Summary

Praises and comments on JL’s essay on insects ["Origin of insects", J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11 (1873): 422–5].

Summary

Wants to hear from readers about the way in which the bee-orchid (Ophrys apifera) is fertilised. He has always found it to be self-fertilised but greatly doubts that the flowers of any plant are fertilised for generations by their own pollen. The bee-orchid has sticky glands, which would make it adapted for fertilisation by insects; this makes him want to hear what happens to its pollen-masses in places he has not observed.

Summary

Hybrid insects.

Description of the Salvages.

Variability of "transition groups" of insects; relation of variability to ranges of insects. The variability of wings, even within species. Reduction of flying ability on isolated islands.

Forbes’s "Atlantis" theory and insect fauna of the Atlantic islands, considered with regard to insect migrations.

Summary

Comments on BDW’s papers ["On certain entomological speculations of the New England school of naturalists", Proc. Entomol. Soc. Philadelphia 3 (1864): 207–49; "On insects inhabiting the galls of certain species of willow", ibid. 3 (1864): 543–644]; much is new to CD.

Asks about wide-ranging insect genera,

Rocky Mt. wingless insects,

willow hybrids,

galls,

and other subjects.

Summary

Sends her observations on Dionaea capturing insects. [See Insectivorous plants, pp. 311–12.]

Summary

Reports an Araujia in Portugal that captures various insects on the horns of its stigma. Relates this to another asclepiad, Apocynum, which also captures insects. Is this "insectivory" or insect fertilisation?

Summary

Sends Pinguicula vulgaris leaves with seeds on them, together with his observations on proportion of leaves with insects on them.

Summary

Discusses the possible explanation of why fly-orchid plants in a correspondent’s garden had no pollen-masses removed while Orchis maculata had all of its pollen-masses removed. CD points out that different orchids are fertilised by different insects. The insects needed to fertilise the fly-orchid may not have inhabited the site of the correspondent’s garden.

Summary

Again thanks CD for trouble in arranging for translation of Für Darwin.

Sends addition answering critics of his idea of insect metamorphosis [see Möller ed. 1915–21, 1: 259].

Agrees with Charles Lyell’s suggested English title "Facts and arguments in favor of Darwin", although perhaps more accurate to call it "Darwinism tested by Carcinology" or "Carcinology as bearing on the origin of species".

Says any profit should go to CD for his trouble and expense with the translation.

Thanks for seeds of Eschscholtzia.

Gives observations on number of climbing plants, including Dilleniacea, Marantacea, Catasetum.

Summary

Thanks for presentation copy of Linum paper [Collected papers 2: 93–105].

Ficus experiments confirm CD’s supposition that insects visit Melastoma for nectar, but HC thinks pollen-seekers fertilise the flowers.

Maranta fertilisation.

Summary

Sends specimens of Saxifraga tridactylites with insects caught by it. Asks if colour of leaves attracts insects.

Summary

Discusses his paper on CD’s Galapagos beetles ["Coleopterous insects … in the Galapagos Islands", Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 16 (1845): 19–41] which he will forward when printed. Has drawn up descriptions of several other insects from CD’s collections.

Summary

Observations on insects visiting Melastomataceae.

Summary

Sends letter from Fritz Müller [11191] containing observations on plants and insects of South Brazil, with prefatory comments.

Summary

Account of insects he has collected, with figures drawn by sister.

Summary

Discusses insect attraction to artificial flowers. CD’s experiments of 40 years ago failed, but Nägeli reported success by scenting them.

Summary

The Kentucky cave insects (Adelops) are evidently identical to European species of the same genus, some of which are cave insects, others found in damp, dark places.

Summary

Discusses insect specimens he left with FWH. Asks if he may state on FWH’s authority that a third or a half of the specimens from Sydney and Hobart Town are undescribed – a striking fact, showing imperfect knowledge of the insects in the close neighbourhood of the two Australian capitals.

Summary

Just finished HWB’s paper ["Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley", Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 23 (1862): 495–566], one of the most remarkable he has ever read. Found mimetic cases and connection of facts marvellous. Finds equally important the facts on variation and segregation of complete and semi-complete species. Questions whether insect mimicry is not due to small size and defencelessness. Criticises title of paper. Mentions that Wallace will appreciate it.

Summary

Thanks him for describing the niata ox.

He is delighted that GRW is grappling with Galápagos insects. Needs to know immediately whether any entomologists beside GRW, Walker and A. White have described his insects.