My dear Sir.

Many thanks for your kind letter of Oct. 9. Today I have written to my brother that I have received your cheque of £8–2–9.¹

Your work on the comparative growth, fertility etc. of plants raised from self-fertilised and crossed seeds will be of the highest value for further searching into the mutual relations between flowers and insects.² I am the more glad to hear that you have begun putting your notes thereabout together, as newly some Italian and American botanists have done their best work in order to obscure this matter.

Pedicino and Orazio Comes of Naples have published some observations on self-fertilisation of flowers and, taking no notice of what hitherto has been written on the frequency and relative importance of self fertilisation, have inferred from their observations that intercrossing may not be of any general importance.³

At the anniversary meeting of the American Naturalists in Detroit of Aug. 12. 1875 Thomas Meehan of German town has read a paper: “Are insects any material aid to plants in fertilisation?”⁴ the results of which he comprehends in the following sentences:

“1) that the great bulk of colored flowering plants are self-fertilisers

2) that only to a limited extent do insects aid fertilisation

3) that Selffertilisers are every way as healthy and vigourous, and immensely more productive than those dependent on insect aid

4) that where plants are so dependent, they are the worse fitted to engage in the struggle for life, the great underlying principle in natural selection.”

The whole paper, published in “The Philadelphia-Press, Friday, August 13, 1875” abounds with perversities and is, I think, no worth of any refutation.⁵ But the following passage has struck me, as I am quite ignorant as to the memoir alluded to, and I would be very much obliged to you for information whether these statements of Mr Meehan are correct and in what work or journal your sons memoir alluded to has been published. The words run thus: “Quite recently Mr. George Darwin has shown, in a remarkable paper made up of an extensive study of the old families among the English nobility where intermarriages among relatives have been a sort of social necessity for ages, that the popular idea (sc. of a sort of necessity for cross-fertilisation) is erroneous. These intermarriages have resulted as productively and as heathily, mentally and morally, as the average marriages of the rest of the world.”⁶

With very sincere respect I remain, | my dear Sir | yours faithfully | H. Müller