Lyell and CD would urge JDH to make his essays into a book, but see he has embarked on a huge project with G. Bentham [Genera plantarum, 3 vols. (1862–83)].

Asks if JP can send criticism of Origin.

JDH coming to Down. Huxley will be invited.

Is pleased GHKT goes a little way with him.

Has rectified in foreign editions of Origin his omission of an explanation of the failure of many forms to progress;

also has discussion of beauty in MS. Does GHKT really believe Diatomaceae, for instance, were created beautiful so that man, millions of generations later, should admire them through a microscope? CD attributes most of these structures to unknown laws of growth; useful structures are accounted for by natural selection.

Thanks HGB [for his Morphologische Studien (1858)].

Pleased at quickness of translation.

Is glad to read Greg’s remarks on Origin. Discusses MS Greg has sent for review on proportion of sexes at birth.

Only proof that internal organs and bones were intermediate would convince CD of the possibility of the astounding [deer] hybrid WDF has reported.

Has WDF positive knowledge that common ganders do not always turn white?

Has begun his larger books. New editions of Origin will appear.

What is right and wrong in it will soon be sifted.

Declines the honour of acting as Steward at the Annual Dinner of the Royal Literary Fund.

Discusses letter of recommendation for Edward Blyth.

Sedgwick’s review of the Origin in the Spectator [24 Mar 1860].

Mentions breaks between geological formations.

W&N have not yet received the German edition of the Origin.

Recommend French–English and French dictionaries.

Comments on QdeB’s [Études sur les maladies actuelles du ver à soie (1860)].

Has failed to find French publisher for Origin.

Thanks for information about French dictionaries.

Asks that Westminster Review [of Apr 1860] be sent.

Has no drone cells in collection of honeycombs. Discusses construction of cells by bees and ability of bees to judge distances in constructing comb.

Thanks FJP for his review which CD has received and read. There have been many reviews in England opposed to CD but FJP’s is "the single one which seems … perfectly fair & just & candid". The only difference between them is that CD "attaches much more weight to the explanation of facts, & somewhat less weight to the difficulties" than FJP. "I always jump at any theory which groups & explains facts".

Would be proud to send FJP a copy of his Journal of researches.

Reminds JSH to send "sketch & account of the wasp’s comb in transitional state from horizontal to vertical, & the country whence procured".

Asks for information on spread of Anacharis [Elodea].

Sedgwick [in criticism of Origin] was not very fair, but Murray says it is splendid for selling copies to "the unfortunate students".

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.

Has studied CD’s Jamaican hive-bees and finds them identical to Apis mellifica.

Discusses the structure of wasps’ and bees’ nests

and the occurrence of winged and apterous individuals within some insect genera and species.

Has not yet read Huxley’s review of Origin in Westminster Review [Apr 1860].

F. J. Pictet has published an excellent review, though opposed to CD, in Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève [Mar 1860].

Variations in sizes of bees’ cells.

Comments enthusiastically on WBC’s review ["The theory of development in nature", Br. & Foreign Med.-Chir. Rev. 25 (1860): 367–404].