From S. P. Woodward 14 February 1863
British Museum.
Feby. 14/63
Dear Sir,
I have been unable to find the Review of your ‘Orchids’ which I promised to send—or at least the copy of it just then given me by one of my colleagues— But if you will not mind the trouble of returning it I will send a rough proof—& also (by way of complement) another article contra Scottos—which it is to be hoped they enjoyed, altho’ not nearly equal to their deserts.1
When I first read the ‘Origin’ I made a list of errata & objections—but found them not worth sending.2 I have only seen the first ed. & you must have long since corrected such errata as p. 49 Primula acuulis or p. 29 where “Herefords” were spoken of as if they were “Short-horns”—3 Did you notice when you came to see the Assyrian relics, the little bas-relief of the Tibetan mastiff?4 Its character is well represented—in contrast with ⟨the⟩ Syrian hunting dogs—
There was an obscure expression at p. 429 where you speak of no “single insect of a new order being found in Australia”— If any new order (i.e unknown elsewhere) should be f⟨ound⟩ there, it would surely be represented by many specie⟨s.⟩ The phrase appears to require inversion—5
Respecting that endless problem—the honeycomb! Mr Walter Mitchell objects that if the form of the cell results only from the necessity of the case (as I hold) then the chances are a million to one against the result we get—6 The cell of the humble bee is elliptical—& the chances are that the bottom of the honey bees’ cell will be elliptical—or more or less obtuse than it is now. But I cannot see the force of this objection as the chances are the same against any form you may please to imagine—& not more against the true sphere than the spheroid— The shape & proportions of the honey bee being what they are it must strike a circle—or excavate a segment of a sphere— If it were more acute or more obtuse it would make something different—but I can’t see any reason why it shouldn’t just as soon happen to be— what it is—
Mr Mitchell could understand the form of the bees’ cell if wax had a hexagonal cleavage like graphite (which is C’.) But according to the accepted doctrine it must have a cleavage (whether apparent to us or not) at right angles to the incidence of pressure—& that (according to my notion) will be such as to give hexagonal cleavage—
⟨six lines excised⟩
If you come to a — edn. I hope you will erase all mention of Buckman’s expts. at Cirencester—7 it will be better not to mention his name than give it with the admission made in ed. 1. I went to see my old “B.G.” at Cisseter under Buckman’s managemt, & took care to examine it alone—8 “What I saw there I will not declare”—9 But it will be sufficient to say that one of the students (who owed the Prof. a grudge) confessed to R. Tomes (vespertilio)10 that he himself had mixed the seeds intended for experiment in the Botanic Garden—
Have you met Mr Lord? the traveller in Oregon—11 He brought up the other day, (just before you came) two varieties of Musk rat— One builds houses out in the water, like the Beaver— the other burrows in the bank & only makes sub-aqueous runs— Yet Waterhouse would not admit any difference in the animals!12
⟨six lines excised⟩ roots chiefly, are not nearly so formidable as described— Whereas the same species on the East flank of the Rocky mtns feeding on Bisons (left by the Indian Hunters) become large & heavy & very savage.13
Yours sincerely | S. P. Woodward
Chas Darwin Esqe
CD annotations
Footnotes
Bibliography
Alum. Cantab.: Alumni Cantabrigienses. A biographical list of all known students, graduates and holders of office at the University of Cambridge, from the earliest times to 1900. Compiled by John Venn and J. A. Venn. 10 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1922–54.
British imperial calendar: The British imperial calendar or general register of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its colonies. London: Winchester & Son [and others]. 1812–1919.
Buckman, James. 1857. Report on the experimental plots in the Botanical Garden of the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester. Report of the 27th meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held at Dublin, pp. 200–15.
Correspondence: The correspondence of Charles Darwin. Edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 29 vols to date. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985–.
DNB: Dictionary of national biography. Edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. 63 vols. and 2 supplements (6 vols.). London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1912. Dictionary of national biography 1912–90. Edited by H. W. C. Davis et al. 9 vols. London: Oxford University Press. 1927–96.
Lord, John Keast. 1863. Notes on two new species of mammals. Proceedings of the scientific meetings of the Zoological Society of London (1863): 95–8.
Lord, John Keast. 1866. The naturalist in Vancouver Island and British Columbia. 2 vols. London: Richard Bentley.
Marginalia: Charles Darwin’s marginalia. Edited by Mario A. Di Gregorio with the assistance of Nicholas W. Gill. Vol. 1. New York and London: Garland Publishing. 1990.
Origin: On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. By Charles Darwin. London: John Murray. 1859.
Post Office London directory: Post-Office annual directory. … A list of the principal merchants, traders of eminence, &c. in the cities of London and Westminster, the borough of Southwark, and parts adjacent … general and special information relating to the Post Office. Post Office London directory. London: His Majesty’s Postmaster-General [and others]. 1802–1967.
Royal Society catalogue of scientific papers: Catalogue of scientific papers (1800–1900). Compiled and published by the Royal Society of London. 19 vols. and index (3 vols.). London: Royal Society of London. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1867–1925.
Variation: The variation of animals and plants under domestication. By Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1868.
Woodward, Horace B. 1881. A memoir of Dr S. P. Woodward ALS, FGS, &c., with a list of his published papers. [Read 26 April 1881.] Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society 3 (1879–84): 279–312.
Summary
Points out some errata in the Origin.
Discusses the factors producing the shape of the cells of the honeycomb.
Reports case of two varieties of musk-rat that behave very differently but are, according to Waterhouse, the same.
Letter details
- Letter no.
- DCP-LETT-3984
- From
- Samuel Pickworth Woodward
- To
- Charles Robert Darwin
- Sent from
- British Museum
- Source of text
- DAR 181: 154
- Physical description
- ALS 4pp inc †
Please cite as
Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 3984,” accessed on 1 September 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-3984.xml
Also published in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 11