Floral structure. The order of the development of the whorls and its relationship to a protandrous or protogynous condition in flowers.

Disagrees with GH over the value of cross-fertilisation.

Reports the results of an experiment to compare the weight of seeds produced in plants of [Medicago sativa] by self-pollination and by insect pollination.

F. Hildebrand, in his recent article [Bot. Ztg. 10 (1866): 73–8], describes what GH showed CD about Indigofera’s irritability.

Describes the pollination of broom by bees.

Returns proofs of GH’s paper ["On hybridization among plants", Pop. Sci. Rev. 5 (1866): 304–13] with his criticisms. Prefers that GH not state that CD has read the proofs.

Does C. V. Naudin really say that ovules (not seed) of hybrid Luffa and Cucumis are imperfect?

CD believes most strongly in reversion. J. G. Kölreuter’s, K. F. v Gärtner’s, and some of Charles Naudin’s cases leave no doubt in his mind. Forgets whether Herbert gave cases but in conversation he certainly believed in it. Thinks Gärtner is right to say reversion occurs only rarely in plant hybrids which have not been cultivated. [See 5120.]

Variation

Refers GH to vol. 2, p. 431 of Variation for the "perplexed conclusion" at which CD has arrived on variation and design. Has nothing to add to this statement.

Asks whether CD’s conclusions on cross- and self-fertilising plants agree with his own as set out in a notice in Nature [14 (1876): 543–4].

Thanks for CD’s book [Cross and self-fertilisation] and information on protandry and protogyny.

Health better, but paralysis lingers.

Discusses various authors’ interpretations of the structure of the embryo of grasses.

GH no longer believes in the value of cross-fertilisation in plants.

Has made observations on pollination mechanism in Medicago sativa [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 9 (1867): 327–9], which his brother-in-law [J. D. Hooker] would accept. Wants to check that CD has not already made them.

Also sends interpretation of Salvia.

His observations come from following CD’s generalisation in Origin [p. 79] on necessity of out-crossing.

Pleased CD confirms his observations on Salvia.

Spring action of Medicago stamens described.

Has been writing a review of CD’s "Climbing plants" for Popular Science Review [5 (1866): 55–65].

Reviewing C. V. Naudin’s article ["Nouvelles recherches sur l’hybridité dans les végétaux", Ann. Sci. Nat. (Bot.) 4th ser. 19 (1863): 180–203] for Popular Science Review [5 (1866): 304–13]. Requests references.

Proposes to visit Down on Easter weekend.

Thanks for references for his Naudin–hybridism paper [see 5029].

Forgot to thank CD for his praise of tendril paper [see 4944].

Cannot come to Down on weekend because of teaching duties.

Thanks for explanation on relative fertility of homostyled and heterostyled crosses in Primula. Sends an intermediate form with small stamens, but stigma only slightly above stamens.

Election as Botanical Lecturer at St Bartholomew’s Hospital.