Dear Sir,

I hope to send you, as soon as I receive the extra numbers, a copy of my paper on “Self-Fertilization”, for although you will see it in the Transactions, I thought you would prefer to have one to annotate or criticize¹

May I take this opportunity to say that though I have ventured to criticize your conclusions given in your work of “Cross & Self-Fertilisation” I trust I have not done so in any hostile spirit. The fact is that until 1872 I was an ardent believer in the value of Cross-fertilization; but so many facts have seemed to accumulate; not only to negative the idea of any injuriousness, but to support the value of self-fertilization; that my faith in the supposed importance of intercrossing began to waver.²

I do not pretend to have solved the mystery of special adaptations in flowers: but what does appear to me to be conclusive, is that no physiological benefit can be proved to be permanent, or even more than transitory: Though morphological characters, by which varieties may be known, may be.

Finally, I venture to look at the question thus:— If you are right, then any attempt to disprove your conclusions will assuredly soon be shewn to be useless; and the truth will be established firmer than ever.— If, however, y^r. conclusions be erroneous; then, I think you will see, that the enormous weight which your name gives to them, will make the error a hundred times of more importance. My sole object is that the truth may discovered and established; and shall most gladly welcome any criticisms you may favour me with.

I am Dear Sir | Y^rs faithfully | Geo: Henslow