Dear Darwin

I do not quite like the starting by shirking the question of what is a “Morphological character”—¹ you imply that it is a term of indefinite meaning— you talk of what—“he calls M. characters” & of what “I presume likewise to be M. characters”— I think that Non-Scientific readers will at once say, “how little these men know of what they write so much about, when their fundamental terms have no definite meaning”— all characters i.e. all departures from a given structure are & must be morphological.— all originate in the fact, that every individual varies from it’s parent; & this from being subject to “the direct & definite action of the conditions of life”—(an admirable definition, Weismann’s is not intelligible to me—if sense at all)²

p. 3. at A. this is very mildly put— would it not better meet Nægeli’s objection, which seems to point to histological characters (& to which & symmetry he probably confines his use of term “morphology.”) to add “nor do we know the uses of all the special tissues of any one organ”³

p. 4. At B. Furthermore, though these arrangements of leaves are reducible to mathematical laws, &—might hence be presupposed to be the most constant of all the laws of vegetable growth, and to be absolute & irrefragable, they prove not to be so—shewing that even here is variation which no one could call progressive! capable of transmission & ready for the action of selection.⁴

p. 5. What is Viola nana?, we can find no such name in our books.⁵

p. 6. Better add which Chesnut— I have referred to Payer, he distinctly says it is not constantly the terminal flower⁶

7— In Adoxa calyx-lobes is better than sepals—but this is hypercriticism. I have added note on Himal. sp or form.⁷

8. Leave out Asa Gray— all the world knew it.— for seeds read fruit or achene.⁸

DC. divided Umbelliferae primarily by this character! it is exploded in Gen. Pl.⁹

10 A little confusion at top of page— I have set it right.

Ever yr affec | J D Hooker