Goodale — Development of Botany Since 1818. 409 



In his absence the book was noticed by Gray as stated 

 below. The letter is, as follows : 



Down, Bromley, Kent. 



Nov. 11th, 1859. 

 My dear Sir. 



I have sent you a copy of ray Book (as yet only an abstract) on 

 the Origin of Species. I know too well that the conclusion, at 

 which I have arrived, will horrify you, but you will, I believe 

 and hope, give me credit for at least an honest search after the 

 truth. I hope that you will read my Book, straight through ; 

 otherwise from the great condensation it will be unintelligible. 

 Do not, I pray, think me so presumptuous as to hope to convert 

 you ; but if you can spare time to read it with care, and will then 

 do what is far more important, keep the subject under my point 

 of view for some little time occasionally before your mind, I have 

 hopes that you will agree that more can be said in favour of the 

 mutability of species, than is at first apparent. It took me many 

 long years before I wholly gave up the common view of the sep- 

 arate creation of each species. Believe me, with sincere respect 

 and with cordial thanks for the many acts of scientific kindness 

 which I have received from you, 



My dear Sir, 

 Yours very sincerely, 



Charles Darwin. 



In March, 1860 (29, 153), Gray published in the Journal 

 an elaborate and cautious review of Darwin's work. He 

 alluded to the absence of the chief editor of the Journal 

 in the following words : 



' ' The duty of reviewing this volume in the American Journal 

 of Science would naturally devolve upon the principal editor 

 whose wide observation and profound knowledge of various 

 departments of natural history, as well as of geology, particu- 

 larly qualify him for the task. But he has been obliged to lay 

 aside his pen to seek in distant lands the entire repose from 

 scientific labor so essential to the restoration of his health, a 

 consummation devoutly to be wished and confidently to be 

 expected. Interested as Mr. Dana would be in this volume, he 

 could not be expected to accept its doctrine. Views so idealistic 

 as those upon which his 'Thoughts upon Species' are grounded, 

 will norharmonize readily with a doctrine so thoroughly natur- 

 alistic as that of Mr. Darwin . . . Between the doctrines of 

 this volume and those of the great naturalist whose name adorns 

 the title-page of this Journal [Mr. Agassiz] the widest diver- 

 gence appears." 



Gray then proceeds to contrast the two views of Dar- 



