464 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1857. 



implicitly, but he is sometimes, I think, and he confesses it, 

 rather over critical, and his ingenuity in discovering flaws 

 seems to me admirable. Here is my question : — " Do you 

 think that good botanists in drawing up a local Flora, whether 

 small or large, or in making a Prodromus like De Candolle's, 

 would almost universally, but unintentionally and uncon- 

 sciously, tend to record (/. e., marking with Greek letters 

 and giving short characters) varieties in the large or in the 

 small genera ? Or would the tendency be to record the va- 

 rieties about equally in genera of all sizes ? Are you your- 

 self conscious on reflection that you have attended to, and 

 recorded more carefully the varieties in large or small, or very 

 small genera ? ' ' 



I know what fleeting and trifling things varieties very often 

 are ; but my query applies to such as have been thought 

 worth marking and recording. If you could screw time to 

 send me ever so brief an answ^er to this, pretty soon, it would 

 be a great service to me. 



Yours most truly obliged, 



Ch. Darwin. 



P. S. — Do you know whether any one has ever published 

 any remarks on the geographical range of varieties of plants 

 in comparison with the species to which they are supposed to 

 belong ? I have in vain tried to get some vague idea, and 

 with the exception of a little information on this head given 

 me by Mr. Watson in a paper on Land Shells in U. States, I 

 have quite failed ; but perhaps it would be difficult for you 

 to give me even a brief answer on this head, and if so I am 

 not so unreasonable, I assure you^ as to expect it. 



If you are writing to England soon, you could enclose 

 other letters [for] me to forward. 



Please observe the question is not w^hether there are more 

 or fewer varieties in larger or smaller genera, but whether 

 there is a stronger or weaker tendency in the minds of bota- 

 nists to record such in large or small genera. 



