Search: Darwin, C. R. in correspondent 
letter in document-type 
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond in repository 
1860-1869 in date 
Sorted by:

Showing 2140 of 44 items

From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
22 Apr [1863]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 701)
Summary:

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".

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
22 May [1863]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 711–13)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
19 June [1863]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 709–10)
Summary:

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".

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
7 July [1864]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 716)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
12 July [1864]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 708)
Summary:

Thanks GB for specimens [of Aegiphila] and his information.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
[July–Sept 1866]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 714)
Summary:

Asks GB to consider whether it is necessary for the Linnean Society to be so strict about the number of books members may borrow.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
27 Sept [1866]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: ff. 705–6)
Summary:

His memory deceived him about GB’s statement [on propagation of thistles].

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
1 Oct 1866
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 707)
Summary:

Invites GB and wife to luncheon.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
22 Apr 1868
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: ff. 703–4)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
1 May [1868]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 702)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
23 June 1868
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 677)
Summary:

Expresses thanks and pleasure at what GB has said about his book [Variation] in GB’s [Presidential] Address [to the Linnean Society, 1868, Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (1868): lvii–c]. "What you say about Pangenesis quite satisfies me".

CD discussed "bud-variation" to show that it was an error to believe all variability is due to sexual generation.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
10 May [1869]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 680)
Summary:

Sends a letter (and seeds) from Fritz Müller about a strange monstrous form of Begonia found wild in Brazil. Asks GB whether it is worth communicating to Linnean Society.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
25 Nov [1869]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: ff. 678–9)
Summary:

CD finds GB’s address interesting; assures him that he has never said GB was wrong on any point, but that there were differences between them, which he now thinks are not great.

Comments on specific parts of the address [see 6793]: colonisation, variability of large and small genera, descent from a single parent or pair of parents, rapid multiplication and change in species, isolation.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[10 Mar 1862]
Source of text:
DAR 101: 20–2; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (probably JDH/2/1/2)
Summary:

Returns Asa Gray’s letter. Disappointed with Gray. Comments on America. British–American relations.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
Date:
24 [Nov 1862]
Source of text:
DAR 115: 173, 279b; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Hooker letters 2: 46 JDH/2/1/2)
Summary:

Sends Asa Gray letter: "nearly as mad as ever in our English eyes".

Bates’s paper is admirable. The act of segregation of varieties into species was never so plainly brought forth.

CD is a little sorry that his present work is leading him to believe rather more in the direct action of physical conditions. Regrets it because it lessens the glory of natural selection and is so confoundedly doubtful.

JDH laid too much stress on importance of crossing with respect to origin of species; but certainly it is important in keeping forms stable.

If only Owen could be excluded from Council of Royal Society Falconer would be good to put in. CD must come down to London to see what he can do.

Falconer’s article in Journal of the Geological Society [18 (1862): 348–69] shows him coming round on permanence of species, but he does not like natural selection.

Sends Lythrum salicaria diagram.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
6 Apr 1864
Source of text:
DAR 101: 204–5; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Directors’ Correspondence English letters Balfour 1866–1900 vol. 78: 311)
Summary:

J. H. Balfour gives Scott excellent character reference, but says he is unfit either to superintend or be subordinate.

Herbert Spencer’s review of J. M. Schleiden is interesting [see 4457].

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[11 June 1864]
Source of text:
DAR 101: 225–6; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (letters to J. D. Hooker, vol. 11, no. 178 JDH/2/1/11)
Summary:

CD’s photograph looks like J. R. Herbert’s Moses in the fresco in the House of Lords.

JDH is delighted about oxlip, but hybridity does not explain some large patches that are uniform and do not vary towards either cowslip or primrose.

Encloses letter from W. H. Harvey discussing Myosotis sylvatica and the common dandelion.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
2 Dec 1864
Source of text:
DAR 101: 260–1; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Directors’ correspondence 174: 429–31 & 433–4)
Summary:

Recounts row at the Royal Society over exclusion of mention of Origin from Sabine’s address awarding Copley Medal to CD.

Encloses two letters to JDH from James Hector in New Zealand.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
1 Jan 1865
Source of text:
DAR 102: 1–3; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Directors’ Correspondence 162: 224
Summary:

Forwards H. T. Stainton letter for reply.

Finds many Cucurbita have tendrils with sticking ends.

The "potentiality of so many organs in plants to play so many parts is one of the most wonderful of your discoveries . . . one day it will itself play a prodigious part in the interpretation of both morphological and physiological facts".

Is disgusted with Sabine’s address [see 4708] because of its mutilation of what JDH wrote.

THH’s slashing leader in Reader ["Science and ""Church policy"" ", 4 (1864): 821] – as usual he destroys all in his path.

Encloses letter from G. H. K. Thwaites with a message for CD [see encl].

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[26 or 27] Feb 1866
Source of text:
DAR 102: 65–6; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Directors’ Correspondence 156: 1048)
Summary:

Lyell wants to see JDH’s last letter [the part on glacial periods]. Lyell full of concern about astronomical causes of heat and cold on the globe.

Encloses letter from John Scott.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail