From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Philip Lutley Sclater
Date:
22 May [1860-81]
Source of text:
John Wilson (dealer) (1987)
Summary:
CD has signed the enclosed with great pleasure.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Cottage Gardener
Date:
[after 8 May 1860]
Source of text:
Cottage Gardener 24 (1860): 143
Summary:
Inquires whether "a Devonshire Bee-keeper" [T. W. Woodbury] who reported a common drone entering a hive of Ligurian bees [Cottage Gard. 24 (1860): 94] believes, with Andrew Knight, that queen bees are seldom fertilised by their own blood-relations. Asks how far a hive of common bees was from that of the Ligurians.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Roderick Impey Murchison, 1st baronet
Date:
1 May [1860]
Source of text:
The British Library (Surrogate RP 7400)
Summary:
Much obliged for note from Alexander von Keyserling. Geologist going one inch with CD more important than naturalist going two or three.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
Date:
4 May [1860]
Source of text:
American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.210)
Summary:
Is sending CL an arrow-head. Says John Lubbock tells of vast numbers of flint tools in peat in France. Urges CL to conduct further research on the subject.
Comments on paper by J. S. Newberry concerning palaeozoic deposits in America [Am. J. Sci. 2d ser. 29 (1860): 208–18]
and on A. von Keyserling’s view of species change.
Mentions J. W. Salter’s chart arranging Spirifer.
Comments on Andrew Murray’s paper on the Origin ["On Mr Darwin’s theory of the origin of species", Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh 4 (1860): 274–91].
A Manchester newspaper article says CD has proved "might is right".
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Andrew Dickson (Andrew) Murray
Date:
5 May [1860]
Source of text:
R. D. Pyrah (private collection)
Summary:
Thanks for AM’s kindness.
CD did not understand him about "prepotency".
With respect to cave animals CD believes that on reflection AM will admit "that on creation doctrine, there has been surprising diversity for such similar habitation".
Has heard from A. von Keyserling who "makes no difficulty about imperfection of Geological Record".
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
Date:
7 May [1860]
Source of text:
DAR 115: 52
Summary:
To understand Leschenaultia pollination CD requires field observations in the native country.
Has observed two forms of cowslips, which he calls male and female. The same two forms are found in primroses.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Thomas Henry Huxley
Date:
7 May [1860]
Source of text:
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Archives (Huxley 5: 117)
Summary:
Observations on changes in physical proportions of pigeons.
The Saturday Review of 5 May has a defence of CD and THH by "a jolly good fellow".
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
Date:
8 [May 1860]
Source of text:
American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.211)
Summary:
Did not know about separation between Silurian and Cambrian.
Cannot attend Geological Society meeting.
Etty [Henrietta Darwin] ill.
Sedgwick in his attack at Cambridge Philosophical Society states "there must be [on CD’s theory] large genera not varying".
Discusses migration of plants and animals from Old World to New.
Views of Asa Gray on Aster.
Mentions flora of coal period.
Has been elected to Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Thomas Stewardson
Date:
8 May 1860
Source of text:
Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia
Summary:
Acknowledges his election as Correspondent of Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
William Bernhard Tegetmeier
Date:
8 May [1860]
Source of text:
Yale University: Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (Yale Collection of American Literature: De Forest Family Papers (YCAL MSS 582) Box 2, folder 58, item 82
Summary:
Thanks WBT for observations on colours of newly-hatched pigeons of different breeds. Asks if breeders have noticed any differences in lengths of time eggs were incubated in different breeds.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
John Stevens Henslow
Date:
8 May [1860]
Source of text:
DAR 93: A67–9
Summary:
Comments on Richard Owen’s review of the Origin [in Edinburgh Rev. 111 (1860): 487–532]. Considers Owen unfair to CD and most ungenerous toward Hooker.
Expects Sedgwick to be fierce against him. Sedgwick also misrepresented CD in his Spectator review [24 Mar and 7 Apr 1860].
Compares natural selection to the undulatory theory of light as a hypothesis explaining a large number of facts.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
Date:
11 May [1860]
Source of text:
DAR 115: 53
Summary:
Dissection of Leschenaultia convinces CD insect agency necessary for self-fertilisation in this case.
Primroses and cowslips seem universally to occur in two forms. Very curious to see which plants set seed.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Williams & Norgate
Date:
13 [May 1860]
Source of text:
American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.)
Summary:
Orders latest issues of North British Review and Dublin Magazine of Natural History. Also would like an order placed for him for a French translation of F. Unger, Versuch einer Geschichte der Pflanzen-Welt [1852], if such a translation has appeared.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
Date:
13 [May 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 115: 54
Summary:
J. S. Henslow’s defence of CD;
[Thomas?] Thomson’s opposition to Origin.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Francis Galton
Date:
13 May [1860]
Source of text:
UCL Library Services, Special Collections (GALTON/1/1/9/5/7/6)
Summary:
Does FG know Mansfield Parkyns well enough to submit query to him? [Probably about domestication of Columba guinea in Abyssinia. See Variation 1: 183.]
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
Date:
14 May [1860]
Source of text:
DAR 115: 55
Summary:
Instructs JDH on how to pollinate Leschenaultia.
Evidence of Leschenaultia and the dioecious condition of cowslips and Auricula is making necessity of insect pollination "clear and clearer".
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
John Stevens Henslow
Date:
14 May [1860]
Source of text:
DAR 93: A70–1
Summary:
Thanks JSH for his defence [see 2794].
He is not hurt for long by what his attackers say. His conclusions were arrived at after long study. He has certainly erred, but not so much as "Sedgwick and Co." think.
Asks JSH to send names of plants that vary greatly in length of pistil.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
Date:
15 [May 1860]
Source of text:
DAR 115: 56
Summary:
Lyell, de facto, first to stress importance of geological changes for geographical distribution.
Asa Gray has given CD too much credit for theories of geographical distribution.
Reaction to hostile criticism
and debt to Lyell, Huxley, JDH, and W. B. Carpenter.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
James Drummond
Date:
16 May 1860
Source of text:
J. S. Battye Library of Western Australian History, State Library of Western Australia (Accession 2275A)
Summary:
Asks JD to observe Leschenaultia formosa to verify CD’s hypothesis of how it is fertilised. Also suggests an experiment to determine whether it is fertilised by nocturnal insects.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
John Stevens Henslow
Date:
17 May [1860]
Source of text:
DAR 93: A72–3, A116
Summary:
Sends characters by which he can divide all primroses and cowslips into what he suspects will be male and female plants. Believes these forms are first step in formation of a dioecious plant.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
