Thanks JSH for his defence [see 2794].
He is not hurt for long by what his attackers say. His conclusions were arrived at after long study. He has certainly erred, but not so much as "Sedgwick and Co." think.
Asks JSH to send names of plants that vary greatly in length of pistil.
Down Bromley Kent
My dear Henslow
I have been greatly interested by your letter to Hooker;
& I must thank you from my heart for so generously defending me as far as you
could against my powerful attackers.— Nothing which persons say
hurts me for long, for I have entire conviction that I have not been influenced by bad
feelings in the conclusions at which I have arrived. Nor have I published my conclusions
without long deliberation & they were arrived at after far more study than the
publick will ever know of or believe in.— I am certain to have
erred in many points, but I do not believe so much as Sedgwick &
Co. think. Is there any Abstract or Proceedings of the Cambridge Phil.
Soc. published? If so & you could get me a copy I sh
Believe me my dear Henslow I feel grateful to you on this occasion & for the multitude of kindnesses you have done me from my earliest days at Cambridge.—
Yours affectionately | C. Darwin
P.S. I think I remember your observing that the pistil in different flowers of
cowslips & Primroses varies much in length. From
observations which I have been making I have strong suspicion that they (&
Auriculas) are dioicous; but I shall know this autumn, for I
have marked what I consider the male & female plants.
Why I mention this to you, is that I have a vague remembrance of your stating that some
other plants varied greatly in length of pistil; if so I sh
- f1 2801.f1Letter from J. S. Henslow to J. D. Hooker, 10 May 1860. Henslow had asked Hooker to send it on to CD.
- f2 2801.f2Adam Sedgwick's paper criticising Origin was not published in the Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, but a report of its contents was given in the Cambridge Chronicle, 19 May 1860, pp. 4--5, and in the Literary Gazette, 12 May 1860, p. 582. See letter to J. S. Henslow, 17 May .
- f3 2801.f3Henslow 1830.
- f4 2801.f4CD's Experimental book, p. 54 (DAR 157a) contains an entry dated 12 May indicating that CD examined `some common Auriculas supplied by M
rCattell'. See also letter from John Cattell, 12 May 1860.
- f5 2801.f5See the following letter and the letter to J. D. Hooker, 7 May . In a paper on the dimorphic condition of Primula published in 1861, CD suggested that these hermaphroditic plants were possibly in the process of becoming dioecious. Contrary to his expectations, the short-styled flowers produced more seed than the long-styled forms, and hence were more likely to become the future females. See `On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations', Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society (Botany) 6 (1862): 77--96; Collected papers 2: 45--63.