Search: Darwin, C. R. in author 
1860-1869 in date 
letter in document-type 
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond in repository 
Sorted by:

Showing 2134 of 34 items

From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
22 Apr [1863]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 701)
Summary:

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".

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
22 May [1863]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 711–13)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
19 June [1863]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 709–10)
Summary:

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".

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
7 July [1864]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 716)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
12 July [1864]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 708)
Summary:

Thanks GB for specimens [of Aegiphila] and his information.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
[July–Sept 1866]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 714)
Summary:

Asks GB to consider whether it is necessary for the Linnean Society to be so strict about the number of books members may borrow.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
27 Sept [1866]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: ff. 705–6)
Summary:

His memory deceived him about GB’s statement [on propagation of thistles].

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
1 Oct 1866
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 707)
Summary:

Invites GB and wife to luncheon.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
22 Apr 1868
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: ff. 703–4)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
1 May [1868]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 702)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
23 June 1868
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 677)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
10 May [1869]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: f. 680)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George Bentham
Date:
25 Nov [1869]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Bentham Correspondence, Vol. 3, Daintree–Dyer, 1830–1884, GEB/1/3: ff. 678–9)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
Date:
24 [Nov 1862]
Source of text:
DAR 115: 173, 279b; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Hooker letters 2: 46 JDH/2/1/2)
Summary:

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.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail