great and your judgment
so sound. As to English nomenclature, we can only approximate to a good
system; the practical difficulties are too great, often insurmountable.
It seems to me you hit the happy medium, if we must needs have popular
name of the genus coëxtensive with the Latin one; but I rather doubt the
advisability of that, and would use sub-generic popular names for
generic, I think. Though “I do not much like” the whole thing, yet
somebody must attend to English nomenclature, for better or worse; so I
am glad you took it up.
I hope you will study perigynous and epigynous. As to ovary, which,
putting the important part for the whole, we have learned to use in
place of pistil, it certainly is perfectly novel to me to hear the name
applied to the gynæcium of Ranunculus. I am confident the word is never
so used in De Candolle or Endlicher. I do not recall any instance of
your using the word in any such sense; I am sure I never did. Where the
fact of the combination is doubtful or ambiguous, if I said ovary, that
would infer the combination; if ovaries, the distinctness. In Apocynaceæ
A. De Candolle steadily writes ovarium or ovaria, according to the
nature of the case. Per contra, you might as well call the column of
Malva a stamen! For the collective term, I wish, in your paper, you
would go for restoring to use the Linnæan term pistillum, and against
the habit of using ovarium in a double sense, that is, sometimes for
whole female organ, sometimes for its ovule-bearing portion. Pray do not
add a third; and so when you speak of ovary in Clematis leave us to
gather, from the context, whether you mean, (1) the whole gynæcium; (2)
a separate pistil; or, (3) the ovuliferous portion of a pistil.
Hooker calls my judgment about root and radicle “a flippant snub”! I beg
a thousand pardons, and had no intention to be flippant or dogmatical,
but simply to record a fact. For _mistake_, pray read _take_. My thanks
for his letter of December 8th; will write him soon.
February 2, 1859.
I wish I had now your paper on geographical distribution, while I am
working up the relations of the Japan flora in this respect. Where is
Agardh’s paper published, and what does it amount to?...
I cannot answer Dr. Hooker’s exceedingly interesting letter about
theoretical ancient distribution of plants this week. Tell him I shall
have some evidence which will come well into his views as to north
temperate zone.
TO W. J. HOOKER.
January 24, 1859.
I hope soon to hear that Government will acquire your herbarium, and
make bountiful provision for its increase and maintenance. After all
Brown’s genius, you have done more for botany than a dozen Browns, and
made a hundredfold more sacrifices and efforts. To you, and to your son,
England and the botanical world owe the greatest debt of gratitude,--a
debt which I hope will continue to accumulate a long time yet....
TO JOHN TORREY.
January 7, 1859.
MY DEAR FRIEND,--I will send your bundles presently, after Tuesday next,
till when I must work like a dog, to get through the Japan collection,
and read a paper on Tuesday at a social meeting of the Academy at Mr.
Loring’s house that evening (January 11th). Now come on (if by day
train), stop there, 8 Ashburton Place, where I will be.
I am going to hold forth for nearly an hour, upon Japan botany in its
relation to ours and the rest of the northern temperate zone, and knock
out the underpinning of Agassiz’s theories about species and their
origin; show, from the very facts that stumbled De Candolle, the high
probability of single and local creation of species, turning some of
Agassiz’s own guns against him.
I introduced it here at Club, last month, and Agassiz took it very well,
indeed....
I asked Thurber the name of a couple of Grasses. Let the Grass-man
speak; now that he is turned out to grass, let him attend to his
grazing.
February 19.
Andersson writes me that I am chosen one of the six botanists on the
foreign list of Stockholm Academy, to fill the vacancy caused by Robert
Brown’s death.
Friday evening, [April].
I have your two favors of 12th and 15th. I am very grateful for the nice
care you take of my wife. You seem to have her under very thorough
control.
Cure her up fast as you can, and please return her per railway on the 3d
of May; for the 4th being the eleventh anniversary of our union, we
must not be separated then--“The Union, it must be preserved.” ...
I send back your Cavendish with many thanks.
The old cock was much like Robert Brown in many respects. Though there
is nothing in him to love, he calls out a sort of admiration, partly in
the literal sense, that is, wonder, mixed with pity, that he had no
feelings. Brown had, and besides he was social and not so very queer,
but he lived very much in the same way, and I suppose had as little
sense of religion.
Schreber spells Anthephora, but gives no derivation. P. de B., you see,
does, so Anthephora is doubtless right.
Can that and Buffalo-grass be the same? I doubt. Has the Anthephora-like
plant no stamens of its own?
The mode of growth does not so much distinguish your plant from
Newberry’s Hemitones, and verily I suspect they are the same species.
Pity you come in and spoil a good name!...
TO A. DE CANDOLLE.
April 27, 1859.
I am charmed at the intelligence you give of your son, and that he takes
to botany with spirit, so that he may continue the celebrity of the
honored name of De Candolle in the third generation.
We shall welcome him when he comes to America and will do all we can to
advance his objects. Oregon and the country to the north of it (British
Columbia) will be in good and safe condition to explore, and I am
convinced that there is still much to find in the Sandwich Islands,
especially in the interior of Hawaii, where there is said to be a
broad, almost untrodden, wooded region, between the principal
mountain-masses, and occupying a good part of the interior of the
island. But it will take time, patience, and considerable means to
explore this region; provisions must be carried in for a long way, and
many natives employed in feeding the exploring party. Next, the Kurile
Islands, and all the northern part of Japan, Yesso, and the islands
northeast of it offer the greatest interest; Manchuria also, but the
Russians will look after that; Korea could perhaps be explored, so that
the expedition you have suggested strikes my fancy as the best that
could be, and would take your son through regions full of interest, safe
to explore, and healthy. Certainly I can suggest nothing better.
Pray give my best regards to M. Boissier and to other friends in Geneva.
I trust you will have safety and tranquillity in Switzerland. But it
appears as if you would have war all around you,--a very sad state of
things. Our latest intelligence looks very warlike, I am sorry to see.
With all my heart I join in the supplication, “Give peace in our time, O
Lord.” From such a war as is threatened no good can spring, in any
result....
Ever and very cordially yours,
ASA GRAY.
TO GEORGE ENGELMANN.
May 18, 1859.
Well, even $10,000 a year is much better than nothing for the botanical
establishment. I wish we had half of that....
If Shaw will be liberal in his establishment, why not turn over to him
your general herbarium? If I had one I could have free access to always,
I would not take the expense and trouble of keeping up and increasing
one myself....
So, you have made the capital discovery, and proved the so-called
Anthephora to be the female of Buffalo-grass. I would not have believed
it without direct evidence.
I cannot study it; it would take me a long while to get the case so
before me that my opinion about the affinities of the grass would be of
any use; but it is most interesting, and I beg you to work it out in
detail and thoroughly....
June 6.
As to your own herbarium, I think you are right for the present. Keep
you own; arrange it on paper of the size of Shaw’s. But look to an
eventual combination, either in Shaw’s lifetime or soon after, and be
open to propositions from Shaw; as, for example, to take your whole
herbarium, provide for maintenance and increase, and when ready, to make
you director of the whole concern. This duty must devolve upon you, and
when it does, with a decent salary, you could reside up there, throw
physic to the dogs, or only take a share in consultations, and have time
to do yourself justice in botany.
Meanwhile, if Shaw would take your herbarium upon proper terms, you
might at any time have any particular families of plants with you, in
your house, to work at....
Mr. Shaw has lately written. I inclose his letter to you. I have just
replied to it, expressing a lively interest in his projected
establishment, and offering my best services if he requires them in the
way of advice or suggestion. I hope it will be all right in the end....