My dear Sir

let me thank you very much for your candid critcisms on my paper:¹ they shew me where I have not only failed to convey my meaning but I think failed in reasoning also. Still on carefully reading your chapters 22 & 23 in y^r new Book: I think your conclusions are in reality not different from mine²

I wished to imply ⁠⟨⁠    ⁠⟩⁠ paper is so [cramped] that I have not expressed myself clearly.

1.) With regard to variation I wish for no better guide than yourself. What I meant to imply was, that if external circumstances,—especially you add perhaps, lots of food,—induce variation; What is the link between the former & the latter? upon what in the body do they act? if, on reproductive system, how? What is the internal cause of variability ⁠⟨⁠    ⁠⟩⁠ offspring?³ This I ⁠⟨⁠    ⁠⟩⁠ from your book is a question at present unanswerable. With regard to the Duke of Argyll saying your term “Origin of Species” is incorrect; it seems to me optional upon what link in the chain you set your finger & call it the “Origin”.!⁴

⁠⟨⁠2.⁠⟩⁠ With regard to “Grotesque & Fun”, I said that we are not called upon to say whether the Deity sees or appreciates the grotesque forms of organisms; but what I should look upon as intentional is the love of fun: in the creature, & for its benefit.— the playfulness of animals seems referable to law as much as everything else; if at least the stereotyped way in which all of the same species amuse themselves is any ground for assuming it e.g. Flies pirouetting near the ceiling— gnats on a summer even^g—Kittens after their own tails: but as a rule I think not puppies(?) porpoises, shrimps &c &c &c—& so on throughout animal life.⁵

I shall hope to find you at home about 12.45 ^p.m. on Tuesday next: if unsuccessful I will call again⁶

yrs very sincerely | Geo: Henslow