Acknowledgment of article on mimicry [Westminster Rev. 88 (1867): 1–43].
Showing 21–40 of 100 items
Acknowledgment of article on mimicry [Westminster Rev. 88 (1867): 1–43].
Response to ARW’s "Creation by law", especially the Angraecum sesquipedale and the predicted Madagascar moth.
ARW’s argument on beauty strikes CD as good.
Wishes ARW had made more clear the assumption of the reviewer [in North Br. Rev.] that each variation is a strongly marked one.
The Duke of Argyll’s argument on beauty is not candid.
Reports work on sexual selection. Problems with the relative numbers of the two sexes and polygamy. Asks ARW’s help with several questions on polygamous birds.
Pleased by ARW’s response to Pangenesis.
On negative reception by his friends.
Further argument concerning sterility and natural selection.
Polygamy and sexual selection.
Protection.
Grateful for addresses of informants, especially that of Rajah James Brooke.
Dispatch of queries on expression. Answers will make interesting appendix to his "Essay on man" [Descent].
Protective adaptation of female butterflies believed probable.
Believes in sexual selection as applied to man.
On his Primula paper for the Linnean Society ["On the specific difference between Primula veris, Brit. Fl. (var. officialis, Linn.), P. vulgaris, Brit. Fl. var. acaulis, Linn.), and P. elatior, Jacq.; and on the hybrid nature of the common oxlip; with supplementary remarks on naturally produced hybrids of the genus Verbascum", [officinalis!?] J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 10 (1869): 437–54].
Peacocks and sexual selection.
ARW’s sterility argument has driven CD’s sons half-mad.
On problem of sterility, CD cannot persuade himself that it has been gained by natural selection.
On sexual selection and minute variations, he tends to agree with ARW. Sends George Darwin’s notes on ARW’s argument.
There are so many doubtful points on the problems relating to sterility that they will never agree.
More on the "terrible problem" of natural selection and sterility. CD’s reasons for disagreeing with ARW. CD analyses and answers ARW in detail in defence of his conclusion that sterility cannot be increased through natural selection.
Warns ARW of dubious character of list of European alpine genera and species in volcanoes of Hawaii. Problems of geographical distribution in oceanic islands.
Admires ARW’s "Theory of birds’ nests" [J. Travel & Nat. Hist. 1 (1868): 73].
Discusses their respective views on birds’ nests, sexual selection, and protection.
Asks why, if brilliant colours of female butterflies are result of protective mimicry, do not males become equally brilliant? CD believes variation in females alone accounts for it, rather than protection.
More on CD’s objections to ARW’s views on protection and natural selection.
Sexual selection.
Criticism of ARW for too little esteem of the role of sexual selection as agent in giving colour.
Response to other topics.
The problem of dimorphic plants and their fertility.
CD’s oscillating views relating to protection and sexual selection.
On their differences concerning sexual selection and protection.
Sexual selection, protection.
Response to letter about dedication of Malay Archipelago and several scientific papers.
Changes in 5th ed. of Origin.
Now feels individual differences of paramount importance. Fleeming Jenkin has convinced him about "single variations".
CD expressed himself badly. F. Jenkin’s argument was against single variations ever being perpetuated.
Reception of ARW’s book, Malay Archipelago.