Showing 21–28 of 28 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.
Finds he cannot annotate CD’s list of subspecies and varieties as wanted. Mentions again his difficulties with "species"; he "cannot find the proof of species being definite and immutable whatever they may seem to be at any one time and spot".
Discusses the ranges and distribution of varieties relative to the type species.
Believes that botanists tend to mark more varieties in large than in small genera, but notes that where many varieties of a species exist these varieties may well be passed over, whereas similar varieties of another species which are fewer in number may well be recorded.
Discusses the ranges of species in large and small genera; difficulties involved in limiting the discussion to Britain.
Believes natural selection will become recognised as an established truth in science, though it will shock the ideas of many men.
Sends a correction for Origin reprint.
On geographical distribution of plants. Plant systematics and natural classification.
Do the plants that are common to Europe and North America nearly all live north of the Arctic Circle? CD bases his question on HCW’s "capital" comparison between relations of Europe to North America and Europe to E. Asia if the intervening land had been submerged. CD has been led to speculate that in the mid-Pliocene the organisms now living in middle Europe and northern U. S. lived within the Arctic Circle. Subsequent movements of this flora with advance and retreat of glaciers would explain present distribution better than Forbes’s vast submergences.
