Summary

Review of Origin in Gardeners’ Chronicle [31 Dec 1859].

Criticises views of J. G. Jeffreys on non-migration of shells. Cites case of Galapagos shells.

Mentions Edward Forbes’s theory of submerged continental extensions. Cites Hooker’s [introductory] essay [in Flora Tasmaniae (1860)] for evidence against any recent connection between Australia and New Zealand.

Discusses Huxley’s views of hybrid sterility.

Questions whether Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire believed in species change. Mentions views of Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.

The distribution of cave insects.

CD’s study of man.

The problems of locating French and German translators.

Huxley’s criticism of Owen’s views on human classification.

The sale of Origin.

Summary

Comments on corrections [in Origin, 2d ed. (1860)], especially on use of Wallace’s name.

Discusses human evolution with respect to CL’s work. Cites expression as a source of evidence.

Andrew Murray’s criticisms of the Origin involving blind insects in caves [Edinburgh New Philos. J. n.s. 11 (1860): 141–51].

Humorously describes human ancestors.

Summary

On the Origin. Before expressing his disagreements, CJFB praises CD’s labour, patience, fairness, and other qualities which make the work "one of the most important that has ever appeared in Natural History". [See 2690.]

Summary

Has read Origin and considers it one of the most valuable contributions to present-day natural history. Believes, however, that there are difficulties in the extensive generalisation that all taxonomic groups are related by descent. Does not understand how Genesis is to be read unless at least the human species was created independently of other animals. Cannot bring himself to the idea that man’s reasoning and moral sense could have been obtained from "irrational progenitors": the "Divine Image" is the unsurmountable distinction between man and brutes. [See 2644.]

Summary

To avoid possible misundertanding of his letter [2654] of that morning, CD wishes to make clear that he did not wish to imply that BP’s essay and the Vestiges of creation were in the same class. The more he thinks of it the more difficult he feels it would be to give a fair account of the authors who have maintained the modification of species. CD finds that he referred to BP’s views in the preface to his larger work [Natural selection], which was replaced by the Origin.

Summary

Prepared to think world infinitely old, but not that life originated with a single cell. Questions whether geological evidence supports gradual progress in organisation. HW thought scientific opinion during Vestiges debate was against this hypothesis. Argues that presence of same senses in lower animals and vertebrates does not imply descent; assumes resemblance is due to living in same world and thus having organs for the same purposes. Wants CD to know how others may see these questions.

Summary

Gives the results of crossing experiments; some interesting and curious facts.

Summary

Habits of ducks when sleeping on water.

Summary

CD is pleased by BP’s appreciative opinion of Origin. He never intended to claim that he originated the doctrine that species have not been independently created. The only novelty in his work is the attempt to explain how species became modified and how the theory of descent explains large classes of facts. If he has taken anything from BP, he has done so unconsciously. Gives names of those he would have mentioned in any account of authors who maintained that species have not been separately created.

CD greatly admires BP’s Philosophy of creation.

Summary

Queries on expression among Fuegians and Patagonians.

Summary

Very pleased with Asa Gray’s letter to JDH [see 2638], which is "rich on Agassiz".