The sun., 1890-01-05

u Az L
ming Of thIs century. that trees may perish from
injury or disease, OF. In one word. nom aoci-
dent. but never really die from old age. This
hypothesis and the botanical evidence pro-
duced In favor Of It are particularly interesting
ut this time TO those conyersant with Weis-
mann's theory As to the determining causes OF
the duration oilife and the Significance ofd
Before 1872 the redWoods OF California had
been personally inspected and carefully stud
led by Prof. Gray. who in the year named
delivered an address before the American
Association for the Advancement Of Science
on "Seuuoia and it's History" We have
seen that in 1874 he supposed the redwood
tincludinR under that name the two spe-
cies OF big treesl to be species Of the Ameri-
can cypress. but he now points out that, while
| belonging to the general Cypress family, 1t is
sui oeneris. isolated both systematically and
| geographically. As regards the height OF the
| big trees the author was now aware that they
| are exceeded by a species OF the Australian
eucalyptus talthough how greatly exceeded
| he had. apparently, not learnedl while rs
regards age he would not infer from the
actual counting OF the layers OF several speci-
mems that any seduoia extant can sens-
bly, antedate the Christian Era To learn
something OF their Eenealogy he would inquire
| OF their near relatives, OF whom there are but
two namely, the bald cypress OF the At
lantic coast OF North America, and the glyptos-
trobus OF China Now these allied trees dwell
In separate parts OF the globe. but 1t was not
always 80, for in the tertiary age the bald cy-
press and aglyptostrobus Exceedingly like the
present Chinese species), and more than one
sequola, coexisted in Europe. How is 1t possible
to bridge over these four wide intervals Of
space and the much vaster interval OF time. 30
as to bring these extraordinarily separated rela-
tives into connection Prof. Gray answers this
question by adopting the theory advanced
In 1861 by DR.. ]. d. Hooker In
regard to the distribution OF Arctic plants,
which he had himself suggested two y" ars
earlier. We quote the formulation OF this
hypothesis now generally accepted In Prof.
Gray's own words: "Our own present veReta-
ton or It's proximate ancestry must have occu-
pied the Arctic and subarctic regions in pio-
Gene times, but was gradually shifted south
ward as the temperature lowered and the
glaciation advanced. even beyond its present
habitation. Plants of the same stock and
kindred, probably ranging round the Arctic
zone as the present Arctic species do. made
their forced migration southwark upon widely
different lonRitudes. and receded more or less
as the climate grew warmer. The general
difference OF climate which marks the eastern
and the western sides OF the continents was
doubtless even then established 80 that the
same sorts OF species would be likely to secure
and retain foothold in the similar climates of
japan and the Atlantic United States, but not
In intermediate regions of different distribu-
tion OF heat and moisture. So that different
genera OF the same group as the redwood. the
bald Cypress, and the glyptostrobus might
establish themselves each In the region best
suited TO its particular requirements" AS O |
matter Of fact the bald cypress OF our Atlantic
States and u sequoia very much like the red.
woods of California abound as fossils in tho |
miocene formations not only of Europe. but OF
SpitzberRen and Alaska. Obviously such |
phenomena are best explainable on the as
sumption OF early Interchange and diffusion |
through north Asia prior to the advent !
Of the glacial period. The authors final de- |
duction is that the seauoias. now remarkable
for their restricted station and numbers, as |
well as for their extraordinary size. are OF an |
ancient stock. Their ancestors and kindred |
formed a large part Of the forests which -four |
ished throughout the polar regions. now DESC
late and icecad and extended into low lati-
tudes in Europe.
1t Is in the closing paragraph Of this essay
that Prof. Gray declares his own conviction
that the Darwinian theory Of the origin OF
species Is perfectly reconcilnble with the
belief In q God and In the providential
government OF the universe. After quoting
Miss Cobbe's complaint that no sooner do We
find out how anything is done than our first
conclusion Is that God did not do it. he says
that he agrees with her in thinking this first
conclusion premature and unworthy-n
more deplorable. Through what faults or
infrmities OF dogmatsm on the one hand and
skepticism on the other 1t came to be SO thought.
we need not hero consider Let us hope and
confidently expect, that it Is not to last: that
the religious faith which survived without
ahn +bap ~ = q afth
may equally outlast the notion OF the f1xity Of
even more than in the past. faith In an order
which is the basis OF science. will not-as it
reasonably-be discovered from faith
ir an Ordainer which is the basis Of religion"
1t was the memoir on the Botany OF Japan.
published In 1859. which first. as Prof. Sargent
reminds US. established Prof. Gray reputation
as philosophical naturalist. When we con-
slider how imperfect was the knowledge Of the
Japanese flora obtainable at that date. 1t
seems astonishing that 30 few OF the analo-
gies. identifcations. and deductions put forth
by Prof. Gray should have been since dis
carded or even qualified. The ultimate con-
clusion is substantially identical with that SUBJ
sequently elaborated in the article on seauoia
above noticed. The author holds. that is to
say. that the interchange of flora between the
New and the Old World has mainly taken place
in high northern latitudes. and that the isother-
NAL lines have in earlier times turned north
ward on our eastern and southwark on our
western coast as they do now. These as
sunptions. confirmed as they are by abun-
liant evidence 20 far toward explaining why
sabte n North America, rather than Oregon and
has been mainly concerned in tho
OF vegetation. and why the In
erchange Of the temperate fora even with
Europe, has principally been through Asia
Why weeds are moro pertinacious, aggres-
i've. and predominant than the useful plants
Iown by the husbandman is a question which
he American farmer would have been glad to
zee answered by Prof. Gray. But in paper
IN the subject. published in lS79,while he rejects
he replies suggested by other botanists, he
'ifers no explanation OF the phenomenon. He
loes not dispute the facts that weeds are more
aninnS ha N tad nj 10 IthounL L