Working on monstrous Primula. Is ovule anatropous as Asa Gray says, or amphitropous? Does he know natural path of pollen tubes in Primula. Can the tube enter the ovule by the chalaza?

Encourages JS to publish on sterility of orchids and to experiment on Passiflora.

Doubted Hooker’s poppy case.

Describes case of primrose with three pistils: when pulled apart allowed pollen to be placed directly on ovules. This supports JS’s explanation of H. Crüger’s case.

Thanks for CD’s Linum paper [Collected papers 2: 93–105].

Has not published much because he would be ignored as a gardener; hence he is looking for a foreign appointment.

Has prepared orchid sterility paper at CD’s suggestion [Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 7 (1863): 543–50].

Is ready to make some arrangement to repay CD’s bond. Has written to F. Ransome to help arrange repayment and wants CD to write his opinion of a fair scheme.

Hopes CD will finish and bring out his book on variation.

AG will publish extracts of H. W. Bates’s paper on mimetic analogy [Am. J. Sci. 2d ser. 36 (1863): 279–94].

Asks WHF to obtain photographs of skull of ox for J. L. A. Quatrefages de Bréau.

Sends two spikes of Corydalis.

Admits he may have drawn false inference from MTM’s division of peloria into two classes.

Thanks CD for specimens which show that an abnormality in one genus is normal in another, which bears on CD’s views on descent.

The ovule of Primula is amphitropous or what J. Georg Agardh calls apotropo-amphitropous [see Theoria systematis plantarum (1858), tab. 24, fig. 5–6].

Difference in plumage of Ardeola, a species of heron, in summer and winter. [See Descent 2: 190.]

The niata is a very good case because the race is well established and must originate in South America. There is a description of the head by [Richard] Owen in the Descriptive catalogue of the osteological collection of the College of Surgeons.

Has observed modifications in the skeletons of rabbits, ducks, poultry, and pigeons. There is an extract about modifications in pigeons in the first chapter of Origin. Encloses a woodcut of crested or polish fowls; there is a change in the brain as well as in the exterior bones.

Thanks for information on Primula ovules. From what DO says the pollen-tubes ought to find their way to the micropyle.

Asks CD whether he knows of "anything worth looking at" that has appeared abroad on his theory of the origin of species.

Discusses the repayment of a loan made by CD to DTA and F. Ransome.

Sends GB a selection of reviews of the Origin from his collection of about 90, with his opinion of some of them.

Discusses having skull photographed and a cast made.

Thinks CD’s letter ["The doctrine of heterogeny", Collected papers 2: 78–80] will appear "with a clearer field and to better effect" if delayed a week, since next issue [of Athenæum] has Lyell’s reply to Hugh Falconer, and W. B. Carpenter’s report on the Abbéville jaw.

Likes JDH’s review of Alphonse de Candolle [Mémoires et souvenirs de A. P. de Candolle (1862)].

Falconer’s article on Lyell ["Primitive man. What led to the question?", Athenæum 4 Apr 1863, pp. 459–60] too severe.

CD has written a letter to the Athenæum "to say, under the cloak of attacking Heterogeny, a word in my own defence" [Collected papers 2: 78–80].

Bates’s Travels [Naturalist on the river Amazons (1863)] are excellent.

Was unable to see Ransome [to find out whether DTA’s shares in the patent had earned any income so he could repay CD] but believes Ransome’s work will be profitable. Bemoans his own constant financial misfortune and asks CD to give up the deed of his loan to him, on the promise that if the shares ever yield any income, CD will be paid.

Has done Primula polyanthus experiment CD suggested.