Summary

Preparations for trip to India. Thanks for testimonial.

Surprised by the self-fertility of CD’s peloric Antirrhinum.

Summary

Acknowledges JS’s excellent letter of 25 September. May CD assume that the gigantic worm-casts were nearly circular when measured before the rain?

That a medical man should always have the place of superintendent seems a piece of jobbery.

Mentions [George] King.

JS’s thin paper renders some words on other side almost illegible.

Summary

JS has now taken post of Curator of the Royal Botanic Garden, Calcutta.

Wishes to vindicate himself of the charge that he pursued his experiments at Edinburgh to the detriment of his work.

Apologises for poor quality of his Verbascum paper, which was written from his notes during the passage to India [J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 36 (1865) pt 2: 145–74].

Summary

Comments on CD’s Lythrum paper [Collected papers 2: 106–31]

and on H. Crüger’s orchid paper [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 8 (1865): 127–35].

May take position at Calcutta Botanic Garden.

Regrets he cannot be elected to Linnean Society.

Pleased Asa Gray has commented on JS’s paper.

Summary

Comments on his Primula paper [see 4213].

Describes his situation in Calcutta.

Summary

Discusses cost of trip to India and CD’s offer to advance sum. Thanks Hooker for assistance. Would prize a scientific testimonial from CD.

Summary

Discusses whether or not "male" Acropera bear fruit. JS’s interpretation of Acropera pollination is ingenious. Pollen-tubes of some cleistogamous flowers germinate in the anthers.

Summary

Tells JS Acropera capsule should be left to grow.

JS was correct on "bud-variation" in fern frond.

Does not believe Primula structure necessarily related to dioecism, but the difference in fertility of the two forms forced him to admit the possibility.

Summary

Encourages JS to publish on sterility of orchids and to experiment on Passiflora.

Doubted Hooker’s poppy case.

Describes case of primrose with three pistils: when pulled apart allowed pollen to be placed directly on ovules. This supports JS’s explanation of H. Crüger’s case.

Summary

Discusses the negative testimonial provided him by James McNab.

Sends testimonial from J. H. Balfour.

Would be glad if offered the sort of colonial opportunity Hooker suggests.

Summary

Surprised at CD’s account of Bryanthus.

H. Crüger’s approach to Gongora fertilisation is beset with difficulties.

Reports his work on self-sterility of Oncidium.

Summary

Sends Primula scotica and P. farinosa.

So far cannot fertilise Gongora atropurpurea although it is similar to Acropera luteola.

Experimenting on intergeneric hybrids to test CD’s view that sterility is not a special endowment.

Scott’s personal history.

Acropera capsule grows.

Plans for experiments CD has suggested on Primula, peloric Antirrhinum, and Verbascum.

Asks about Gärtner’s experiments on maize.

Aware of Anderson-Henry’s failures.

Through kindness of J. H. Balfour and James McNab, enjoys facilities for research. JS is in charge of the propagating department. Balfour almost engaged him to be superintendent of the Madras Horticultural Garden.

Summary

CD’s respect for JS’s indomitable work and interesting experiments increases steadily.

His gratitude for the primulas and the astonishing Gongora specimen.

Asks JS’s opinion about crossing a primrose with the pollen of a wild cowslip and of a cultivated polyanthus.

Summary

Encloses MS of his paper ["On individual sterility of Oncidium", J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 8 (1865): 162–7].

His next will be on Passiflora, Disemma, and Tacsonia [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 8 (1865): 197–206].

When he receives proofs of his Primula paper he will add CD’s case about equal-styled cowslip.

Summary

CD does not think he could be wrong about the stigma of Bolbophyllum.

Will not write up Drosera for years.

Praises JS’s experiments. Invites him to send a paper to Linnean Society.

L. C. Treviranus says all species of Primula present two forms except P. longiflora.

Summary

Letter of recommendation stating his high opinion of John Scott.

Summary

Criticises style of JS’s fern paper [Edinburgh New Philos. J. 2d ser. 16 (1862): 209–27].

JS’s remark on "the two sexes counteracting variability in the product of the one" is new to CD.

Does the female [fern?] plant always produce female by parthenogenesis?

They seem to work on same subjects; CD has much material on Drosera.

Does not understand JS’s objections to natural selection.

Offers to suggest experiments.

Summary

Supports, in his orchid paper, CD’s view that sterility occurs at random [Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 7 (1863): 543–50].

Cannot get his Drosera paper published [abstract in Edinburgh New Philos. J. 2d ser. 17 (1863): 317–18].

Summary

Sends Passiflora paper [see 4485].

Sends seeds of peloric Antirrhinum crossed by normal form and sends results of his experiments [table of crosses].

Summary

J. H. Balfour has arranged a position for him at a Cinchona nursery. Reluctant to take this position in part because of his experiments for CD.

Asks CD’s advice and solicits his aid in finding a better colonial position. James McNab mistreats him.