Indignant over Owen’s conduct as described in Hugh Falconer’s article on elephants ["On the American fossil elephant of the regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico", Nat. Hist. Rev. (1863): 43–114].

Describes an astounding "sort of mis-begotten-bird-creature", the Archaeopteryx, a grand Darwinian case.

His elephant paper is out in Natural History Review [(1863): 43–114].

Praises JL’s article ["North American archaeology", Nat. Hist. Rev. n.s. 3 (1863): 1–26]

and Hugh Falconer on the American fossil elephant [Nat. Hist. Rev. n.s. 3 (1863): 43–114].

His admiration for HF’s paper on American fossil elephant.

Notes "temporary irruption of S. American forms into N. America".

Rejoices that HF has "smashed" case of Mastodon on Timor.

Shares HF’s anger at Owen.

He is eager to hear about fossil bird [Archaeopteryx].

Comments on criticisms of species theory by [Johann Andreas?] Wagner.

Describes research on fertilisation of Melastomataceae.

Falconer’s elephant paper.

Owen’s conduct.

Falconer’s view of CD’s theory: independence of natural selection and variation.

JDH on Tocqueville,

the principles of the Origin,

and the evils of American democracy.

Is pleased by CD’s praise of his article.

Hugh Falconer’s is certainly interesting.

Sends Primula scotica and P. farinosa.

So far cannot fertilise Gongora atropurpurea although it is similar to Acropera luteola.

Experimenting on intergeneric hybrids to test CD’s view that sterility is not a special endowment.

Scott’s personal history.

Acropera capsule grows.

Plans for experiments CD has suggested on Primula, peloric Antirrhinum, and Verbascum.

Asks about Gärtner’s experiments on maize.

Aware of Anderson-Henry’s failures.

Through kindness of J. H. Balfour and James McNab, enjoys facilities for research. JS is in charge of the propagating department. Balfour almost engaged him to be superintendent of the Madras Horticultural Garden.

Responds to JDD’s letter [3845].

Discusses his own poor health.

"Man is our great subject at present."

Lyell’s book [Antiquity of man (1863)] sold 4000 copies on day of sale.

"The fossil bird [Archaeopteryx] … is a grand case for me." Wishes a skeleton could be found in the "so-called red sandstone foot-step beds".

Thanks for parcel of shoots with several interesting cases of "bud-variation".

Asks for information about roses.

Strange that great changes in peaches are less rare than slight ones and no case seems recorded of new apples or pears or apricots by "bud-variation". "How ignorant we are!"

Comments on his elephant paper

and CD’s observations on dimorphism in Melastomataceae.

CD’s respect for JS’s indomitable work and interesting experiments increases steadily.

His gratitude for the primulas and the astonishing Gongora specimen.

Asks JS’s opinion about crossing a primrose with the pollen of a wild cowslip and of a cultivated polyanthus.

Answers CD’s query on the free digits of Archaeopteryx.

Thanks for "rich and valuable" letter [missing].

Has read TR’s paper in Gardeners’ Chronicle ["Seedling fruits – plums", (1863): 27] – "a treasure to me".

Questions about seedling peaches that approach almonds.

Asks whether TR has ever observed varieties of plants growing close to other varieties for several generations without being affected by crossing.

Asa Gray will try to get HWB’s paper reviewed.

Also mentions that he (CD) wrote a short review of it for Natural History Review [Collected papers 2: 87–92].

Asks whether bees or Lepidoptera visit flowers of Melastomataceae.

Sorry CD considers Horace Darwin unfit for school.

Acquired characteristics.

Huxley’s lectures: good on induction, bad on sterility, obscure on geology.

Asa Gray on slavery.

Falconer’s partial conversion.

Alphonse de Candolle on Origin.

Asks for account of sales of Geology of "Beagle". Willing to consider offer for remaining stock in order to close account.

Health.

Is sending information about Timor fossils to be forwarded to Hugh Falconer.

Thanks for a gift of £20.

Thanks AdeC for his memoir ["Étude sur l’espèce", Ann. Sci. Nat. (Bot.) 4th ser. 18 (1862): 59–110].

CD astonished at the amount of variability in the oaks.

CD differs from most contemporaries in thinking that the vast continental extensions of Forbes, Heer, and others are not only advanced without sufficient evidence but are opposed to much weighty evidence.

AdeC’s comment on CD’s work [Origin] is generous.

CD is satisfied at the length AdeC goes with him and is not surprised at his prudent reservations. He remembers how many years it took him to change his old beliefs. The great point is to give up immutability. So long as species are thought immutable there can be no progress in "epiontology" [see ML 1: 234 n.]. CD is sure to be proved wrong in many points but the subject will have "a grand future".