Summary

CD, commenting on a case of peloric flowering in Auricula, urges readers to send in their observations on whether flowers nearest the axis tend to differ from others on the plant. Such a law of variation would be worth discovering.

Summary

Congratulates THH on first number of Natural History Review.

THH’s article on brain ["On the zoological relations of man with the lower animals", Nat. Hist. Rev. (1861): 67–84] completely smashes Owen.

Owen’s Leeds address [Rep. BAAS (1858): xlix–cx].

In his historical sketch of opinion on species CD has picked out some sentences [by Owen] with which he will take some revenge. CD is not bold enough to come to an open quarrel.

Summary

Regrets he does not have pedigree of CL’s "pretty pony", but assures him information was very useful, "more especially as it confirms what I heard from Norway & did not know whether fully to believe".

Summary

Trusts DO’s opinion on Acropera ovules.

Summary

CD’s orchid paper is to become orchid book [Orchids].

Primula paper is done [Collected papers 2: 45–63].

Summary

CD thanks correspondents for information relating to the fertilisation of Pelargonium and of wheat. Suggests further observations and experiments.

Summary

GR’s letter is a gold-mine.

Pleased to have Pierre Gratiolet’s comment on the embryology of greatly modified organs

and GR’s valuable cases of analogous variation.

Doubts craniologists, but recounts his father’s opinion that the shape of CD’s head was altered when he returned from the Beagle.

Summary

Requests that DO examine enclosed microscope slides of Acropera ovules, to confirm CD’s opinion that females are non-functional.

Can DO comment on disagreement between Robert Brown and John Lindley over the number of Acropera carpels?

O. Heer’s Atlantis theory vs CD’s hypothesis of a migration north during warm periods.