Asks GB’s help to clear up discrepancies between his and John Lindley’s observations on pollination of Melastomataceae.
Showing 21–39 of 39 items
Asks GB’s help to clear up discrepancies between his and John Lindley’s observations on pollination of Melastomataceae.
Will try to come to Linnean Society to read his paper, but has been "extra headachy". Fears his paper ["Sexual forms of Catasetum", Collected papers 2: 63–70] will not be worth Lindley’s attendance.
Asks for reference to GB’s summary of Targioni-Tozzetti’s book ["Historical notes on the introduction of various plants into the agriculture and horticulture of Tuscany: a summary of a work entitled Cenni storici sulla introduzione di varie piante nell agricultura ed orticultura Toscana by Dr Antonio Targioni-Tozzetti, Florence, 1850", J. Hortic. Soc. Lond. 9 (1855): 133–81]. [See Variation, 1st ed., 1: 306 n.]
Sends GB a selection of reviews of the Origin from his collection of about 90, with his opinion of some of them.
Disagrees with GB when he says he is not up to treating the whole subject [the present state of the species question]. He is especially equipped to handle the "great subject of affinities in relation to descent and independent creation".
Natural selection implies that a form remains unaltered unless an alteration is to its benefit. This is not inconsistent with some forms remaining stable for long periods. Natural selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. Of details we are still greatly ignorant.
GB’s address [Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (1863): xi–xxix] pleased him as much as Lyell’s book [Antiquity of man] disappointed him on species question. GB has done a "real good turn to the right side".
Asks for names of plants mentioned in an article in Natural History Review ["South European Floras", n.s. 4 (1864): 369–84] so he can get seeds.
Also would like specimens of the two forms of Aegiphila.
Thanks GB for specimens [of Aegiphila] and his information.
Asks GB to consider whether it is necessary for the Linnean Society to be so strict about the number of books members may borrow.
His memory deceived him about GB’s statement [on propagation of thistles].
Invites GB and wife to luncheon.
Is not surprised that GB cannot digest Pangenesis, but it has been an immense relief to CD in tying together large classes of facts.
Sends names of men writing on crossing of plants. Criticises some French observations. Praises Hildebrand and Federico Delpino.
Sends pamphlets.
CD is experimenting on a large scale on difference in plants raised from self-fertilised and crossed seeds.
F. Hildebrand has produced a graft-hybrid which seems to lend important support to Pangenesis.
Sends Ernst Haeckel’s [Generelle] Morphologie [1866] and C. K. Sprengel’s book [Entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur (1793)].
A. Gaudry and L. Rütimeyer have declared in favour of CD’s views.
Expresses thanks and pleasure at what GB has said about his book [Variation] in GB’s [Presidential] Address [to the Linnean Society, 1868, Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (1868): lvii–c]. "What you say about Pangenesis quite satisfies me".
CD discussed "bud-variation" to show that it was an error to believe all variability is due to sexual generation.
Sends a letter (and seeds) from Fritz Müller about a strange monstrous form of Begonia found wild in Brazil. Asks GB whether it is worth communicating to Linnean Society.
CD finds GB’s address interesting; assures him that he has never said GB was wrong on any point, but that there were differences between them, which he now thinks are not great.
Comments on specific parts of the address [see 6793]: colonisation, variability of large and small genera, descent from a single parent or pair of parents, rapid multiplication and change in species, isolation.
Asks GB to support the election of CD’s nephew, Henry Parker, to the Athenaeum Club.
Thanks GB for his "Report on [the recent progress and present state of] systematic botany" [Rep. BAAS (1874): 27–54] and for the way in which he refers to CD’s book.