Comments on the branchiate trichopteran specimen from Fritz Müller sent previously.
Showing 41–60 of 61 items
The Charles Darwin Collection
The Darwin Correspondence Project is publishing letters written by and to the naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882). Complete transcripts of letters are being made available through the Project’s website (www.darwinproject.ac.uk) after publication in the ongoing print edition of The Correspondence of Charles Darwin (Cambridge University Press 1985–). Metadata and summaries of all known letters (c. 15,000) appear in Ɛpsilon, and the full texts of available letters can also be searched, with links to the full texts.
Comments on the branchiate trichopteran specimen from Fritz Müller sent previously.
Wants to republish Fritz Müller’s paper ["Ituna and Thyridia", Kosmos 5 (1879): 100–8] in Proceedings of the Entomological Society. [Thyridita!?]
Suggests he write to Ernst Krause about publication of translation of Fritz Müller’s paper. FM’s view of mutual protection is quite new to CD.
Discusses Fritz Müller’s paper on the mutual protection of certain mimics ["Ituna and Thyridita", Trans. R. Entomol. Soc. Lond. (1879): xx–xxviii]. [Thyridia!?]
Shares RM’s misgivings about Fritz Müller’s mutually protecting mimics. Would expect bird’s response to distasteful caterpillars to be instinctive. Believes J. J. Weir or Thomas Belt may have investigated the point.
Sends subscription form for English edition of Weismann’s Studien.
Would like to subscribe to English edition of Weismann.
Thanks RM for information on case of hexadactyly [see RM’s paper, "Hexadactylism", Land and Water, 11 March 1871, p. 179.
Discusses the origin and advantages of sexual differentiation in terms of division of labour.
Discusses the origin of the giraffe’s neck and the unsoundness of St G. J. Mivart’s view with respect to it.
Points out an error in Descent.
Mentions the difficulties in explaining the separation of sexes and Carl Nägeli’s view that the sexes of plants were primordially distinct.
Has been experimenting for five or six years to demonstrate that the benefits of crossing are the same as those derived from a slight change of conditions.
Discusses his paper on mimicry and natural selection [Land and Water 9 (1871): 321]. Believes natural selection tends to fix mimetic characters rigidly.
Discusses the problems of mimicry as related to natural selection; the general variability of colour as a character; and the conditions necessary for natural selection to fix firmly a character.
Encloses a Fritz Müller letter speculating that organisms respond to certain colours because of the prevalence of those colours in their environment.
Discusses the roles of natural and sexual selection in producing mimicry, and the problem of explaining the cause of the first mimetic variation; considers the ideas of A. R. Wallace and Fritz Müller on this problem.
Invites RM to keep some specimens as long as he wishes.
Recalls vaguely the mention of a butterfly species in which the male alone is mimetic.
Wishes to use some of Fritz Müller’s observations in his paper on mimicry.
CD’s reply and Huxley’s article ["Mr Darwin’s critics", Contemp. Rev. 18 (1871): 443–76] have answered all of Mivart’s objections to natural selection as applied to man.
A. G. Butler has named the specimens sent by CD with Fritz Müller’s letter.
Sends several facts relating to sexual selection, mimicry, and hybrids.
Discusses the possibility that mimicked and mimicking forms have descended from originally allied forms and have diverged in structure but not in appearance.
Feels it would be worth while but difficult to investigate mimicked and mimicking forms for structural similarities that would indicate a closer alliance in the past.
Gives some information on variation of ocelli between sexes in butterfly species.
Proposes publishing a series of papers on mimicry.
Thanks RM for note on ocelli.
Encloses a copy of his paper on mimicry [Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1873): 153–61].
Asks whether large variations are more often limited to one sex than slight ones.