My dear Mr Darwin

Tho’ you desire me not to answer your letter of 17^th. I will do so after a sort.¹ Assume that the quasi-popular monthly botanical journal “The British Botanist” tries its luck next year,—which is likely, not quite certain.² In such case, could you address a letter to it, much like the one to me, pointing out the observations you deem desirable to be made on the associated or dissevered distribution of allied subspecies. This would not only justify me in citing instances, but probably elicit facts from other botanists, bearing on the same question. In such a matter the knowledge or experience of any one individual should be confirmed or corrected by the eyes & understandings of others, who know what to distinguish, & what names to use.

When you are again within reach of Cybele Britannica Suppl^t., if you will refer to the middle parag^h. of page 45 & examples in sequence,—you will see an allusion to one of the difficulties which prevent an accurate tracing out of the localities & distribution of subspecies; viz the dubiety of the records, arising from the diverse applications of the same name,—to A, to B, to C, or inclusively to ABC.³

Your letter was found here on my return from a day in town, bringing Maw’s review of the ‘Origin’ with me.⁴ Though aware of his intention to review, & even having recommended him to wait the 3^d. edition before printing, I did not know whether he would be in support or opposition. He is more opposed than I had expected to find him. Surely Maw himself misconceives your views where he corrects Bree at the bottom of page 7578?⁵ As you think that existing species can change into other species, by a very gradual accumulation of slight variations, you do really believe in & contend for transmutation of highly developed forms into some other (more or less different) highly developed forms,—which Maw seems to suppose outside your doctrine.

Is not Mr. D. himself slightly contradictory of himself, in his remarks on Habenaria bifolia & chlorantha?⁶ If they “deserve to be called distinct species” because fertilized in a different manner by Moths,—a test to separate species & varieties is found or supposed.— Why cannot two varieties be fertilized differently, as well as two species? De facto, however, you are probably right; because by species you really mean only wider varieties or races, and each additional difference helps to widen.

Believe me, very faithfully Yours | Hewett C. Watson

P.S. You must just now be a close neighbour of my cousin Hercules Scott,⁷ who is likely to look on you as a dreadful person; being something more opposed to your views than Maw is in the parag^h. divided between pages 7609 & 7610,⁸ that is, if he knows them at all.