Summary

Doubts the fruit will stick on his Chinese double peach and asks TR to send him a couple when ripe.

Would like to grow seeds of the "curious monstrosity" of a wall-flower, to see whether the monstrosity is hereditary.

Summary

Discusses crosses in sweetpeas and the difference between monstrosities and slight variations. Discusses peloric flowers.

Thanks for correction about furze.

Summary

Monstrosity of fuchsia sent by GD not uncommon.

Does not recall bats at Galapagos.

Summary

Glad Dareste is candidate for Paris Chair. No subject more important than modification of structure by direct action of changed conditions, and Dareste has thrown much light on subject. Believes monstrosities cannot be separated from slighter variations.

Summary

Believes GM’s reported monstrosity is not rare. Does not believe it resulted from the effect of the imagination of the mother on her offspring.

Summary

Thanks RFA for extracts.

Does not believe resemblances can be produced as RFA suggests, but would not deny that a strong mental shock may cause arrest of embryonic development and thus give rise to monstrosities.

Summary

Thanks RM for his paper on mimicry.

Cannot answer RM’s query because he believes it impossible to define large variations.

Believes monstrosities are generally injurious and are not often, if ever, taken advantage of in nature.

Summary

On effect of external conditions: CD thinks all variability due to changes in conditions of life because there is more variability under unnatural domestic conditions than under nature, and changed conditions affect the reproductive organs. But why one seedling out of thousands presents some new character transcends the wildest powers of conjecture.

Not shaken by "saltus" – he had examined all cases of normal structure resembling monstrosities which appear per saltum. Has fought his tendency to attribute too much to natural selection; perhaps he has too much conquered it.

Summary

Dallas’ index [for Variation] well done but rather too full.

A hybrid from an ass and a bull is utterly incredible.

Summary

Thanks for monstrous floral specimen, but it is a common one.

Summary

Agassiz is strongly opposed to Origin, but CD thinks K. E. von Baer may come out in support.

Discusses the possibility of favourable monstrosities in the light of Theophilus Parsons’ essay ["On the origin of species", Am. J. Sci. 2d ser. 30 (1860): 1–13].

Summary

AG’s review of Alphonse de Candolle’s paper [Am. J. Sci. 2d ser. 35 (1863): 430–44] is excellent.

Does not AG consider that orchids oppose Oswald Heer’s view that species arise suddenly by monstrosities?

Infers that AG cannot explain the angles of phyllotaxy; has been looking at Carl Nägeli on the subject.

Reports Gaston de Saporta’s belief that natural selection will ultimately triumph in France.

Is working slowly at Variation.

Reports his observations on the imperfect flowers of Viola and Oxalis.

Summary

Encloses reviews by Asa Gray and Bronn. Comments on Bronn review. Mentions review by Wollaston.

Comments on paper by W. H. Harvey in Gardeners’ Chronicle [(1860): 145–6]. Discusses Harvey’s belief in the permanence of monsters.

Discusses CL’s objection that still-living primitive forms failed to develop.

The survival of Lepidosiren and other primitive types of fish and mammals.

Summary

Has not studied Geum, but suppression of one sex is not rare in plants.

Summary

Glad to hear of MTM’s papers [? "On a peloria and semidouble flower of Ophrys aranifera, Huds.", J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 8 (1865): 207–11 and "Observations on the morphology and anatomy of the genus Restio, Linn.", J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 8 (1865): 211–55].

CD doubts the value, for origin of species, of parallels between peloria in "distinct groups".

Gärtner proved the stigma can select its own pollen from a mixture of foreign pollens. But much evidence shows varieties of same species are prepotent over a plant’s own pollen.

MTM’s father [William] believes that variation goes on for a long time once it has commenced.

Summary

Gradation in the eye.

Hooker intends to reply [to W. H. Harvey’s article in Gard. Chron. (1860): 145–6].

Discusses Aspicarpa with respect to correlation.

Comments on monstrous animals.

Discusses objections of Bronn and Asa Gray to natural selection. Cites parallel between natural selection and Newton’s concept of gravitation.

Mentions German experiments on spontaneous generation.

Summary

Obliged for letter about appendages on faces of goats.

Summary

Sends MS of 13 pages in answer to Nägeli, for new edition of Origin [5th ed., p. 151].

Summary

Difficulty of distinguishing varieties and species. Did HCW suggest a printed list that might help?

Polymorphic genera.

Summary

Tells JS Acropera capsule should be left to grow.

JS was correct on "bud-variation" in fern frond.

Does not believe Primula structure necessarily related to dioecism, but the difference in fertility of the two forms forced him to admit the possibility.