Is not the similarity of plants of Kerguelen Land and southern S. America very curious? Is there any instance in the northern hemisphere of plants being similar at such great distances? With thanks for your letter and for your having undertaken my small collection of plants,
Believe me, my dear Sir, Yours very truly, C. DARWIN.
Do remember my prayer, and write as well for botanical ignoramuses as for great botanists. There is a paper of Carmichael (313/3. "Some Account of the Island of Tristan da Cunha and of its Natural Productions."--"Linn. Soc. Trans." XII., 1818, page 483.) on Tristan d'Acunha, which from the want of general remarks and comparison, I found [torn out] to me a dead letter.--I presume you will include this island in your views of the southern hemisphere.
P.S.--I have been looking at my poor miserable attempt at botanical- landscape-remarks, and I see that I state that the species of beech which is least common in T. del Fuego is common in the forest of Central Chiloe. But I will enclose for you this one page of my rough journal.
LETTER 314. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 31st (1844).
I have been a shameful time in returning your documents, but I have been very busy scientifically, and unscientifically in planting. I have been exceedingly interested in the details about the Galapagos Islands. I need not say that I collected blindly, and did not attempt to make complete series, but just took everything in flower blindly. The flora of the summits and bases of the islands appear wholly different; it may aid you in observing whether the different islands have representative species filling the same places in the economy of nature, to know that I collected plants from the lower and dry region in all the islands, i.e., in the Chatham, Charles, James, and Albemarle (the least on the latter); and that I was able to ascend into the high and damp region only in James and Charles Islands; and in the former I think I got every plant then in flower. Please bear this in mind in comparing the representative species. (You know that Henslow has described a new Opuntia from the Galapagos.) Your observations on the distribution of large mundane genera have interested me much; but that was not the precise point which I was curious to ascertain; it has no necessary relation to size of genus (though perhaps your statements will show that it has). It was merely this: suppose a genus with ten or more species, inhabiting the ten main botanical regions, should you expect that all or most of these ten species would have wide ranges (i.e. were found in most parts) in their respective countries? (314/1. This point is discussed in a letter in "Life and Letters," Volume II., page 25, but not, we think in the "Origin"; for letters on large genera containing many varieties see "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 102-7, also in the "Origin," Edition I., page 53, Edition VI., page 44. In a letter of April 5th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker gave his opinion: "On the whole I believe that many individual representative species of large genera have wide ranges, but I do not consider the fact as one of great value, because the proportion of such species having a wide range is not large compared with other representative species of the same genus whose limits are confined."
It may be noted that in large genera the species often have small ranges ("Origin," Edition VI., page 45), and large genera are more commonly wide- ranging than the reverse.) To give an example, the genus Felis is found in every country except Australia, and the individual species generally range over thousands of miles in their respective countries; on the other hand, no genus of monkey ranges over so large a part of the world, and the individual species in their respective countries seldom range over wide spaces. I suspect (but am not sure) that in the genus Mus (the most mundane genus of all mammifers) the individual species have not wide ranges, which is opposed to my query.
I fancy, from a paper by Don, that some genera of grasses (i.e.