Summary

CD thanks CW for long, interesting letter; hopes the ideas will be worked into an essay some day.

Suggests dates for a proposed visit and gives instructions for reaching Down.

Summary

CW’s article responding to Mivart [see 8351] on the fixity of species is very clear.

On evolution of language, CD doubts W. D. Whitney’s claim that changes are effected by the will of man. Asks CW when a thing may properly be said to be so effected.

Summary

Delighted to have cloud of darkness removed by CW’s paper on phyllotaxy [Mem. Am. Acad. Arts & Sci. n.s. 9 (1867–73): 379–415].

Has heard that Mivart will answer CW’s pamphlet [Darwinism (1871)].

Summary

Sends details of Alexander Dickson’s paper ‘On some abnormal cones of Pinus Pinaster’ (Dickson 1871).

Summary

Recommends J. C. Houzeau’s Études sur les facultés mentales des animaux [1872].

Was glad to make CW’s acquaintance.

Summary

Has replied [in North Am. Rev. 115 (1872): 1–30] to Mivart’s communication to the North American Review [114 (1872): 451–68].

Discusses the degree of fixedness of different characters in organisms.

Summary

Arranges to visit CD at Down.

Summary

Discusses ideas on the development of language; agrees with CD that it is a process governed by unconscious selection; he considers it analogous to unconscious selection of domestic animals by savages. Remarks on the differing views of Max Müller and W. D. Whitney regarding the origin of language and its development. Comments on the extent to which unintentional effects can be ascribed directly to the agency of free intelligent wills.

Summary

Discusses the mental powers and habits of animals and considers that those of man are not separated from those of animals by any sort of fundamental barrier; the gulf seems formidable only from a self-conscious, human point of view. Man’s important distinction is his greater ability to act and respond independently of external stimuli, in consequence of his internal accumulation of personal experience.

Summary

Discusses Mivart’s reply ["Genesis of species", North Am. Rev. 114 (1872): 451–68] to CW’s review and to Huxley.

Asks whether CD knows anyone to whom he could usefully send a copy of his phyllotaxy paper [Mem. Am. Acad. Arts & Sci. n.s. 9 (1867–73): 379–415].

Summary

A review and criticism of Chauncey Wright’s paper on phyllotaxy [Mem. Am. Acad. Arts & Sci. n.s. 9 (1867–73): 379–415]. Does not believe that the "distributive" and "cyclical" properties, which CW claims characterise the existing spiral orders of leaf arrangement, can be shown to be advantageous to plants. CW’s speculations on the origins of the spiral arrangement of leaves are purely hypothetical.

Summary

Has received Expression and will forward it to his brother [Jean-Charles Houzeau de Lehaie].

Summary

Agrees to close their correspondence. Defends his position against criticisms of Huxley and Chauncey Wright; assures CD of his continuing friendly feelings.

Summary

CD believes that StGJM has been unfair in his criticisms and has misrepresented him; he begs him not to write again. "Agassiz has uttered splendid sarcasms on me, but I still feel quite friendly towards him. M. Flourens cd. not find words to express his contempt of me: Pictet & Hopkins argued with great force against me: Fleeming Jenkin covered me with first-rate ridicule; & his crticisms were true & most useful: but none of their writings have mortified me as yours have done …" [See 8154.]

Summary

Sends his reply to Huxley’s criticisms [Contemp. Rev. 19 (1872): 168–97].

Summary

Outlines his theory on the origin of existing orders of leaf arrangement. Believes spiral and whorled orders have evolved from a primitive distichous arrangement. These arrangements permit a compact bud form of small surface area that can withstand external changes in temperature, and in particular can tolerate frost.

Summary

Has no objection to CD’s alluding to FM’s idea that sexual selection has come into play in mimetic butterflies.

Reports observations on other butterflies and on termites.