Summary

Sends a paper he has written [on scarlet runner].

Summary

Thanks CD for advice to watch the action and not only the structure [of plants].

Summary

Sends an addition to Lobelia paper; admires adaptations for fertilisation.

Summary

Delighted with mechanisms of Salvia and Viola. How can anyone who compares structure of Viola cornuta and common violet still suppose them to be separate creations?

Summary

Describes work with pollinia of another Orchis species.

Summary

Wonderful how every flower one looks at is explained by, and throws light on, the fertilising process.

Summary

The conversion of Asa Gray must be a pleasure.

CD’s doctrine accounts for and gives a vera causa of structures.

Discusses F. Hildebrand’s book.

Summary

Is confirmed about the bending of the fly orchid pollinia. [See "Fertilisation of orchids", Collected papers 2: 141.]

Summary

Encouraged by CD’s reply. Sends another paper, on blue Lobelia.

Asks advice on books.

Summary

Thinks CD’s views of insect agency and crossing might explain structure and variations of papilionaceous flowers. Lists five points. Asks CD’s opinion.

Summary

Raises a question about a statement in Orchids; his observations differ.

Summary

"I have seen the action on Ophrys exactly as you describe and am thoroughly ashamed of my inaccuracy."

Summary

Suggests THF write a paper on violets. Asa Gray, once a sceptic, now declares he is convinced whole structure of a flower is adapted for a cross with another individual.

Urges THF not to give up Pangenesis lightly. "It has thrown light on my mind in regard [to] a great series of complex phenomena."

Summary

Informs THF that Annals and Magazine of Natural History will publish his paper [see 6384].

Summary

Thanks THF for correcting the error in Orchids.

Asks him to find out what insects visit the fly orchid and for what purpose.

Summary

Advises THF that best plan is to investigate the part certain structures play with all plants or orders, instead of describing means of fertilisation in particular plants. Naturalists value observations far more than reasoning.

Summary

Will send THF’s paper [on scarlet runners] to Annals and Magazine of Natural History with a note recommending publication [see 6384].

Suggests books on Lobelia.

Summary

Comments on THF’s MS [on fertilisation of scarlet runners]. Suggests publication, though CD anticipated main features ten years before. Is amused at the caution with which THF put his case that the final end [of the contrivances] was crossing distinct individuals.

Summary

Sends addition to T. H. Farrer’s [Lobelia] paper [Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 4th ser. 2 (1868): 255–63].

Summary

Asks CD to sign enclosed certificate first, as he does not know T. H. Farrer personally. [On top part of first two pages of a letter to Hooker from H. C. Rothery about Farrer’s nomination for Linnean Society]