Returns proofs of GH’s paper ["On hybridization among plants", Pop. Sci. Rev. 5 (1866): 304–13] with his criticisms. Prefers that GH not state that CD has read the proofs.

Does C. V. Naudin really say that ovules (not seed) of hybrid Luffa and Cucumis are imperfect?

Thanks for criticism of proofs of his paper [see 5117].

Not sure whether CD believes in reversion and would like a positive statement as this is the one point C. V. Naudin especially observed. Naudin offers his remarks on ovules as a matter to be proved ["Nouvelles recherches sur l’hybridité", Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. 1 (1865): 25–176].

CD believes most strongly in reversion. J. G. Kölreuter’s, K. F. v Gärtner’s, and some of Charles Naudin’s cases leave no doubt in his mind. Forgets whether Herbert gave cases but in conversation he certainly believed in it. Thinks Gärtner is right to say reversion occurs only rarely in plant hybrids which have not been cultivated. [See 5120.]

Variation

Has altered paper according to CD’s comments.

Returns books.

Thanks CD for his interesting papers.

Proposes writing a note for Linnean Society ["Note on the structure of Genista tinctoria", J. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 10 (1869): 468], in part using information CD gave him at Down.

Asks for CD’s "candid criticisms" of his paper [on Variation].

Thanks for criticism of his paper [on Variation].

If external conditions induce variability, what is the internal cause?

Does not agree with Duke of Argyll that "Origin of Species" is an incorrect term.

Sees playfulness of animals as a mark of the Deity’s creative playfulness.

Will visit soon.

Thanks for Casimir de Candolle’s paper ["Théorie de l’angle unique en phyllotaxie", Arch. Sci. Phys. & Nat. 23 (1865): 199–212].

Sends information from a Kent sheep-breeder.

Asks CD for references to animal breeders in order to test the hypothesis that mimicry arises through direct action of mental impressions received through the sense of sight.

Supports natural selection and Pangenesis.

Thanks for a paper on phyllotaxy.

Observations on fertilisation of Lapageria rosea by E. G. Henderson, florist of St John’s Wood.

Experiments with Lapageria.

Has frequently defended evolution and natural selection among his clergy brethren.

Now elicits CD’s views on chance.

Refers GH to vol. 2, p. 431 of Variation for the "perplexed conclusion" at which CD has arrived on variation and design. Has nothing to add to this statement.

Considers some flowers especially adapted for self-fertilisation, and believes all flowers are self-fertilising under some conditions. Gives examples of plants in which he believes all flowers are cleistogamous. Believes self-fertilisation is the primordial condition of flowering plants.