Summary

Had two mornings working on Drosera but it was sluggish. Frog preparations are pretty good.

Summary

Sends date of his mother’s death – 7 Apr 1859.

Was completely mystified by conjuring performance of [John Nevil] Maskelyne.

Summary

Wonders if it is possible that the couvade had its origin in an early habit of the male sex to take part in the nourishment of the offspring.

Summary

His opinion of the couvade.

Summary

Asks whether he might copy two of FJC’s drawings of Aldrovanda. He would like to have a proof of the plate for two woodcuts to be used in his forthcoming book [Insectivorous plants].

Summary

Asks permission to republish his climbing plants paper [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 9 (1867): 1–118] in a corrected form [Climbing plants].

Summary

Returning the plants DO had sent him from Kew

Summary

The generic name Genlisea must be preserved for Utriculariaceae with five-part calyces.

Summary

Disapproves of Huxley’s article [review of Ernst Haeckel’s Anthropogenie] in Academy [7 (1875): 16–18].

Summary

Has not heard from Mivart; CD is convinced he is a hypocrite.

Summary

Describes his views on vivisection. Cannot sign petition of F. P. Cobbe, with its attack on Rudolf Virchow.

Summary

CD would be pleased to have FBG’s essay dedicated to him but fears that he will be unable to give any assistance towards FBG’s ‘excellent scheme’.

Summary

Huxley strongly dissuades JDH from writing to Mivart because of his Presidency of Royal Society. JDH will hold his letter until he hears what Bentham says.

Summary

Has read FMM’s article in Contemporary Review [25 (1875): 305–26].

Never suspected FMM was responsible for the Quarterly Review article ["Primitive man", Q. Rev. 137 (1874): 40–77]; knows it was written by Mivart.

Summary

Encloses results of experiments on influence of snake poison on ciliary action and vegetable protoplasm.

Summary

Is not inclined to restrain himself from expressing his opinion of Mivart. Huxley’s article in Academy.

Summary

Thanks THH for his article in the Academy and his defence of CD and G. H. Darwin against Mivart. Still thinks he should write plainly to Mivart.

Summary

CD’s observations [for Insectivorous plants] seem to indicate that the same species of Genlisea may bear two kinds of bladders, so he asks for rhizomes and leaves of three species to test this possibility.

Summary

Asks DO to return enclosed post-card with locality of Genlisea aurea specimen that DO had sent.

Summary

Tyndall, T. A. Hirst and Spencer dissuade him from writing to Mivart, but he will let him feel his disapproval.