Hooker's view was that sinking islands "contain comparatively fewer species and fewer peculiar generic types than those which are rising." In Darwin's copy of the Essay is written on the margin of page xvi: "I doubt whole case."), as in the Indian Ocean you compare volcanic land with exclusively coral islands, and these latter are very small in area and have very peculiar soil, and during their formation are likely to have been utterly submerged, perhaps many times, and restocked with existing plants.

In the Pacific, ignorance of Marianne and Caroline and other chief islands almost prevent comparison (348/3.

Gambier Island would be an interesting case.
[Note in original.]); and is it right to include American islands like Juan Fernandez and Galapagos?
In such lofty and probably ancient islands as Sandwich and Tahiti it cannot make much difference in the flora whether they have sunk or risen a few thousand feet of late ages.
I wish you could work in your notion of certain parts of the Tropics having kept hot, whilst other parts were cooled; I tried this scheme in my mind, and it seemed to fail.

On the whole, I like very much all that I have read of your Introduction, and I cannot doubt that it will have great weight in converting other botanists from the doctrine of immutable creation.

What a lot of matter there is in one of your pages! There are many points I wish much to discuss with you.
How I wish you could work out the Pacific floras: I remember ages ago reading some of your MS.