Bentham so impressed with JS's paper that he is invited to become Associate Member of Linnean Society.
Down Bromley | Kent
My dear Sir
I am very sorry to say that two pages are missing from your M.S. p. 5
& p. 6 as you will see in a portion of M
``R. Kipist Esq
If quite necessary no doubt your whole paper could be returned to you, or the first portion alone. I have heard that your paper was listened to with much interest by several botanists who were present.
Now for a new subject. The President Mr Bentham I presume was so much struck by your
paper that he sent me a message to know whether you w
The enclosed list shews what respectable men are Associates.
I enclose the rules of admission. I feel sure that the rule that if no communication is
I am dear Sir | yours sincerely | Ch. Darwin
- f1 4405.f1The year is established by the reference to the manuscript of Scott 1864a (see n. 2, below).
- f2 4405.f2The manuscript of Scott's paper `Observations on the functions and structure of the reproductive organs in the Primulaceæ' (Scott 1864a) was read at the Linnean Society on 4 February 1864. The enclosure from Richard Kippist, the librarian of the Linnean Society, has not been found.
- f3 4405.f3CD had read drafts of Scott 1864a before he sent it to the Linnean Society (see letter from John Scott, 7 January  and nn. 2--5).
- f4 4405.f4See letter from J. D. Hooker, 5 February 1864.
- f5 4405.f5George Bentham delivered this message to CD through Joseph Dalton Hooker (see letter from J. D. Hooker, [before 9 February 1864]).
- f6 4405.f6From 1861 onwards, the number of associates was limited to twenty-five; therefore a new associate was not always elected each year; the next election was not until 1866 (see letter from J. D. Hooker, [before 9 February 1864] and n. 3, and List of the Linnean Society of London 1866).
- f7 4405.f7The enclosure has not been found; however, CD probably sent the list of associates published in the List of the Linnean Society of London, 1863, p. 23.
- f8 4405.f8The enclosure has not been found; however, CD evidently sent the resolution regarding associates that was established in 1862. There was a requirement that associates living at a distance from London should make one scientific communication each year (see letter from J. D. Hooker, [before 9 February 1864] and n. 3). The 1862 resolution was not always enforced, and the interpretation of the charter and bye-laws by the Council tended not to be exacting (see Gage and Stearn 1988, pp. 61, 150).
- f9 4405.f9Neither CD nor Hooker proposed Scott for associateship in 1864 (see n. 6, above, and letter from J. D. Hooker, 29 March 1864), or later; after Scott left in August 1864 for India, Hooker informed CD that a bye-law restricted associateship to those residing in England (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 26[--8] October 1864 and n. 15). In fact, the bye-law restricted associateship to those residing in the British dominions (see letter from J. D. Hooker, [before 9 February 1864] and n. 3). Though India was not then designated a dominion (Palmer 1996), the term was probably used loosely; see also Gage and Stearn 1988, p. 198, who cite the qualification for associateship as residence within `the British Empire'. The next two associates elected, in 1866 and 1867, were Thomas Edward of Banff, Scotland, and Ralph Tate, then of Javali Mine, Nicaragua (List of the Linnean Society of London, 1866 and 1867). Scott was elected a fellow of the Linnean Society in 1873 (R. Desmond 1994).