Showing 1–20 of 57 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.
Sends date of his mother’s death – 7 Apr 1859.
Was completely mystified by conjuring performance of [John Nevil] Maskelyne.
Asks permission to republish his climbing plants paper [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 9 (1867): 1–118] in a corrected form [Climbing plants].
Asks AG to forward [unspecified] enclosure to Chauncey Wright.
[Provides directions for travel to Down by train.]
Encloses report on his paper "Old age characteristics among ammonites", [Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 17 (1875): 236–41].
Stability of long inherited characters. Dependence of some recently acquired characters on the environment.
Had two mornings working on Drosera but it was sluggish. Frog preparations are pretty good.
Asks whether he might copy two of FJC’s drawings of Aldrovanda. He would like to have a proof of the plate for two woodcuts to be used in his forthcoming book [Insectivorous plants].
Returning the plants DO had sent him from Kew
Wonders if it is possible that the couvade had its origin in an early habit of the male sex to take part in the nourishment of the offspring.
His opinion of the couvade.
The generic name Genlisea must be preserved for Utriculariaceae with five-part calyces.
Disapproves of Huxley’s article [review of Ernst Haeckel’s Anthropogenie] in Academy [7 (1875): 16–18].
Has not heard from Mivart; CD is convinced he is a hypocrite.
Describes his views on vivisection. Cannot sign petition of F. P. Cobbe, with its attack on Rudolf Virchow.
Huxley strongly dissuades JDH from writing to Mivart because of his Presidency of Royal Society. JDH will hold his letter until he hears what Bentham says.
CD would be pleased to have FBG’s essay dedicated to him but fears that he will be unable to give any assistance towards FBG’s ‘excellent scheme’.
Has read FMM’s article in Contemporary Review [25 (1875): 305–26].
Never suspected FMM was responsible for the Quarterly Review article ["Primitive man", Q. Rev. 137 (1874): 40–77]; knows it was written by Mivart.
CD’s observations [for Insectivorous plants] seem to indicate that the same species of Genlisea may bear two kinds of bladders, so he asks for rhizomes and leaves of three species to test this possibility.
Asks DO to return enclosed post-card with locality of Genlisea aurea specimen that DO had sent.
Thanks THH for his article in the Academy and his defence of CD and G. H. Darwin against Mivart. Still thinks he should write plainly to Mivart.