Dear Sir,

I have been unable to find the Review of your ‘Orchids’ which I promised to send—or at least the copy of it just then given me by one of my colleagues— But if you will not mind the trouble of returning it I will send a rough proof—& also (by way of complement) another article contra Scottos—which it is to be hoped they enjoyed, altho’ not nearly equal to their deserts.¹

When I first read the ‘Origin’ I made a list of errata & objections—but found them not worth sending.² I have only seen the first ed. & you must have long since corrected such errata as p. 49 Primula acuulis or p. 29 where “Herefords” were spoken of as if they were “Short-horns”—³ Did you notice when you came to see the Assyrian relics, the little bas-relief of the Tibetan mastiff?⁴ Its character is well represented—in contrast with ⁠⟨⁠the⁠⟩⁠ Syrian hunting dogs—

There was an obscure expression at p. 429 where you speak of no “single insect of a new order being found in Australia”— If any new order (i.e unknown elsewhere) should be f⁠⟨⁠ound⁠⟩⁠ there, it would surely be represented by many specie⁠⟨⁠s.⁠⟩⁠ The phrase appears to require inversion—⁵

Respecting that endless problem—the honeycomb! Mr Walter Mitchell objects that if the form of the cell results only from the necessity of the case (as I hold) then the chances are a million to one against the result we get—⁶ The cell of the humble bee is elliptical—& the chances are that the bottom of the honey bees’ cell will be elliptical—or more or less obtuse than it is now. But I cannot see the force of this objection as the chances are the same against any form you may please to imagine—& not more against the true sphere than the spheroid— The shape & proportions of the honey bee being what they are it must strike a circle—or excavate a segment of a sphere— If it were more acute or more obtuse it would make something different—but I can’t see any reason why it shouldn’t just as soon happen to be— what it is—

Mr Mitchell could understand the form of the bees’ cell if wax had a hexagonal cleavage like graphite (which is C’.) But according to the accepted doctrine it must have a cleavage (whether apparent to us or not) at right angles to the incidence of pressure—& that (according to my notion) will be such as to give hexagonal cleavage—

⁠⟨⁠six lines excised⁠⟩⁠

If you come to a — edn. I hope you will erase all mention of Buckman’s exp^ts. at Cirencester—⁷ it will be better not to mention his name than give it with the admission made in ed. 1. I went to see my old “B.G.” at Cisseter under Buckman’s managem^t, & took care to examine it alone—⁸ “What I saw there I will not declare”—⁹ But it will be sufficient to say that one of the students (who owed the Prof. a grudge) confessed to R. Tomes (vespertilio)¹⁰ that he himself had mixed the seeds intended for experiment in the Botanic Garden—

Have you met Mr Lord? the traveller in Oregon—¹¹ He brought up the other day, (just before you came) two varieties of Musk rat— One builds houses out in the water, like the Beaver— the other burrows in the bank & only makes sub-aqueous runs— Yet Waterhouse would not admit any difference in the animals!¹²

⁠⟨⁠six lines excised⁠⟩⁠ roots chiefly, are not nearly so formidable as described— Whereas the same species on the East flank of the Rocky mtns feeding on Bisons (left by the Indian Hunters) become large & heavy & very savage.¹³

Yours sincerely | S. P. Woodward

Cha^s Darwin Esq^e