Asks if JP can send criticism of Origin.
Showing 101–120 of 378 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.
Asks if JP can send criticism of Origin.
JDH coming to Down. Huxley will be invited.
Is pleased GHKT goes a little way with him.
Has rectified in foreign editions of Origin his omission of an explanation of the failure of many forms to progress;
also has discussion of beauty in MS. Does GHKT really believe Diatomaceae, for instance, were created beautiful so that man, millions of generations later, should admire them through a microscope? CD attributes most of these structures to unknown laws of growth; useful structures are accounted for by natural selection.
Thanks HGB [for his Morphologische Studien (1858)].
Pleased at quickness of translation.
Is glad to read Greg’s remarks on Origin. Discusses MS Greg has sent for review on proportion of sexes at birth.
Only proof that internal organs and bones were intermediate would convince CD of the possibility of the astounding [deer] hybrid WDF has reported.
Has WDF positive knowledge that common ganders do not always turn white?
Has begun his larger books. New editions of Origin will appear.
What is right and wrong in it will soon be sifted.
Declines the honour of acting as Steward at the Annual Dinner of the Royal Literary Fund.
Discusses letter of recommendation for Edward Blyth.
Sedgwick’s review of the Origin in the Spectator [24 Mar 1860].
Mentions breaks between geological formations.
Comments on QdeB’s [Études sur les maladies actuelles du ver à soie (1860)].
Has failed to find French publisher for Origin.
Thanks for information about French dictionaries.
Asks that Westminster Review [of Apr 1860] be sent.
Has no drone cells in collection of honeycombs. Discusses construction of cells by bees and ability of bees to judge distances in constructing comb.
Thanks FJP for his review which CD has received and read. There have been many reviews in England opposed to CD but FJP’s is "the single one which seems … perfectly fair & just & candid". The only difference between them is that CD "attaches much more weight to the explanation of facts, & somewhat less weight to the difficulties" than FJP. "I always jump at any theory which groups & explains facts".
Would be proud to send FJP a copy of his Journal of researches.
Reminds JSH to send "sketch & account of the wasp’s comb in transitional state from horizontal to vertical, & the country whence procured".
Asks for information on spread of Anacharis [Elodea].
Sedgwick [in criticism of Origin] was not very fair, but Murray says it is splendid for selling copies to "the unfortunate students".
Thinks AG’s review [of Origin] will aid much in making people think about subject.
Has been savagely and unfairly reviewed by Adam Sedgwick in the Spectator [24 Mar 1860],
but thinks F. J. Pictet’s review in opposition ["Sur l’origine de l’espèce", Arch. Sci. Phys. & Nat. n.s. 7 (1860): 231–55] a very fair one.
Has not yet read Huxley’s review of Origin in Westminster Review [Apr 1860].
F. J. Pictet has published an excellent review, though opposed to CD, in Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève [Mar 1860].
Variations in sizes of bees’ cells.
Comments enthusiastically on WBC’s review ["The theory of development in nature", Br. & Foreign Med.-Chir. Rev. 25 (1860): 367–404].
Asks AW about archaeological evidence concerning the first appearance of dray horses.
Much interested in MTM’s lecture at Royal Institution ["On the relation between the abnormal and normal formations in plants", Notes Proc. R. Inst. G. B. 3 (1860): 223–7].
Asks for information about crossing of varieties of peas. Describes his own experimental results: "the offspring out of the same pod, instead of being intermediate, was very nearly like the two pure parents; yet in one, there was a trace of the cross & the next generation showed still more plainly their mongrel origins".
Owen on the branchiae of Balanidae.
The Edinburgh Review article on the Origin [by Owen, 111 (1860): 487–532] full of misrepresentations, with a brutal attack on THH.