My dear Mr Farrer

I feel sure that the points to which you refer w^d interest any one who looks at botany under a philosophical point of view; but I am not at all sure that Editors & Societies w^d not think them too minute & superfluous.¹

In my opinion the best plan is to go on working & making copious notes without much thought of publication, & then if the results turn out striking publish them. It is my impression, but I do not feel sure that I am right, that the best & most novel plan w^d be, instead of describing the means of fertilization in particular plants, to investigate the part which certain structures play with all plants or throughout certain orders; for instance, the brush of hairs on the style, or the Diadelphous condition of the stamens in the Leguminosæ, or the hairs within the corolla &c &c.

Looking to yr note I think that this is perhaps the plan which you suggest.

It is well to remember that naturalists value observations far more than reasoning; therefore y^r conclusions sh^d be as often as possible fortified by noticing how insects actually do the work.

Your description of the structure of Chorozema is quite new to me.²

My son misunderstood the message about Decaisne’s great work, but I hope you will receive it soon & after looking over it can return it to him at Trinity Coll.³

Pray believe me my dear M^r Farrer | yours very sincerely | Ch. Darwin