Praises CL’s work on human species.
A critical review of Origin in Saturday Review [24 Dec 1859].
A letter from J. G. Jeffreys criticises CD’s geological statements.
A note from William Whewell concerning Origin.
Remembers reading Smith’s memoir in Geological Transactions on the anomalous nature of Ventriuculidae. Asks for a copy.
Discusses the possibility of "convergence" occurring; believes it could be only very limited.
Queries on expression among Fuegians and Patagonians.
WBC’s review [of Origin, Natl Rev. 10 (1860): 188–214] will do great good. It "turns the flanks of theological opposers" capitally.
Asks for information about cuckoo eggs and West Indian sheep.
Sends a copy of his Ventriculidae [of the Chalk (1848)]. This group, he feels, is well represented by CD’s plate of graduating species [Origin, ch. 4].
Answers to queries on expression with respect to Fuegians.
Comments on AG’s memoir on Japanese plants [see 2599]; relationship of Japanese flora to N. American.
Sends ticket to pigeon show.
A quotation from Erasmus Darwin’s Zoonomia [1794, 1796] shows that he anticipated Lamarck.
G. Grote impressed by Times review [26 Dec 1859, p. 8].
Comments on corrections [in Origin, 2d ed. (1860)], especially on use of Wallace’s name.
Discusses human evolution with respect to CL’s work. Cites expression as a source of evidence.
Andrew Murray’s criticisms of the Origin involving blind insects in caves [Edinburgh New Philos. J. n.s. 11 (1860): 141–51].
Humorously describes human ancestors.
On the problem of want of sterility in crosses of domestic varieties. Refers to discussion in Origin, pp. 267–72 ["Fertility of varieties when crossed"]. We do not know precise cause of sterility in species.
Andrew Murray has attacked Origin [see 2647].
H. C. Watson objects to natural selection on grounds of limitless diversification of species.
Very pleased with IGStH’s approval [of Origin]. Will be proud to place IGStH’s Résumé des lecons sur la question de l’espèce (I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1851) alongside his other works in his library.
Grateful for his offer to look over the difficult passages in Origin for a translator.
Review of Origin in Gardeners’ Chronicle [31 Dec 1859].
Criticises views of J. G. Jeffreys on non-migration of shells. Cites case of Galapagos shells.
Mentions Edward Forbes’s theory of submerged continental extensions. Cites Hooker’s [introductory] essay [in Flora Tasmaniae (1860)] for evidence against any recent connection between Australia and New Zealand.
Discusses Huxley’s views of hybrid sterility.
Questions whether Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire believed in species change. Mentions views of Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.
The distribution of cave insects.
CD’s study of man.
The problems of locating French and German translators.
Huxley’s criticism of Owen’s views on human classification.
The sale of Origin.
CD has learned from Lyell that JDH reviewed Origin in Gardeners’ Chronicle writing in Lindley’s style.
Lyell is working on man.
P. T. A. Talandier wants to translate Origin into French. Talandier gave Louis Blanc as a referee. Could Mrs Cresy, who knows Blanc, find out what he thinks of Talandier?
Asks if Quatrefages has found anyone to translate Origin into French, because P. T. A. Talandier, although not a naturalist, wishes to do so.
Orders J. E. Tennent’s work on Ceylon [Sir James Emerson, afterwards Tennent, Ceylon, an account of the island, physical, historical, and topographical (1859)], and Richard Owen’s Classification and distribution of Mammalia [1859].
CD is pleased by BP’s appreciative opinion of Origin. He never intended to claim that he originated the doctrine that species have not been independently created. The only novelty in his work is the attempt to explain how species became modified and how the theory of descent explains large classes of facts. If he has taken anything from BP, he has done so unconsciously. Gives names of those he would have mentioned in any account of authors who maintained that species have not been separately created.
CD greatly admires BP’s Philosophy of creation.
To avoid possible misundertanding of his letter [2654] of that morning, CD wishes to make clear that he did not wish to imply that BP’s essay and the Vestiges of creation were in the same class. The more he thinks of it the more difficult he feels it would be to give a fair account of the authors who have maintained the modification of species. CD finds that he referred to BP’s views in the preface to his larger work [Natural selection], which was replaced by the Origin.
Gives the results of crossing experiments; some interesting and curious facts.