486 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION [CHAP. VI 



Letter 368 So with shells, we have literally none not a Helix even, 

 though they abound in the lanes 200 yards off the Gardens. 

 Of the 89 Dezertas insects [only ?] 1 1 are peculiar. Of the 

 162 Porto Santan 113 are Madeiran and 51 Dezertan. 



Never mind bothering Murray about the new edition 

 of the Origin for me. You will tell me anything bearing on 

 my subject. 



Letter 369 J. D. Hooker to C. Darwin. 



Kew, Aug. 7th, 1866. 

 Dear old Darwin, 



You must not let me worry you. I am an obstinate 

 pig, but you must not be miserable at my looking at the 

 same thing in a different light from you. I must get to the 

 bottom of this question, and that is all I can do. Some 

 cleverer fellow one day will knock the bottom out of it, and 

 see his way to explain what to a botanist without a theory to 

 support must be very great difficulties. True enough, all 

 may be explained, as you reason it will be I quite grant this ; 

 but meanwhile all is not so explained, and I cannot accept a 

 hypothesis that leaves so many facts unaccounted for. You 

 say the temperate parts of N. America [are] nearly two and a 

 half times as distant from the Azores as Europe is. According 

 to a rough calculation on Col. Tames' chart I make E. Azores 



o / 



to Portugal 850, West do. to Newfoundland 1 500, but I am 

 writing to a friend at Admiralty to have the distance 

 calculated (which looks like cracking nuts with Nasmyth's 

 hammer !) 



Are European birds blown to America ? Are the Azorean 

 erratics an established fact ? I want them very badly, though 

 they are not of much consequence, as a slight sinking would 

 hide all evidence of that sort. 



I do want to sum up impartially, leaving the verdict to 

 jury. I cannot do this without putting all difficulties most 

 clearly. How do you know how you would fare with me if 

 you were a continentalist ! Then too we must recollect that 

 I have to meet a host who are all on the continental side in 

 fact, pretty nearly all the thinkers, Forbes, Hartung, Heer, 

 Unger, Wollaston, Lowe (Wallace, I suppose), and now 

 Andrew Murray. I do not regard all these, and snap my 

 fingers at all but you ; in my inmost soul I conscientiously 



