My dear Hooker

It is a pleasure to me to write to you, as I have no one to talk to about such matters as we write on.—   But I seriously beg you not to write to me, unless so inclined; for busy as you are & seeing many people, the case is very different between us.—

Sir H. Holland came down on Sunday, & consoled us about no immediate cause of anxiety, but feared her recovery would be very slow.¹ And on Monday she was so weak & exhausted that we were very unhappy & anxious; but our Bromley Doctor thinks her rather better today.² It is a miserable long illness.—

I enclose letters (for I had unfortunately written to Harvey before your last letter came, but I begged him not to answer me) from Harvey & from (received today) A. Gray, for the chance of your liking to see them.³ In the note which you forwarded to me from A. Gray, he begs you & me to give him any hint about Owen’s article in Edinburgh, or other Review.—⁴ You will not be the man to do that. I had already made comments on Owens review, & remarked how basely ungenerous, I thought his treatment of you.—

Have you seen Haughton’s coarsely-abusive article of me in Dublin Mag. of Nat. History.⁵ It outdoes even N. British & Edinburgh in misapprehension & misrepresentation.⁶ I never knew anything so unfair as in discussing cells of Bees, his ignoring the case of Melipona which builds combs almost exactly intermediate between Hive & Humble-bee.—⁷ What has Haughton done that he feels so immeasurably superior to all us wretched naturalists & to all political economists, including the great philosopher Malthus?⁸

This Review, however, & Harveys letter have convinced me that I must be a very bad explainer. Neither really understand what I mean by natural selection.— I am inclined to give up attempt as hopeless.— Those who do not understand, it seems, cannot be made to understand.—

By the way, I think, we entirely agree, except perhaps that I use too forcible language about selection. I entirely agree, indeed would go almost further than you, when you say that climate (ie variability from all unknown causes) is “an active handmaid influencing its mistress most materially.”— Indeed I have never hinted that Natural selection is “the efficient cause to the exclusion of the other” ie variability from climate &c. The very term selection implies something, ie variations or differences, to be selected.— You speak of adaptation being rarely visible though present in plants: I have just recently been looking at common Orchis, & I declare I think its adaptations in every part of flower quite as beautiful & plain, or even more beautiful, than in Woodpecker. I have written & sent notice for Gardeners’ Ch. on curious difficulty in Bee Orchis,⁹ & sh^d. much like to hear what you think of the case. In this article I have incidentally touched on adaptation to visits of insects; but the contrivance to keep the sticky glands fresh & sticky beats almost everything in nature. I never remember having seen it described; but it must have been, & as I ought not in my book to give the observation as my own, I sh^d. be very glad to know where this beautiful contrivance is described.—¹⁰

A Rev^d. M^r Dunns wrote N. British R^w. as I hear from Lyell, who heard from Chambers.—¹¹

Hopkins of Cambridge has article in Fraser just published;¹² he speaks of me in kindest manner personally, but evidently thinks me an illogical & rash blunderer. According to his standard of proof all we naturalists had better shut up shop, & never attempt to reason. He says there is no difference between my view & Lamarcks.—

I am much puzzled about the upshot of the cowslip case; some few of the capsules on the so-called male plants, judging from external feeling, are swelling as well as on female plants.¹³ It would be best possible case of transition to have the male plants producing a few, but markedly fewer seeds than females; but the case w^d. require very good evidence. It would be catching a plant in actual transition from hermaphrodite to unisexual condition.— If both so-called males & females plants produce an equal or nearly equal number of seeds, how very strange the specified differences will be, especially that of size of pollen-grains:—¹⁴

How does your book progress (I mean your general sort of book on Plants);¹⁵ I hope to God you will be more successful than I have been in making people understand your meaning. I should begin to think myself wholly in wrong, & that I was an utter fool, but then I cannot yet persuade myself that Lyell, & you & Huxley, Carpenter, Asa Gray & Watson &c are all fools together. Well time will show, & nothing but time. Farewell.

I hope M^rs. Hooker goes on well¹⁶ | Yours affect | C. Darwin