Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley Volume II Part 65

Wells House, Ilkley, June 15, 1886.

My dear Donnelly,

I think it is just as well that you could not lay your hands on ink, for if you had you would only have blacked them. (N.B. This is a goak.)

You know we resolved that it was as well that I should go on as Examiner (unpaid) this year. But I rather repent me of it--for although I could be of use over the questions, I have had nothing to do with checking the results of the Examination except in honours, and I suspect that Foster's young Cambridge allies tend always to screw the standard up.

I am inclined to think that I had much better be out of it next year.

The attempt to look over examination papers now would reduce the little brains I have left to mere pulp--and, on the other hand, if there is any row about results, it is not desirable that I should have to say that I have not seen the answers.

When I go you will probably get seven devils worse than the first--but that it is not the fault of the first devil.

I am picking up here wonderfully in spite of the bad weather. It rained hard yesterday and blew ditto--to-day it is blowing dittoes--but there is sunshine between the rain and squalls.

I hope you are better off. What an outlandish name "Tetronila." I don't believe you have spelt it right. With best regards to Mrs.

Donnelly and my G.o.dson.

Ever yours,

T.H. Huxley.

4 Marlborough Place, September 16, 1886.

My dear Hooker,

I have sucked Grisebach's brains, looked up "Flora B. Americana," and "F. Antarctica and New Zealand," and picked about in other quarters. I found I knew as much as Grisebach had to tell me (and more) about lutea, purpureo-punctata, acaulis, campestris, and the verna lot, which are all I got hold of at Arolla. But he is very good in all but cla.s.sification, which is logically "without form and void, and darkness on the face of it."

I shall have to verify lots of statements about gentians I have not seen, but at present the general results are very curious and interesting. The species fall into four groups, one PRIMARY least differentiated--three, specialised.

1. Lobes of corolla fringed. 2. Coronate. 3. Interlobate (i.e. not the "plica" between the proper petals).

Now the interesting point is that the Antarctic species are all primary and so are the great majority of the Andean forms. Lutea is the only old-world primary, unless the Himalayan Moorcroftiana belongs here. The Arctic forms are also primary, but the petals more extensively united.

The specialised types are all Arctogeal with the exception of half a dozen or so Andean species including prostrata.

There is a strange general parallelism with the crayfishes! which also have their primary forms in Australia and New Zealand, avoid E. S.

America and Africa, and become most differentiated in Arctogaea. But there are also differences in detail.

It strikes me that this is uncommonly interesting; but, of course, all the information about the structure of the flowers, etc., I get at second hand, wants verifying.

Have you done the gentians of your "Flora Indica" yet? Do look at them from this point of view.

I cannot make out what Grisebach means by his division of Chondrophylla. What is a "cartilaginous" margin to a leaf?--"Folia margine cartilaginea!" He has a lot of Indian species under this head.

I send you a rough scheme I have drawn up. Please let me have it back.

Any annotations thankfully received. Shan't apologise for bothering you.

I hope the pension is settled at last.

Ever yours,

T.H. Huxley.

4 Marlborough Place, September 22, 1886.

My dear Hooker,

I have written to Lubbock a long screed stating my views [Referring to the relations between the South Kensington department and the City and Guilds Committee on Technical Education.] with unmistakable distinctness as politeful as may be, and asking him, if he thought well, to send them on to whomsoever it may concern. As old Gutzlaff used to say when he wanted to get evidence from a Chinee--"Gif him four dozen, someting vill transpire." At any rate the Chinee transpired, and I hope some official will.

Here beginneth more gentian craze.

I have not examined Moorcroft. yet, but if the figure in Roxb. is trustworthy it's a primary and no mistake. I can't understand your admitting Amarellae without coronae. The presence of a corona is part of the definition of the amarella group, and an amarella without a corona is a primary ipso facto.

Taking the facts as I have got them in the rough, and subject to minor verifications, the contrast between the Andean, Himalayan, and Caucasian Gentian Florae is very striking.

TABLE OF GENTIAN FLORAE.

Column 1: Place.

Column 2: Simplices.

Column 3: Ciliatae.

Column 4: Coronatae.

Column 5: Interlobatae.

Andes : 27 : 0 (?) : 15 : 2.

Himalayas 1 (Moorecroft.) : 0 : 4 : 32.

Caucasus Pyrenees (all one) : 2 (lutea, umbellata) : 2 : 5 : 21.

I don't think Ciliatae worth anything as a division. I took it as it stood.

It is clear that migration helps nothing, as between the old-world and South American Florae. It is the case of the Tapirs (Andean and Sino-Malayan) over again. Relics of a tertiary Flora which once extended from South America to Eurasia through North America (by the west, probably).

I see a book by Engler on the development of Floras since tertiary epoch. Probably the beggar has the idea.

Ever yours,

T.H. Huxley.

G.o.dalming, September 25, 1886.

My dear Foster,

We are here till to-morrow on a visit to Leonard, seeing how the young folks keep house.

I brought the Egyptian report down with me. It is very important, and in itself justifies the expenditure. Any day next (that is to say this) week that you like I can see Colonel Turner. If you and Evans can arrange a day I don't think we need mind the rest of the Committee. We must get at least two other borings ten or fifteen miles off, if possible on the same parallel, by hook or by crook. It will tell us more about the Nile valley than has ever been known. That Italian fellow who published sections must have lied considerably.

Touching gentians, I have not examined your specimen yet, but it certainly did not look like Andrewsii. You talk of having acaulis in your garden. That is one of the species I worked out most carefully at Arolla, but its flowering time was almost over, and I only got two full-blown specimens to work at. If you have any in flower and don't mind sacrificing one with a bit of the rhizoma, and would put it in spirit for me, I could settle one or two points still wanting. Whisky will do, and you will be all the better for not drinking the whisky!