Asks for specimen of Orchis pyramidalis for his work on insect fertilisation of orchids.
Showing 1–20 of 23 items
Asks for specimen of Orchis pyramidalis for his work on insect fertilisation of orchids.
Thanks GB for specimen [of Orchis pyramidalis].
Discusses a great difficulty with orchids: "Insects visit several species which never secrete an atom of honey." [See Orchids, p. 44ff.] Does GB know whether nectar is ever secreted and reabsorbed promptly?
Thanks GB for arranging for his paper ["Two forms of Primula", Collected papers 2: 45–63] and for his photograph.
Requests more precise details about Oxalis, to which GB referred in his remarks on Primula.
Would prefer to have Primula paper published in the Linnean Society’s Journal rather than Transactions.
Thanks GB for valuable letter [3331].
Will follow his suggestion about violets.
Discusses differences between Thymus and Primula.
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.