Summary

Has received second part of AG’s Atlantic Monthly article ["Darwin on the origin of species", 6 (1860): 109–16, 229–39], and would like to have it reprinted in England with the first part.

Regrets no reviewer has touched upon embryology, which he feels provides one of his strongest arguments.

Summary

Discusses recent reviews of Origin and has made a note on Owen’s [see 2737].

Has become interested in the floral structures of orchids.

Notes his recent observations on Primula; believes he has found male and female forms.

Summary

Comments on review of Origin by Andrew Murray [Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh 4 (1860): 274–91] and views of William Hopkins on Origin ["Physical theories and the phenomena of life" Fraser’s Mag. 61 (1860): 739–52; 62 (1860): 74–90]. The attacks will tell heavily.

Mentions Blyth’s failure to receive appointment as naturalist to China expedition of 1860.

Encloses letter from Asa Gray.

Discusses gestation period in domesticated dogs.

Comments on hybrid fertility.

Summary

Encourages Forbes to publish his geological observations on Chile.

Summary

Comments on BAAS meeting: "our side seems to have got on very well". Asa Gray, too, is fighting nobly.

Comments on review [by Samuel Wilberforce] in the Quarterly [Rev. 108 (1860): 225–64].

Mentions a favourable review in the London Review.

Wonders if German translation [of the Origin] by Bronn has drawn attention to the subject.

The Natural History Review to be edited by Huxley and others.

Expects CL’s book [Antiquity of man (1863)] to be a bombshell.

Summary

Opinions and reviews of Origin.

CD’s view on design in nature; although he does not believe in the necessity of design, he finds it hard to conclude that everything is the result of "brute force".

Comments on Owen’s review of Origin [Edinburgh Rev. 111 (1860): 487–532].

Summary

Encloses letters from H. G. Bronn, Asa Gray, and C. J. F. Bunbury, concerning the Origin.

Will send review by Gray and a notice by Bronn.

Says Bronn will superintend the German translation.

Comments on lecture by Huxley [at Royal Institution, 10 Feb 1860, Not. Proc. R. Inst. G. B. 3 (1858–62): 195–200]. Has remonstrated with him for saying sterility is "a universal and infallible criterion of species".

Summary

HCW thanks GG for responding so promptly to CD’s application for assistance.

Wonders whether natural selection can operate to the extent CD contends.

Summary

CD’s response to criticism of natural selection. Exasperated at not being understood. He tries to narrow the gap between himself and JDH.

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

W. B. Carpenter’s review of Origin [in Br. & Foreign Med.-Chir. Rev. 25 (1860): 367–404] "very good and well balanced, but not brilliant".

"There is a brilliant review by Huxley" [Westminster Rev. 17 (1860): 541–70].

Asa Gray sends good case of selection producing black pigs in Virginia.

Great blow to CD that CL cannot admit potency of natural selection.

Owen’s review in Edinburgh Review [111 (1860): 487–532] "extremely malignant, clever".

Patrick Matthew has published extract in Gardeners’ Chronicle [7 Apr 1860] from his Naval timber and arboriculture [1831], a complete but not developed anticipation of natural selection.

Summary

Asks that Fraser’s Magazine for July or the review from it on Origin (Hopkins 1860) be sent to Asa Gray.

Summary

Comments on Rodwell’s discussion of the “struggle for life” with reference to languages and G. H. Lewes’s article in the Cornhill Magazine (Lewes 1860, pp. 445–7). Comments on Rodwell’s account of horses affected by mildewed pasturage, and asks for more information about his white cat.

Summary

Asks whether crossing breeds of hive-bees is advantageous

and whether different pigeon breeds have different incubation periods.

Explains and apologises for the lack of detailed quotations in Origin.

Summary

Thanks for information on pigeon hatching

and on drones.

Believes occasional crosses indispensable.

Summary

Sale of Origin requires new edition [3d (Apr 1861)].

Further discussion of geological elevation and subsidence in Europe. Compares evidence to that of South America. His theory that semi-fluid matter underlies earth’s crust.

Mentions David Forbes’s explanation of South American nitrate deposits.

Has followed CL’s advice not to reply directly to reviewers.

Summary

Hopes to get Asa Gray’s review of Origin republished.

Argues for single origin of mammals.

Encloses two phylogenetic diagrams indicating possible descent of mammals.

Comments on rodents, marsupials, and dingo in Australia,

and on a paper on the survival of stumps as a result of root grafting.

Argues that man had a single progenitor and consists of a single species.

Comments on destruction of non-white races.

Discusses introduction of rodents to islands by man.

Summary

Encloses advertisement [for C. R. Bree, Species not transmutable (1860)].

Discusses Bronn’s chapter of criticisms.

Mentions variation in rats.

Has ordered book by Bree.

Discusses suggestion that southern corners of Australia may once have been islands.

Mentions "wild speculations" about change in earth’s axes.

CL’s ideas on variation.

Summary

Is sick of hostile reviews but they have helped in showing where he must expatiate and expand in new edition of Origin.

Has more confidence in the general truth of his view. Disappointed THH does not think it more probable than he did at first.

Summary

Comments on Richard Owen’s review of the Origin [in Edinburgh Rev. 111 (1860): 487–532]. Considers Owen unfair to CD and most ungenerous toward Hooker.

Expects Sedgwick to be fierce against him. Sedgwick also misrepresented CD in his Spectator review [24 Mar and 7 Apr 1860].

Compares natural selection to the undulatory theory of light as a hypothesis explaining a large number of facts.