Showing 61–74 of 74 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.
CD’s opinion of Lyell’s Antiquity of man and of Owen’s comment on it.
Disappointed Lyell has not spoken out on species and on man.
Pleasure of new hothouse and the plants JDH supplied for it.
Pleads guilty to both criticisms of "Miss Henrietta Minor Rhadamanthus Darwin" [see 3896] of points in his Lectures [to working men].
Criticism of Antiquity of man; its public reception.
Discusses the deposition of coal and considers the possibility of coal aggregating into seams after deposition.
Praise of Man’s place.
Owen’s muddling letter in Athenæum [21 Feb 1863, pp. 262–3].
Is disappointed in Lyell’s excessive caution on species and origin of man [in Antiquity of man].
Identifies flies sent to him by CD. [CD note states that these were found with orchid pollinia adhering to them.]
A diploma. CD is elected a corresponding member.
Answers CD’s query on Primula longiflora and P. scotica.
Would like abstract of CD’s paper ["Two forms of Linum", Collected papers 2: 93–105] for Natural History Review.
Regrets he did not make the statement [unspecified] referred to by CD.
Believes the Origin has been very valuable, even among those not disposed to agree with transmutation, in giving a great check to "species manufacture".
Will come to dine on Monday unless he hears to the contrary.
Thanks GM for a curious lily.
Recommends some papers on coal.
Gives his opinion on the importance of forming theories if one is to be a good and original observer.
Having trouble understanding laws of phyllotaxy in order to grasp Hugh Falconer’s objections.
L. C. Treviranus on Primula [see 3980] misses the "prettiness" of the adaptations.
John Scott says P. scotica is never dimorphic.
Thanks GGS for calculation [to determine the chances of the same peculiarity recurring in a family, see Variation 2: 5]
DO thinks an essay [Alexander Braun’s "Rejuvenescence", Ray Society (1853)] is not worth reading with respect to some difficulty concerning phyllotaxy.