Showing 21–40 of 49 items
The Charles Darwin Collection
The Darwin Correspondence Project is publishing letters written by and to the naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882). Complete transcripts of letters are being made available through the Project’s website (www.darwinproject.ac.uk) after publication in the ongoing print edition of The Correspondence of Charles Darwin (Cambridge University Press 1985–). Metadata and summaries of all known letters (c. 15,000) appear in Ɛpsilon, and the full texts of available letters can also be searched, with links to the full texts.
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".
Includes comments about George Bentham’s anniversary address to the Linnean Society with particular notice of the favourable attention to Darwin, except for Natural Selection, and to AG’s essay in the Atlantic Monthly.
He defends [W. B.] Carpenter and [Jeffries] Wyman against [Richard] Owen.
Gossip about scientific honours and other matters.
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.
HCW’s criticisms of CD’s theory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Returns Asa Gray’s letter. Disappointed with Gray. Comments on America. British–American relations.
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.
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].
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.
