Summary

Comments on AG’s memoir on Japanese plants [see 2599]; relationship of Japanese flora to N. American.

Summary

Will be glad to have SPW’s criticisms of Origin.

Discusses his use of terms, "typical" and "specialisation".

Emphasises large body of facts explained by his theory of species.

Summary

JDH has settled the Leschenaultia case, but it remains a difficulty to CD.

Goodenia, like bee orchid, seems a case of a structure with an evident function, which is not carried out. Is curvature of styles an incidental result of growth or a pollination adaptation?

Summary

Progress of [Thomas?] Thomson and G. H. K. Thwaites on accepting mutability.

Bee orchid pollination.

JDH has written to CD on homologies of stigma in Goodeniaceae.

Summary

Huxley’s Royal Institution lecture on Origin [10 Feb 1860, Not. Proc. R. Inst. G. B. 3 (1858–62): 195–200] an "entire failure" as an exposition of CD’s doctrine.

R. I. Murchison very civil.

CD counts Lyell among the converted.

Summary

Opinions on the Origin: AG thinks it masterly; Agassiz considers it very poor.

Summary

Urges JDH to work his essays into a book.

CD’s historical sketch ends with JDH’s introductory essay to Flora Tasmaniae.

Summary

Thanks for interesting letter which confirms belief that a good observer is a good theorist.

He is glad to hear that HWB, with his wide knowledge of natural history, has anticipated CD in many respects and agrees with the Origin.

Has been thoroughly attacked, especially by entomologists – J. O. Westwood, T. V. Wollaston, and Andrew Murray.

Glad HWB is writing on "equatorial refrigeration"; CD expresses his belief in north to south migration during glacial period.

Summary

Convinced selection is the efficient cause. Less convinced of physical causes than JDH because he sees adaptation everywhere and that must be due to selection.

Summary

High praise and detailed comments on JDH’s introductory essay to Flora Tasmaniae, which CD has now finished reading.

Disagrees on power of transoceanic migration. Advocates glacial transport of plants.

CD’s response to reviews of Origin in Saturday Review [8 (1859): 775–6] and John Lindley’s in Gardeners’ Chronicle [but see 2651].

Summary

Pleasure in ARW’s approbation of the Origin. Other supporters among scientists. ARW’s generosity.

Attacks by Owen, Sedgwick, and others.

Anticipation of natural selection by Matthew in 1830.

Summary

CD’s list of fifteen converts. His opinions on opponents and supporters.

Summary

Encourages CD’s work in vegetable physiology.

Ascending the Lebanon JDH noted limits of plant distribution as CD requested: lower limits of a genus sharper than upper. Sharpness of boundaries related to a plant’s moisture requirement.

Impressed by "sporadic" distribution at the Jardin des Plantes in Paris.

Summary

The stone hatchets are a great muddle. Would like a copy of Jacques Boucher [de Crèvecoeur] de Perthes’s book [Antiquités Celtiques et antédiluviennes (1847–64)].

Is studying action of carbonate of ammonia on Drosera. Asks if this has been done.

Summary

Praises CL’s work on human species.

A critical review of Origin in Saturday Review [24 Dec 1859].

A letter from J. G. Jeffreys criticises CD’s geological statements.

A note from William Whewell concerning Origin.

Summary

CD’s divergent series explains those anomalous plants that hover between what would otherwise be two species in a genus.

Inclined to see conifers as a sub-series of dicotyledons that developed in parallel to monocotyledons, but retained cryptogamic characters.

Mentions H. C. Watson’s view of variations.

Man has destroyed more species than he has created varieties.

Variations are centrifugal because the chances are a million to one that identity of form once lost will return.

In the human race, we find no reversion "that would lead us to confound a man with his ancestors".

Summary

Has received second part of AG’s Atlantic Monthly article ["Darwin on the origin of species", 6 (1860): 109–16, 229–39], and would like to have it reprinted in England with the first part.

Regrets no reviewer has touched upon embryology, which he feels provides one of his strongest arguments.

Summary

Comments on Richard Owen’s review of the Origin [in Edinburgh Rev. 111 (1860): 487–532]. Considers Owen unfair to CD and most ungenerous toward Hooker.

Expects Sedgwick to be fierce against him. Sedgwick also misrepresented CD in his Spectator review [24 Mar and 7 Apr 1860].

Compares natural selection to the undulatory theory of light as a hypothesis explaining a large number of facts.

Summary

CD preparing historical sketch, which will go into second American edition of Origin.

Asks JDH to copy out Naudin’s line on finality.

Summary

Agassiz denounces Origin as "atheistical";

AG is currently reviewing it [in Am. J. Sci. 2d ser. 29 (1860): 153–84].

Jeffries Wyman praises it, though not a convert.