Asks whether CD’s conclusions on cross- and self-fertilising plants agree with his own as set out in a notice in Nature [14 (1876): 543–4].

Thanks for CD’s book [Cross and self-fertilisation] and information on protandry and protogyny.

Health better, but paralysis lingers.

Discusses various authors’ interpretations of the structure of the embryo of grasses.

GH no longer believes in the value of cross-fertilisation in plants.

Has made observations on pollination mechanism in Medicago sativa [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 9 (1867): 327–9], which his brother-in-law [J. D. Hooker] would accept. Wants to check that CD has not already made them.

Also sends interpretation of Salvia.

His observations come from following CD’s generalisation in Origin [p. 79] on necessity of out-crossing.

Pleased CD confirms his observations on Salvia.

Spring action of Medicago stamens described.

Has been writing a review of CD’s "Climbing plants" for Popular Science Review [5 (1866): 55–65].

Reviewing C. V. Naudin’s article ["Nouvelles recherches sur l’hybridité dans les végétaux", Ann. Sci. Nat. (Bot.) 4th ser. 19 (1863): 180–203] for Popular Science Review [5 (1866): 304–13]. Requests references.

Proposes to visit Down on Easter weekend.

Thanks for references for his Naudin–hybridism paper [see 5029].

Forgot to thank CD for his praise of tendril paper [see 4944].

Cannot come to Down on weekend because of teaching duties.

Sends copies of Science gossip and The leisure hour.

Enjoyed visit.

His criticism of Primula fertility referred to table 2 [Collected papers 2: 56] where weight of seeds produced from good pods by long-styled homostylous cross and short-styled heterostylous cross are virtually identical.

Has written his Naudin–hybridism article [Pop. Sci. Rev. 5 (1866): 304–13]. Would like CD to criticise proofs.

Will return books borrowed from CD.

Sends proofs [of "On hybridization among plants", Pop. Sci. Rev. 5 (1866): 304–13].

Regrets delay in returning CD’s books.

Encourages CD to make "disparaging remarks".

Thanks for criticism of proofs of his paper [see 5117].

Not sure whether CD believes in reversion and would like a positive statement as this is the one point C. V. Naudin especially observed. Naudin offers his remarks on ovules as a matter to be proved ["Nouvelles recherches sur l’hybridité", Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. 1 (1865): 25–176].

Has altered paper according to CD’s comments.

Returns books.

Thanks CD for his interesting papers.

Proposes writing a note for Linnean Society ["Note on the structure of Genista tinctoria", J. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 10 (1869): 468], in part using information CD gave him at Down.

Asks for CD’s "candid criticisms" of his paper [on Variation].

Thanks for criticism of his paper [on Variation].

If external conditions induce variability, what is the internal cause?

Does not agree with Duke of Argyll that "Origin of Species" is an incorrect term.

Sees playfulness of animals as a mark of the Deity’s creative playfulness.

Will visit soon.