Believes species have arisen, like domestic varieties, with much extinction, and that there are no such things as independently created species. Explains why he believes species of the same genus generally have a common or continuous area; they are actual lineal descendants.

Discusses fertilisation in the bud and the insect pollination of papilionaceous flowers. His theory explains why, despite the risk of injury, cross-fertilisation is usual in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, even in hermaphrodites.

Encloses an abstract of his ideas on natural selection and the principle of divergence; the "means by which nature makes her species".

Discusses varieties and close species in large and small genera, finding some data from AG in conflict with his expectations.

Has been observing the action of bees in fertilising kidney beans and Lobelia.

Thanks AG for his criticisms of CD’s views; finds it difficult to avoid using the term "natural selection" as an agent.

Discusses crossing in Fumaria and barnacles.

Has received a naturally crossed kidney bean in which the seed-coat has been affected by the pollen of the fertilising plant.

Finds the rule of large genera having most varieties holds good and regards it as most important for his "principle of divergence".

Asks whether botanists tend to record varieties more carefully in large genera or small genera.

Wants information on the ranges of varieties of a species compared to the range of the species.

Discusses the variation of species in large and small genera.

Thanks AG for his list of close species.

Laments the slow progress he makes with his book [Natural selection].

Believes that, in Dicentra, Fumaria and Corydalis, flower structures are related directly to visits from bees. Flower stigmas generally are placed in the path of bees.

Has received paper from Wallace on natural selection; has sent abstract of his notions, with Wallace’s paper, to Linnean Society.

Species migration since the Pliocene. Effect of the glacial epoch. Present geographical distribution, especially similarities of mountain floras, explained by such migration; mountain summits as remnants of a once continuous flora and fauna.

Cross-fertilisation in Fumariaceae.

Wishes to know whether differences in constitution (such as disease susceptibility) are related to differences in complexion. "Liability to such a disease as yellow fever would answer my question in the best possible way."

Sends copy of Origin for comments.

Does not feel AG’s views of migration after the last glaciation explain distribution in U. S. as well as CD’s view of migration prior to glaciation.

Would welcome American edition of Origin.

Thanks for AG’s Japan memoir [Mem. Am. Acad. Arts & Sci. 6 (1857–9): 377–452]. Does not think AG’s arguments for a warm post-glacial period are sufficient, but will not be sorry to be proved wrong.

Believes natural selection explains many classes of facts which repeated creation does not.

Writes of some responses to the Origin.

Comments on AG’s memoir on Japanese plants [see 2599]; relationship of Japanese flora to N. American.

If an American edition of Origin is considered worth while, CD would like AG’s reviews prefixed to it.

Will use all his strength to produce first part of his three-volume big work [Variation].

CD is glad there is to be an American edition of Origin printed from the corrected 2d English edition.

Sends historical preface and corrections for American edition of Origin;

would have liked AG’s review [Am. J. Sci. 2d ser. 29 (1860): 153–84] at the head.

Agrees with AG’s assessment of weak points.

Thinks AG’s review is admirable.

Reactions of others to the Origin.

Last sheets of AG’s review of Origin have arrived. CD’s comments and criticisms.

Has been ill with pleurisy.

Sends more corrections and additions for American edition of Origin.

Further additions and corrections for American Origin.

Views of Owen, G. H. K. Thwaites, and W. H. Harvey on CD’s theories.

Thinks AG’s review [of Origin] will aid much in making people think about subject.

Has been savagely and unfairly reviewed by Adam Sedgwick in the Spectator [24 Mar 1860],

but thinks F. J. Pictet’s review in opposition ["Sur l’origine de l’espèce", Arch. Sci. Phys. & Nat. n.s. 7 (1860): 231–55] a very fair one.