Summary

Thanks HGB for sending copies of his Untersuchungen [1858] and Morphologische Studien [1858] and for a portrait.

Summary

Sends a letter concerning priority [of Patrick Matthew] for JDH to read and post.

Angered at Owen’s review.

Huxley’s Royal Institution lecture ends well.

Summary

Discusses crosses in sweetpeas and the difference between monstrosities and slight variations. Discusses peloric flowers.

Thanks for correction about furze.

Summary

On THH’s "Deep-sea soundings in the North Atlantic" ["Report on the examination of specimens of bottom" in Deep-sea soundings made in H.M.S. "Cyclops", Lieut. Commander J. Dayman (1858)]. Suggests further investigations be made of deposits of calcareous organisms.

THH’s "extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science" ["The origin of species", Westminster Rev. 17 (1860): 541–70].

Summary

Has resolved not to correct Owen’s misrepresentations in his review of Origin.

Discusses at length the theological implications of natural selection.

Summary

Sends queries for "Fanciers"

and asks about the mating of the queen bee.

Summary

What a base dog Owen is for praising his own work in reviewing Origin [anonymously].

J. H. Balfour is narrow-minded.

CD cannot understand pollination of Goodenia.

Summary

Asks whether THH had by mistake taken the National Review containing W. B. Carpenter’s review.

Summary

CD acknowledges that Patrick Matthew, in his appendix to Naval timber and arboriculture (1831), anticipated by many years CD’s explanation of the origin of species by natural selection. CD was ignorant of the work. If another edition of Origin is called for, CD will insert a notice to the foregoing effect.

Summary

Origin reviews. Is annoyed at Richard Owen’s malignity [Edinburgh Rev. 111 (1860): 487–532].

Summary

CD intrigued by the pollination mechanism of Leschenaultia formosa.

CD interested in Thomas Bell’s rumour that Owen avows his review.

Curved styles and their relation to pollination.

Summary

Sends list of plants with asymmetry in nectar-secreting surfaces and pistils bent in that direction. Shows insect agency so important that structure has changed. Asks for contrary or confirming examples and that request be passed on to Daniel Oliver.

Summary

Thanks CL for loan of paper by J. S. Newberry ["Notes on the ancient vegetation of N. America", Am. J. Sci. 2d ser. 29 (1860): 208–18].

Mentions reviews of the Origin.

Discusses evolution of the domestic dog, especially with respect to the views of Owen, Pallas, and Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.

Mentions W. B. Carpenter’s views on taxonomy.

Discusses hybridisation of plants and animals.

Comments on progress in human evolution.

Summary

Has read MS of AM’s review [of Origin, read at Edinburgh Royal Society, 20 Feb 1860]; has no complaints. Has never heard of a hostile reviewer’s doing so kind and generous an action [as sending his MS for CD’s criticism?]. Sends some remarks on details.

Summary

In his former note CD omitted to criticise AM’s explanation that the function of hybridisation is to prevent extinction should the males of a rare species die out.

Disputes that "Oken, Lamarck & Co throw some light on Classification, Embryology & Rudimentary organs". In the case of embryology there must be introduced the principle of variations not supervening at a very early age and being inherited at corresponding ages. In classification descent alone will not do; it must be combined with the principle of divergence of character and descent from dominant and increasing forms.

Summary

JDH has settled the Leschenaultia case, but it remains a difficulty to CD.

Goodenia, like bee orchid, seems a case of a structure with an evident function, which is not carried out. Is curvature of styles an incidental result of growth or a pollination adaptation?

Summary

Glad to hear of MTM’s papers [? "On a peloria and semidouble flower of Ophrys aranifera, Huds.", J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 8 (1865): 207–11 and "Observations on the morphology and anatomy of the genus Restio, Linn.", J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 8 (1865): 211–55].

CD doubts the value, for origin of species, of parallels between peloria in "distinct groups".

Gärtner proved the stigma can select its own pollen from a mixture of foreign pollens. But much evidence shows varieties of same species are prepotent over a plant’s own pollen.

MTM’s father [William] believes that variation goes on for a long time once it has commenced.