“HW, BArES.”

Lxviii MEMOIR.

Dr. J. D. Hooker to H. W. Bates.

“ KEw, Sunday.

*‘My DEAR BATES,

‘‘T am extremely glad to hear that Gray has come round; he is really a candid sort of man in his way, but a strange compound. ‘‘T am delighted to hear that you are going to write on the geographical relations of species and varieties, upon which subject I know that you have a great deal of novel as well as pregnant matter that wants embodiment.”’

(Then follows advice as to publication of the paper in the Linnean Society’s Journal, as better insuring the attention of experts.) ‘‘ Now for your questions. I think Wallace is so far right that in so far as the Arctic flora and regions are concerned, plants afford overwhelming evidence of distribution being effected mainly by geological change (including therein climatic change). The data are so good, the dispersion of forms over mountain areas so uniform, the contrast between American types and Scandinavian types so vivid, and the relations between continental, insular, and enznsudar floras so consonant to theory, that granting a glacial period the rest must follow on a proper tabulation of the floras. I should like to go over that essay with you with a map, and I think I could convince you that the single fact of Greenland being a peninsula, its necessary consequences or distributions are almost proofs of all the rest. “‘TJ.—I still think that, as a rule, the best marked varieties occur on the confines. I find it, I think, remarkably instanced in a paper J] am now working out on the relations of the temperate flora of Cameroons Mountains, in the Bight of Benin. Here Cape types find their extreme north limit, Abyssinian their west limit, and Scandinavian ones their south limit; and there are quite a number of forms of each which I really do not know whether to call species or varieties. On the other hand, no doubt many species present more varieties toward their focus than toward their circumference, and then again the subject presents itself under two aspects, thus:The common ivy presents four or five extremely dissimilar forms in Europe (its focus), but extending to its west extreme we have the Irish ivy, and to the east we have a very curious Himalayan form—certainly these two last differ more widely from one another than do any of the four European coincident varieties. There is nothing in all this against as great, or greater variations occurring within the focus. Again, as a rule, lowland plants and insects assume different forms on Alps; what is this but their varying most at this (upward) verge of their distribution? The fact of its being granted as a general rule that insects and plants do thus vary at heights, is assuming that they do not vary so much below. “‘ The question of varieties on islands opens a wide field, which I should extremely like to talk over with you afrofos of Darwin’s remark (which he and I are now corresponding about) that the absence of struggle in islands should tend to perpetuate original forms there. As to my own share in the origination of the doctrine of distribution by geological, etc., change, I cannot take the credit of it, as E. Forbes published before me, and his paper on the geological connection of the existing flora and fauna of the British Islands is the first essay on the subject known to me. I had, in the Antarctic

voyage, independently arrived at the theory through the botany of the Antarctic Islands; but I was not prepared with anything like the complete worked out theory as Forbes enunciated it. On the other hand, I do not know that any one has worked out the question of the subject of the origination of varieties, and of species of plants by geological, etc., distribution, till I did it in the Arctic essay. This was, of course, only an expansion, or rather duplication of Darwin’s principles, and indeed I do not see how I can claim much originality in the matter. I am more of a handmaid than a mistress of science. If you will ask Darwin he will, I know, give you my position in relation to this subject with all the credit I am entitled to a# least, and probably a good deal more! But I go a good deal further than he does in continental extension, etc., and’he than I do in belief in power of present agents in distributing seeds, etc., across oceans, etc. ‘* But I must break off. Will you be my guest at the anniversary dinner of the Linnean Society, on Monday, 25th, at Willis’s Rooms? Pray do, and we can have a talk. Bentham is going to give us an anniversary address on ‘ Darwinism,’ dwelling I expect mostly on the methods of his adversaries, and their want of logic. Would you like to attend at 3 P.M.? . ‘* Ever sincerely yours, ‘Jos. D. HooKER.”’ fT. W. Bates to Dr. J. D. Hooker.

‘ 22, HARWOOD STREET, HAVERSTOCK HILL, N.W.,*

** May a2ist.

‘““My DEAR DR. HOOKER,

‘T should very much like to hear the anniversary address of Mr. Bentham, but I don’t care much about the dinner afterwards; besides, it is especially mentioned in the advertisement as for ‘members.’ ‘ The looseness of my remarks has led you to suppose that, with regard to what Wallace said of plants alone being able to furnish data for sucha paper as your Arctic one, I contended against plants; but I meant to say that we did not know at present whether insects would not furnish equally good data, no attempt having yet been made. And in fact no attempt can be made, as insects have not yet been collected with such care in noting localities and ranges, as plants. Wallace seems to think that, upon the whole, insects are not good subjects for such investigations, but I believe they will turn out the very best subjects.

