Summary

Did not think anyone would notice case of Lathyrus.

Recalls reading correspondent’s paper on great fir woods of Hampshire.

Thanks for photograph.

Summary

Will judge CD’s book [Origin] free from two superstitions: the dogma of the permanent species and the need of an act of intervention to bring change.

Summary

Thanks CK for allowing him to insert his "admirable sentence" [in Origin, 2d ed., p. 481].

Summary

Is very glad CK wrote the article My Winter Garden (Kingsley 1858), which CD enjoyed.

Thinks CK should read abstracts of Living Cirripedia (1851) and Living Cirripedia (1854), and then, if he is particularly interested, borrow the actual volumes, rather than purchase them.

Summary

Thanks for note; sends photograph taken by one of his sons.

His continued ill-health has prevented him making the acquaintance of many.

Summary

CK defended CD’s theory at a shooting party with the Bishop of Oxford, the Duke of Argyll, and Lord Ashburton. The discussion started as a result of shooting some blue rock-pigeons which were different from blue rocks of other localities. CK held that all pigeons were descended from one species.

CK proposed that mythological races, e.g., elves and dwarfs, were intermediate species between man and apes, and have become extinct by natural selection; i.e., by competition with a superior white race of man.

Summary

Comments on CK’s letter [3426].

Identifies species of pigeon shot by party.

On CK’s "grand and awful" notion of genealogy of man, CD recalls how revolting was the thought that his ancestors must have been like the Fuegians. His present belief that they were hairy beasts is less revolting.

Summary

Requests CD’s photograph.

Summary

Thanks for CD’s photograph.

Summary

CD’s paper on "Climbing plants" [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 9 (1867): 1–118] has made nature come alive for CK.

Summary

Asks for CD’s opinion of the manner of migration of the eye of flatfish.

Summary

Thanks for information about the publication of CK’s lectures.

Discusses the migration of the eye in flatfish.

Summary

Regrets that he is too busy getting his book [Variation] ready for publication to contribute an article to Fraser’s Magazine.

Summary

Criticises the Duke of Argyll’s book [Reign of law (1867)], particularly on sexual selection.

But CD overlooks God’s intention to instruct man by nature’s beauty.

Criticism of anonymous article in North British Review [by Fleeming Jenkin, 46 (1867): 277–318].

CK supports large sports in response to large environmental changes.

Summary

Discusses the Duke of Argyll’s book [Reign of law (1867)].

Cites his own views on diversity of structure and beauty.

Encloses letter from Wallace. Sexual selection: evidence advanced by Wallace.

Discusses correlation of growth.

Comments on article in the North British Review [by Fleeming Jenkin].

Discusses the evidence from physics on the age of the earth.

[Four pages of the final letter are missing, but the draft is complete.]

Summary

Sends a letter he wrote in 1862 [see 3482].

Summary

He had no idea that the double function of an excretory passage had played a part in the history of religion.

Summary

Remarks on Darwinism’s reception. The radical press shies away, out of ignorance, because CD may be made out to be a Tory. He has met a Darwinian Marchioness.

The mystery of sex is the origin of all religion.

Summary

Discusses the reception of CD’s views at Cambridge and elsewhere.

Variation delayed by the index, but will appear at the end of the year.

Summary

CK is drawn into discussions of Darwinism everywhere in Cambridge. The climate has changed in the past three years: the younger M.A.s are greedy to know more and the criticism of the older Fellows has a new tone.