Has found plenty of male Alcippe on specimens. Would eventually like more specimens. Did not recognise males at first. Has found Alcippe difficult to make out.
Down Farnborough Kent
My dear Sir
I trouble you with one line to say that amongst the few remaining & on the cut
up & previously (imperfectly as it turns out) examined specimens, I have found
plenty of Male Alcippes,—indeed hardly any without some: so that I
am in no want of more specimens at present, I
Yours very truly | C. Darwin
- f1 1500.f1See letter to Albany Hancock, 29 January .
- f2 1500.f2In Living Cirripedia (1854), CD stated he had actually thrown the males away at first, believing them to be Bryozoa. ‘Subsequently, a more careful inspection immediately showed the cemented prehensile antennæ, and their cirripedial nature was demonstrated.’ (p. 555).
- f3 1500.f3Hancock was co-author of A monograph of the British nudibranchiate Mollusca (Alder and Hancock 1845–55), published by the Ray Society. A copy is in the Darwin Library–CUL.
- f4 1500.f4‘In the classification of the whole class I have not felt so much doubt, as whether I ought to institute a family for the reception of this genus.’ (Living Cirripedia (1854): 527). CD finally decided to place Alcippe within the Lepadidae, giving greater weight to its sexual relations shared with the genera Ibla and Scalpellum than to gross anatomical differences. Modern classification schemes, however, rely on the reduced number of thoracic limbs and absence of abdominal segments and rank Alcippe and Cryptophialus together in a separate order, the Acrothoracica. For Hancock's view, see letter from Albany Hancock, 25 February 1853.