Summary

Asks to borrow specimen of Pollicipes from the Chalk.

Summary

Thanks J. D. Dana for cirripede specimens. Describes his work. Comments on Ibla. Would like to see AAG’s notes and figures on Anatifa. Asks for references to cirripede descriptions by T. A. Conrad.

Summary

Thanks AH for specimens of Alcippe.

Discusses capacity of Lithotrya to bore its own hole. Believes Arthrobalanus also makes cavities this way.

Asks to see paper on cirripedes by Sven Lovén.

Comments on paper by AH [see 1253].

Summary

Encloses diagram illustrating difference between Chthamalus and Balanus. Specimens sent. Finds no Chthamalus in WT’s collection.

Has read with much interest WT’s book [The natural history of Ireland, vol. 1 (1849)].

Recommends E. S. Dixon’s book [Ornamental and domestic poultry; their history and management (1848)].

Summary

Requests JPM’s assistance by lending or giving him cirripede specimens. The anatomy of cirripedes has been most imperfectly done, and their classification is a perfect chaos.

Summary

CD is distressed that JS’s shipment of fossils has been lost: "of all the Cirripedes in the world, I most wish to dissect the Alepas squalicola". Welcomes JS’s offer to send some northern recent species. CD finds great confusion in the current classification of cirripedes in British museums; different genera are made into one species, mere varieties are made into distinct species. If JS would give him some named common northern species, it would be of great assistance.

Summary

Discusses cirripedes collected by JDD.

Gratified that he agrees "to some extent" with CD’s views on coral reefs.

Mentions his health.

Asks for JDD’s publication on cirripedes.

Sends message from William Baird concerning Crustacea research of J. O. Westwood.

Mentions Joseph Leidy’s discovery of cirripede eyes.

Summary

HES’s arguments are of great weight, but CD cannot yet bring himself to reject well-known names for obscure ones. Sends four cases that he thinks will stagger HES. Cites his problems in classifying cirripedes. CD cannot bear to give new names, yet may do wrong to attach old ones. Not one species is correctly defined. The harm done by "species mongers".

Summary

Thanks him for specimens of Alcippe.

Comments on sketches by AH and on cirripede paper by Lovén.

Discusses Lithotrya and its burrowing habits.

Summary

Has altered and added to HES’s list [compiled for Bibliographia zoologiæ et geologiæ, edited by Louis Agassiz and enlarged by HES, (1848–54)].

On zoological nomenclature CD cites a case in which he believes more harm than good would be done by following the rule of priority. Thinks the rule of the first describer’s name being attached in perpetuity to a species has been the greatest curse to natural history. Every genus of cirripedes has a half-dozen names and not one careful description.

Sends a paper he once wrote [missing] on the subject [of zoological nomenclature].

Summary

Comments on JDD’s book [Geology (1849)]. Is sending copies of various geological papers. Their agreements and differences on coral reefs, volcanic geology, denudation, and subsidence.

Comments on Robert Chambers’ book [Ancient sea-margins (1848)].

Asks to borrow cirripede specimens.

Summary

Describes his research on cirripedes.

Comments on paper by AH ["Notice of a burrowing barnacle", Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 2d ser. 4 (1849): 305–14]. Asks to borrow specimens.

Summary

CD partly right. JDH was calling "stratification" what CD calls "foliation". Answers CD’s question on cleavage foliation in Himalayas. Glacial action.

Charmed by CD’s Admiralty instructions on geology [in Manual of scientific enquiry (1849), Collected papers 1: 227–50], but complains he does not give prices of books and instruments he recommends.

Summary

The priority rule has only diverted vanity to a rush to be first. Has no objection to CD’s suggestion that good books be quoted in preference to first descriptions if there is a chance by this means of developing this silly vanity into ambition to advance knowledge. Still, this must not affect the rule of priority. Responds to CD’s four cases.

Summary

Discusses the new genus, Alcippe, described by AH ["Notice of the occurrence on the British coast of a burrowing barnacle", Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 2d ser. 4 (1849): 305–14]. Comments on Lithotrya, Clitia, and Anatifa. Discusses cirripede larvae. Asks which Mollusca specimens AH wishes to borrow.

Summary

Physical description of Sikkim mountains.

Travelling through Kinchin snows.

Transported boulders.

Summary

CD is obliged to put off his journey to Paris because of ill-health, but this will give CD more time to study the specimens.

Values HM-E’s opinion on CD’s barnacle work more than any man’s in Europe.

Summary

Pleasure at receiving CD’s scientific letters to JDH and Hodgson.

The H. Wedgwoods’ pecuniary loss.

Condolences at CD’s father’s death.

Rajah harasses JDH’s work. Lack of supplies, rain, malarial valleys, and landslips make going difficult. Cannot get into Tibet.

"Twenty species [of plants] here [Camp Sikkim] to one there [Tierra del Fuego?] always are asking me the vexed question, ""where do we come from?""."

From observation of terraces descending to steppes and plains of India, he thinks that the Himalayas were once a grand fiord coast.

Has information CD requested on Yangsma valley. JDH’s detailed hypothesis of origin of dam there. Does not agree with CD’s interpretation.