GHD’s corrections seem very good. Murray hopes there will be few corrections in Descent. CD assured him no changes have been made merely for improving style.
Wants very much to hear about "the terrible cousin affair".
Showing 41–60 of 119 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.
GHD’s corrections seem very good. Murray hopes there will be few corrections in Descent. CD assured him no changes have been made merely for improving style.
Wants very much to hear about "the terrible cousin affair".
CD’s son Horace wishes to continue at Easton and Anderson’s Works. CD trusts they will not bind him to long hours of work as this would be against medical advice.
Would be interesting to discuss political economy in light of evolution. Recommends Walter Bagehot Physics and politics [1872] and Descent in which source of moral sense is discussed.
Thanks him for copy of book [Der Kampf um’s Dasein am Himmel (1874)].
D. A. Spalding has asked for information to help with his experiments on sense of direction in animals. Has arrived at same results as GHD with blindfolded children. Will GHD let him have his results?
CD has forwarded proofs of Descent [2d edition]. Urges GHD not to work on them if his poor health makes them too tiring.
Thanks GHD about Spalding [i.e., for responding to Spalding’s request, see 9472].
Asks what proportion of leaves of Pinguicula have insects adhering to them. Also, whether seeds of any plants ever adhere to the leaves, and in what situations does P. vulgaris grow.
Comments on GHD’s paper ["Marriages between first cousins in England and their effects", Fortn. Rev. n.s. 18 (1875): 22–41]. Hopes it will be published and read at the Statistical Society.
Did not know Duval-Jouve was an evolutionist.
Delighted at JTM’s success with spiders.
On JTM’s experiments with acids on seeds.
Wants particularly to know whether seeds or leaves of other plants are ever found adhering to the leaves of Pinguicula. Observations would perhaps best be made in a month or two.
Thanks for letter. CD’s nephew got into the club. The book about the beaver is probably that by Mr Morgan. Does not intend to publish further on the intelligence of the dog.
Thinks Frank and he have worked out Pinguicula well and they long to attack Utricularia. Tried several plants with sticky glandular hairs; some few absorb ammonia, but the greater number do not. If JDH sends plant or seed of Lychnis CD will examine it to see whether it catches many flies. Asa Gray has written him much about Sarracenia, with a specimen showing the splendid dodge by which ground insects are enticed up and then drowned. Describes how it may be investigated, to see whether it absorbs decayed matter from flies, or ammonia thus generated.
It would be interesting to prove that some plants feed on decayed animal matter whilst others like Drosera can digest fresh animal matter. Suggests the method for observing this.
Suggests experiment involving cobra poison on white corpuscles. Thanks for offer of Crotalus poison.
Asks about the effect of atropine on the eye. Is interested in parallel case: influence of phosphate of ammonia on glands of Drosera.
The Acacia must be Belt’s "Bulls’ horns".
The complexity of Utricularia has driven Frank and CD almost mad. Suspects it is necrophagous, i.e., it cannot digest, but absorbs decaying animal matter.
Foster is certainly in error. Every insect that Drosera catches causes aggregation.
"It is grand about Nepenthes."
JDH is welcome to notice in any way any of CD’s published or unpublished results with insectivorous plants. Gives an abstract of his observations on Drosera.
JDH should do as he likes with insectivorous plant materials.
He has always thought telling JDH what he has been doing was as good as publishing.
Cephalotus seems as horrid a puzzle as Utricularia.
Nepenthes will turn out a great job if the pitchers of different species act differently. JDH’s paper on Nepenthes [Rep. BAAS 44 (1874): 102–16] is too long for CD’s book. Well deserves a place in Philosophical Transactions.
Has been examining Utricularia minor. Same essential structure but catches smaller Entomostraca. One bladder had 24, another 20, and another 15 Entomostraca. "What slaughter! We must make out the functions of the beast––".
Advises GHD to get an eminent counsel. If counsel’s opinion is that the reviewer [Mivart, in "Primitive man", Q. Rev. 137 (1874): 40–77] has falsified GHD’s statements, GHD should send the opinion to the Quarterly Review and demand publication, and if refused publish elsewhere. Then CD must decide whether to cut John Murray [publisher of Q. Rev.] which will put CD in a nice perplexity [over his rights to the stereotyped editions of past works].