Summary

Pleased CD has had his [FH’s] orchid paper published [Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 3d ser. 12 (1863): 169–74].

Extension of CD’s Primula heterostyly work.

Summary

He and L. C. Treviranus have repeated many of CD’s orchid observations with the same results. Sends his paper ["Fruchtbildung der Orchideen", Bot. Ztg. 21 (1863): 329–33, 337–45].

Summary

Comments on FH’s paper ["Fruchtbildung der Orchideen", Bot. Ztg. 21 (1863): 329–33, 337–45]. Annals and Magazine of Natural History will publish it in September [3d ser. 12 (1863): 169–74].

Summary

ED writes on behalf of her husband, who is ill, to thank FH for his letter

and to thank [L. C.] Treviranus for his paper on orchids.

CD wishes to know whether Orchis pyramidalis grows in FH’s neighbourhood. He needs a fresh specimen to compare the stigma with those grown locally.

Summary

Studying insect pollination in Salvia

and heterostyly in Pulmonaria officinalis which is similar to Linum case.

Summary

Sends F. Hildebrand’s paper for publication by the Linnean Society or in Natural History Review.

Summary

Discusses the orchid specimens received from MTM. Remarks on the self-sterility of Cypripedium and other orchids.

Summary

Differences between tendrils derived from leaves and those derived from branches.

CD on Asa Gray’s attitude on the Civil War.

Summary

Hildebrand’s paper is unsuitable for the Natural History Review.

Summary

Can only conjecture that the problem occurs because the plant is not living in its natural conditions. Refers to what he said on Acropera [in Orchids]. Many plants under culture have sexual functions altered.

Asks PHG to look at bee Ophrys at Torquay to see if pollinia are ever removed. "It is my greatest puzzle."

Summary

Criticises article by TM. "Such a manner of treating the work of other observers did not appear to me the way to encourage truth."

Summary

Enthusiastic about JDH’s plan for a British Flora – "a grand idea to make a Flora a guide for knowledge already acquired & to be acquired". Gives examples of subjects.

No work exists on various biological points in plants.

Summary

Sees difficulty of placing Scott at Kew. Suspects Balfour is prejudiced because Scott is a Darwinian.

CD’s former letter on Clematis [4403] blundered; work now being revised.

Summary

Praise for Cross and self-fertilisation: most important point proved is benefit of crossing between related individuals grown under different conditions. This explains adaptive value of dispersal mechanisms.

Summary

Thanks JS for orchid paper [Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 7 (1863): 543–50]. JS presents excellent new facts on sterility of orchids.

His argument that coloured primroses are not hybrids is good, as is idea of discovering primrose parentage by breeding for colours.

Summary

Tendril-bearing plants seem to CD "higher" organised with respect to adaptive sensibility than lower animals.

Wishes to encourage John Scott.

Death of JDH’s daughter makes CD cry over his own dead daughter Annie.

Sedgwick’s scientific merit.

Summary

Encourages JS to continue work on coloured primrose. No one has noticed this since Gärtner. CD will send his own data for JS’s use and will read MS when ready. Advises JS to repeat experiments if evidence is weak – for his reputation’s sake and for satisfaction at fully establishing a fact.

Treviranus made a slip of pen in writing of Primula longiflora as short-styled.

Summary

Would be obliged for correction of references in Variation [1st ed.].

Summary

Thanks for AG’s review of Forms of flowers [Am. J. Sci. 3d ser. 15 (1878): 67–73].

Thomas Carlyle’s letter about CD was a forgery.

Gives Hermann Müller’s observations on Valeriana dioica.

Is unsure about function of "bloom"; are glaucous plants more or less common in arid parts of U. S.?

Observations on heliotropism.

Thomas Meehan reports that Linum perenne is self-fertile; CD thinks that he has mistaken the species.

Summary

Fertilisation in orchids: Friedrich Hildebrand’s paper.

Self-sterility.

Climbing plants.

Agassiz’s attempts to eliminate all Darwinian views.