Sends his thanks for a kind letter; he has copied out the last sentence of the Origin.

Glad correspondent’s paper went well.

Poor health and much work forces CD to be brief.

Cover containing some seeds mentioned in the letter to H. C. Watson, 28 May [1864], f.2 (S 4512).

Sends, for identification, specimens of bees and wasps which fertilise orchids. [Notes in FS’s hand on the same sheet identify the specimens.]

Reminds CWC that he offered to give information with respect to his observations on hollyhocks. Wishes he could persuade CWC to undertake experiments on the fertility of some crosses between the most distinct varieties.

Asks DO to give enclosed [letter?] from John Scott to Hooker.

JS’s work on orchid self-sterility; Acropera has 371250 seeds in one capsule.

Wishes something could be done for Scott.

Thanks HBD for his note. The analogy of surnames had not occurred to CD – only that of language generally, as shown so well by Lyell. Fears HBD’s argument about progression would not have much weight.

Salmon and trout increase in size with river.

Wishes to show CD fish hatchery near Hampton Court.

Quoted CD’s book on self-destruction within species in a salmon arbitration case.

Sends "2 pods ¼ gr each" to tide CD over.

Asks CD to sign some "Sunday tickets" [for the Zoological Garden?].

CD’s urine is normal. He may take antacids for his stomach.

[Outline sketches of pollen from long- and short-styled yellow cowslips and from a red cowslip.]

JL’s review of Huxley ["Lectures to working men", Nat. Hist. Rev. n.s. 4 (1864)].

[No informatiion about content.]

Asa Gray’s high opinion of ARW as a reviewer [reference to S. Haughton’s paper on bees’ cells, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 3d ser. 11 (1863): 415–29, reviewed by ARW in "Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton’s paper", Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 3d ser. 12 (1863): 303–9].

Returns letter mailed by mistake [see 4361].

Hopes CD will accept gift of his Radiolarien [Die Radiolarien, 2 vols. (1862)].

Remarks on ARW’s review of Samuel Haughton’s paper on bees’ cells

and Origin.

Agassiz’s strength as geologist and weakness in natural history theory.

Work problems.

His butterfly collection.

Problems with book on Malay journey.

Recommends Herbert Spencer and his Social statics.

Spencer’s "masterly" nebular hypothesis.

Has seen that ARW has read a paper to the Linnean Society.

Thinks that Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics (Spencer 1851) would be too deep for him.

Calls CD’s attention to an article by Paul Janet.

Asks CD’s opinion on the accuracy of stating that barley and wheat are different varieties of the same species.