Discusses primrose ovules,
Atlantis paper [Nat. Hist. Rev. (1862): 149–70],
My dear Sir
How very kind you are to write me at such length!—
The whole paper however you may think so stupid & obscure & devoid of
interest that I may have to burn it.— It is what I have hastily sketched out
for N.H.R. You understand these things so infinitely better than I
that you perhaps think me very foolish. You see it is anonymous!— Pray tell me
if you think it worth putting in;—that is if you can find time to look at it.
If you do not burn it w
To write popularly I must learn how.— I am so stupid with a pen, that I believe one ought to sit down & attempt not to ``write a paper''—but to ``talk one''
The Corydalis with hole bit in at top we thought might be C. Marschalliana, but it was a doubtful plant rather. I shall write about the Primula farinosa.
The Campanula I mention in the M.S.S.— as Brongiart had previously described similar structure I shall not write about it to Linn. Soc. The closed membrane was new to me over the sexual organs where I found it & extremely interesting. You see I have stopped at 2 kinds of dimorphism doubtless this may be my ignorance. The thing is difficult to put in words—defining the kinds.— Now I must beg you excuse all this trouble.
I am not clear that I wholly apprehend your observat
Very sincerely Yours | Da
- f1 3722.f1See letter to Daniel Oliver, 12 [April 1862].
- f2 3722.f2Walter Hood Fitch, a botanical artist at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, had drawn the illustrations for CD's paper, `Dimorphic condition in Primula' (see letter to Daniel Oliver, 12 [April 1862]).
- f3 3722.f3Oliver had observed a difference in the size of the ovules of long- and short-styled forms of Primula; on repeating the observation, CD had found the size difference to be the reverse of that described by Oliver (see letter from Daniel Oliver, 10 April 1862, and letter to Daniel Oliver, 12 [April 1862]).
- f4 3722.f4Oliver refers to the manuscript of his review of CD's paper on Primula ([Oliver] 1862c; see letter to Daniel Oliver, 15 April ). Oliver repeated his observations, apparently without modification, in ibid., p. 237.
- f5 3722.f5Oliver 1862b.
- f6 3722.f6See letter to Daniel Oliver, 12 [April 1862]. Oliver refers to those who, like Louis Agassiz, advocated multiple centres of creation to account for sporadic or disjunct species (see Rehbock 1983, p. 152, and Browne 1983, pp. 138--44).
- f7 3722.f7Oliver had offered to acquire for CD specimens of Primula farinosa (see letter from Daniel Oliver, 10 April 1862 and n. 9).
- f8 3722.f8See letter from Daniel Oliver, 10 April 1862. Oliver refers to Brongniart 1839.
- f9 3722.f9In [Oliver] 1862c, p. 236, Oliver stated:
We may … rudely group the kinds of dimorphism exhibited in the flower under two heads. First, a dimorphism, apparently favourable to variation, marked primarily by a partial or complete separation of the sexes, which may be accompanied or not by alteration in the form or arrangement of the parts of the perianth surrounding them; and, second, a dimorphism, conservative, and unfavourable to variation, marked primarily by an alteration in the form or arrangement … of the outer whorls of the flower, which more or less completely enclose and seal up the sexual organs, which are never wholly separated.
- f10 3722.f10See letter to Daniel Oliver, 12 [April 1862].