18431882] DAWS ON 467 



me if I have outraged any geological fact or made any over- Letter 355 

 sights. I expounded the whole thing twice to Lyell before I 

 printed it, with map and tables, intending to get (and I thought 

 I had) his imprimatur for all I did and said ; but when here 

 three nights ago, I found he was as ignorant of my having 

 written an Arctic essay as could be ! And so I suppose he 

 either did not take it in, or thought it of little consequence. 

 Hector approved of it in toto. I need hardly say that I set 

 out on biological grounds, and hold myself as independent of 

 theories of subsidence as you do of the opinions of physicists 

 on heat of globe ! I have written a long [letter] to Dawson. 



By the way, did you see the Athenceum notice of L. 

 Bonaparte's Basque and Finnish language? is it not possible 

 that the Basques are Finns left behind after the Glacial period, 

 like the Arctic plants ? I have often thought this theory 

 would explain the Mexican and Chinese national affinities. 

 I am plodding away at Welwitschia by night and Genera 

 Plantarum by day. We had a very jolly dinner at the Club 

 on Thursday. We are all well. 



To J. D. Hooker. Letter 356 



Down, Nov. 4th [1862]. 



I have read the pages 1 attentively (with even very much 

 more admiration than the first time) and cannot imagine what 

 makes Dr. D. 2 accuse you of asserting a subsidence of Arctic 

 America. No doubt there was a subsidence of N. America 

 during the Glacial period, and over a large part, but to 

 maintain that the subsidence extended over nearly the whole 

 breadth of the continent, or lasted during the whole Glacial 

 period, I do not believe he can support. I suspect much of 

 the evidence of subsidence during the Glacial period there will 

 prove false, as it largely rests on ice-action, which is becoming, 

 as you know, to be viewed as more and more subaerial. If 



1 The paper on Arctic plants in Vol. XXIII. of the Linnean Society's 

 Transactions, 1860-62. 



The late Sir J. W. Dawson wrote a review (signed J. W. D.) of 

 Hooker's Arctic paper which appeared in the Canadian Naturalist, 1862, 

 Vol. VII., p. 334. The chief part of the article is made up of quotations 

 from Asa Gray's article referred to below. The remainder is a summary 

 of geological arguments against Hooker's views. We do not find the 

 accusation referred to above, which seems to have appeared in a lecture. 