“As to your paper, I think your case is proved to demonstration byplants, and I understand the clenching force of your illustration of Greenland quite well. ‘*As to the most divergent varieties of variable species being found on the confines of its area (vertical and horizontal), I should think in the majority of cases it is so; but there are some striking exceptions; for instance, a large number of European insects furnish very divergent varieties in Corsica and Sardinia, whilst their normal forms range around the Mediterranean. Al Zriort we might say that local varieties are formed according to changes in the conditions of life (organic and inorganic) of their respective species; and as their conditions do not always graduate off from the centre to the circumference of the areas, especially when isolated spots (is!ands or areas of land) occur within the area, therefore varieties would not graduate off.

‘The point is not of much importance, as the same principle of divergence of varieties 1s shown in both events. ‘«T have taken note of what you say regarding publishing original articles, but I have engaged to write one on a given subject in the Vatural History Review, and do not see how I can get off this time; I will make it, however, as much a review of the present literature on the question as possible. ** Yours sincerely,

“‘H. W. BATEs.”’

H. W. Bates to Charles Darwin. “* September 29th, 1863. “.... The review in the Zz7zes of my book has caused quite a commotion. I consider it the best that has yet been written. It is also of great general importance, because it is a public concession on the part of the highest literary tribunal of the claims of philosophical natural history to the attention of the public. My old father happens to be on a visit to me, and the review came very afvofos, causing great elation in our little iamily circle. My father is an old man of business, who thinks everything right that is said in the Zzmes, and who begins now to see that his son really has written a goodish book. The longest review that has yet appeared is in the Revue des Deux Mondes, by Forgues. It is also most excellently done, and I think shows a closer examination and higher appreciation of the book than anything that has yet appeared in England, except that of the Zzmes. You ask me what I am doing? I have been commissioned by Mr. W. Wilson Saunders to write a monograph of the M/antide (a remarkable family of insects). The work is to appear in the Ray Society series, in 4to, illustrated by twenty plates by Westwood. This has occupied me the last four months, and will continue to occupy me for eighteen months longer. Mr. Saunders pays me (moderately) for the work, and leaves me all the credit. This work leaves me time for other things, such as short articles, and I had commenced one on the whole subject of local variation, intending to incorporate details of facts of new varieties, interleaving with counterparts, which you require. But the monograph is so much pleasanter work just now that I have laid this paper aside for the present. ‘«T will not write more just now. ‘¢ Yours sincerely,

‘¢H. W. BATES.”’

The first edition of the Waturalist on the Amazons was exhausted in a few months, and at the suggestion of Murray, Bates reluctantly consented to abridge the book by omitting “those portions of the, work which, treating of abstruse scientific questions, pre-suppose a larger amount of natural history knowledge than an author has a right to expect of the general reader. *

A comparison of the two editions shows how much of permanent value in the incidental light thrown upon matters of abiding interest by one of the most sagacious and thoughtful observers was

Preface to Second Edition.

omitted. Among these are the formation of the Amazons delta, which differs from other deltas in not being wholly alluvial;* the absence of domesticable animals as affecting the character and culture of races; the gradual adaptation of the fauna of the Amazons during an immense lapse of time to a forest-clad country, the examples of which are of great interest; the origin of species as illustrated by certain butterflies of the genus Helzconius; the keenness of insect instinct of locality as shown by the sand wasp; the habits of the colonies of white ants, with their military organisation; and, what are of high value, observations on the monkeys of the Amazons region (of which Bates found thirty-eight species, belonging to twelve different genera), and comparisons between them and their more diversified congeners of the Old World. Then there are scattered references to mimetic analogies which further illustrate the celebrated paper.

Consequently, the decision of Mr. Murray to reprint the first edition is matter of congratulation, as also the payment of a fitting tribute to the author, who again and again regretted the abridgment. Bates kept no journals after his return from the Amazons—unfortunately only those relating to the years 1848-51 are preserved—and the following are the only notes (graphic enough to cause regret that there are no more) approaching to the form of a diary that have been found amongst his papers:—

“* Sunday, November 29th, 1863.—This afternoon, when walking in the Zoological Gardens with little Alice and the maid, Sir Charles Lyell accosted me near the seal pond, and we walked about together for an hourorso. He was wriggling about in his usual way, with spy-glass raised by fits and starts to the eye, and began; ‘ Mr. Wallace, I believe—ah—’ ‘ My name’s Bates.’ ‘Oh, I beg pardon, I always confound you two.’ (His memory must be very bad, for we have often met, and I was once his guest at the Geological Club dinner, Clunn’s Hotel, Covent Garden.) ‘ Ah—did you see the new porpoise the other day?’ ‘No; I did not happen to be in the gardens, and it lived but a very short time.’ He then passed on to something else; asked whether I was a relation of Mr. Spence Bate, who had just written to him about the discovery of ‘ Kjdkkenméddings,’ at Swansea, and so forth. ‘*We then began talking about my book of travels, and I told him I had just received a request from Mr. Murray to prepare a second abridged and popular edition. It was a capital opportunity to get good advice about second editions and abridgments, so I asked Sir Charles what he would recommend me to do.

Page 14 of 120