...I have the satisfaction of having got through a hard bit of work, and am none the worse physically—­rather the better for having to pull myself together.

[And to Sir J. Hooker:—­]

85 Marina, St. Leonards, December 4, 1887.

My dear Hooker,

x = 8, 6.30.  I meant to have written to ask you all to put off the x till next Thursday, when I could attend, but I have been so bedevilled I forgot it.  I shall ask for a bill of indemnity.

I was rather used up yesterday, but am picking up.  In fact my Manchester journey convinced me that there was more stuff left than I thought for.  I travelled 400 miles, and made a speech of fifty minutes in a hot, crowded room, all in about twelve hours, and was none the worse.  Manchester, Liverpool, and Newcastle have now gone in for technical education on a grand scale, and the work is practically done.  Nunc dimittis!

I hear great things of your speech at the dinner.  I wish I could have been there to hear it...

[Of the two following letters, one refers to the account of Sir J.D.  Hooker’s work in connection with the award of the Copley medal; the other, to Hooker himself, touches a botanical problem in which Huxley was interested.]

St. Leonards, November 25, 1887.

My dear Foster,

...I forget whether in the notice of Hooker’s work you showed me there was any allusion made to that remarkable account of the Diatoms in Antarctic ice, to which I once drew special attention, but Heaven knows where?

Dyer perhaps may recollect all about the account in the “Flora Antarctica,” if I mistake not.  I have always looked upon Hooker’s insight into the importance of these things and their skeletons as a remarkable piece of inquiry—­anticipative of subsequent deep sea work.

Best thanks for taking so much trouble about H—.  Pray tell him if ever you write that I have not answered his letter only because I awaited your reply.  He may think my silence uncivil...

Ever yours,

T.H.  Huxley.

To Sir J.D.  Hooker.

4 Marlborough Place, December 29, 1887.

Where is the fullest information about distribution of Coniferae?  Of course I have looked at “Genera Plantarum” and De Candolle.

I have been trying to make out whether structure or climate or paleontology throw any light on their distribution—­and am drawing complete blank.  Why the deuce are there no Conifers but Podocarpus and Widringtonias in all Africa south of the Sahara?  And why the double deuce are about three-quarters of the genera huddled together in Japan and northern China?

I am puzzling over this group because the paleontological record is comparatively so good.

I am beginning to suspect that present distribution is an affair rather of denudation than migration.

Sequoia!  Taxodium!  Widringtonia!  Araucaria! all in Europe, in Mesozoic and Tertiary.