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

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

Summary

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

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

Orders J. E. Tennent’s work on Ceylon [Sir James Emerson, afterwards Tennent, Ceylon, an account of the island, physical, historical, and topographical (1859)], and Richard Owen’s Classification and distribution of Mammalia [1859].

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

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

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

What a base dog Owen is for praising his own work in reviewing Origin [anonymously].

J. H. Balfour is narrow-minded.

CD cannot understand pollination of Goodenia.

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.

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

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

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

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

Owen wants to be civil, and sneer behind CD’s back.

Those, like Rudolph Wagner, who want to go halfway on theory, are "booked to go further".

Anatomy of orchids.

Huxley says K. E. von Baer goes "a great way with me".

Summary

Asks that a copy of Origin [1860] be sent to R. A. von Kölliker.

A venomous review "manifestly by Owen" has appeared in Edinburgh Review.

Sedgwick has been fierce in Spectator, but fair and open.

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

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

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

Urges JDH to work his essays into a book.

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