Search: Darwin, C. R. in addressee 
1860-1869 in date 
letter in document-type 
No in transcription-available 
Sorted by:

Showing 6180 of 2283 items

From:
John Cattell
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
12 May 1860
Source of text:
DAR 77: 171–2a
Summary:

Cannot provide plants CD requested.

Has sowed several kinds of lettuce seed near each other and has never observed them to cross naturally [see Cross and self-fertilisation, p. 173 n.].

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Henry Doubleday
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
16 May 1860
Source of text:
DAR 162.2: 238
Summary:

Answers CD’s questions about his experiments with primroses, cowslips, and oxlips. HD is aware experiments must often be repeated many times. Has never met with the oxlip except where primrose and cowslip grow together.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Asa Gray
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[10 July 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 110 (ser. 2): 77
Summary:

Cases of "dioecio-dimorphism" as in primroses are widespread. AG always considered them the first step toward bisexuality.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
8 June 1860
Source of text:
DAR 157a
Summary:

Glad to hear good news of Etty [Henrietta Darwin].

CD’s observations on Scaevola are capital. The indusium collects the pollen and is the homologue of the pollen-collecting hairs of Campanula. A boat-shaped organ forms a second indusium, the inside base of which forms the stigmatic surface. The latter later protrudes as horns, forming the stigma.

Describes W. H. Harvey’s scientific career and thinks his letter interesting. Agrees with Harvey that the primary agency of natural selection is as great a mystery as ever. [Response to 2823.]

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
15 June 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/6: 108–9)
Summary:

Rejects CD’s comparison of natural selection with the architect of a building. The architect who plans and oversees construction should not be confused in his function with the wisest breeder. That would be to deify natural selection.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
John Higgins
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
19 June 1860
Source of text:
Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/3/14)
Summary:

Sends a plan of the Anwick Estate: will value it on Saturday next (23 June 1860).

Will purchase it for CD at the auction on 25 June if he can secure favourable terms.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Frederick Bond
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[16? June 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 76 (ser. 2): 168
Summary:

Observations on moths visiting flowers.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
19 June 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/6: 117–23)
Summary:

Sees Huxley’s deification of matter and force as a reaction to the way Paley likened the "Unknown Cause" to the mind of man so that new causes could be introduced. If you wish to retain free will which is inconsistent with constant law, Paley’s position is better. Free will is a recently introduced cause on our planet. It cannot be fully attributed to secondary causes.

What CD says about the variation in gestation of the hound is remarkable.

The astonishing fertile rabbit–hare hybrids encourage belief in Pallas’s theory of the multiple origin of dogs.

Does the regularity of gestation in man indicate a common stock?

Hooker’s observation of absence of forms peculiar to extra-Arctic Greenland indicates that the time since the beginning of the glacial period is brief in geological terms.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
John Higgins
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
16 June 1860
Source of text:
Lincolnshire Archives (HIG/4/2/3/7)
Summary:

Has not received any replies from the parties.

Either he or his son will value the property after JH’s return to Alford.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Frederick Bond
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
26 June 1860
Source of text:
DAR 76 (ser. 2): 169
Summary:

Hopes to make observations on moths pollinating clovers.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
2 July 1860
Source of text:
DAR 100: 141–2
Summary:

JDH reports on the debate on the Origin at Oxford [BAAS] meeting.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Hugh Falconer
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
9 July [1860]
Source of text:
DAR 164.1: 5
Summary:

Hyaena remains show how recently Sicily was joined to Africa.

Reports on the Oxford meeting of BAAS.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Henry Fawcett
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
16 July [1861]
Source of text:
DAR 98 (ser. 2): 29–30
Summary:

Elaborates on his article ["A popular exposition of Mr Darwin on the origin of species", Macmillan’s Mag. 3 (1860): 81–92]. Was anxious to point out that CD’s method of investigation is philosophically correct. Asks permission to call.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Charles Hardy
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
23 July 1860
Source of text:
DAR 76 (ser. 2): 170
Summary:

CD mistaken, in Origin, p. 73, in saying that only humble-bees visit red clover.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Thomas Henry Huxley
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
6 Aug 1860
Source of text:
DAR 98 (ser. 2): 31–2
Summary:

Announces great ally for CD: K. E. von Baer "worth all the Owens & Bishops that ever were pupped". Quotes Baer: "J’ai énoncé les mêmes idées que M. Darwin", but based only on zoological geography.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Charles-Théophile Gaudin
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[15 Aug 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 47: 164
Summary:

Offers to supply CD with information about a new "race" of bees with a larger proboscis. They produce more honey as a result of being able to probe to greater depths.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
William Henry Harvey
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
24 Aug 1860
Source of text:
DAR 98 (ser. 2): 33–40
Summary:

Continues earlier discussion, admitting his opinions have been modified. Still regards natural selection as one agent of several. States areas of disagreement.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
28 Aug 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/6: 164–71)
Summary:

Objections to Origin which Owen and Wilberforce could have used. Why have incipient mammalian forms not arisen from lower vertebrates on islands separated since Miocene period? Knows CD would not derive Eocene Mammalia from higher reptiles, but would bats not be modified into other mammalian forms on an ancient island? This is not the case in New Zealand. Why have island seals not become terrestrial? Assumes rate of change is greatest in mammals. Difficulties are small compared with ability to explain absence of Mammalia in pre-Pliocene islands. Asks about descent of Amblyrhynchus. Believes objections apply equally well to independent creation of animal types, but not if the First Cause is allowed completely free agency.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Jeffries Wyman
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[c. 15] Sept 1860
Source of text:
DAR 47: 165–6
Summary:

Cases of monstrosities becoming transmissible.

Comments on passages in Origin on the blindness of the tucu-tucu (Ctenomys) and Mammoth Cave rats.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[before 20 Nov 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 170.2: 80
Summary:

Discusses the possibility of a land-bridge connecting Biscay with Ireland and the consequent occurrence in southern Ireland of Asturian plants which are absent from England.

Asks if Hooker or anyone has criticised Edward Forbes’ botanical migration of five floras in the British Isles ["On the connexion between the distribution of existing fauna and flora of the British Isles, and the geological changes which have affected their area", Mem. Geol. Surv. G. B. 1 (1846): 336–432].

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project