464 THE UNFINISHED BOOK. [1S57. 



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 (*. <?., 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 answer 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 whether 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. 



