Müller’s observations on orchids excellent.
Showing 1–13 of 13 items
Müller’s observations on orchids excellent.
Hopes JTM’s health will improve.
Asks for information about crosses of peas.
Replies to CL’s further comments [on Variation].
Discusses direct action of the environment as a cause of variation.
Admires his paper ["On the credibility of Darwinism", J. Trans. Victoria Inst. 2 (1867): 39–62, and discussion 63–125].
Ridicules William H. Ince and Admiral FitzRoy on their naive ideas about Noah’s ark.
CD provides explanations and advice on translating names and descriptions of breeds of fowls.
Sends a corrected revise to replace a sheet which has been lost in the mail.
Thanks recipient for the pamphlet, but he had already procured the Transactions.
Does not think that his views on Origin bear in any way on the question whether some one organic being was originally created by God, or appeared spontaneously through the action of natural laws.
Thanks for Quarterly Journal of Science 4 (1867). Has just read Wallace’s admirable article in last number ["Creation by law", Q. J. Sci. 4 (1867): 471–88]. He is a master of clear argument.
Response to ARW’s "Creation by law", especially the Angraecum sesquipedale and the predicted Madagascar moth.
ARW’s argument on beauty strikes CD as good.
Wishes ARW had made more clear the assumption of the reviewer [in North Br. Rev.] that each variation is a strongly marked one.
The Duke of Argyll’s argument on beauty is not candid.
Sends sheets of first volume of Variation.
Transport of seeds in locust dung.
Pangenesis will be called "a mad dream".
Concerning German translation of Variation. Fears chapter 27 Pangenesis is very wild, but believes physiologists will some day be compelled to admit some such doctrine.
An absurd error ("Election" for "Selection") in the advertisement of Variation. Dallas is the best man for index.
Describes seeds transported in locust dung. Discusses other cases of transport and migration.