Search: Darwin, C. R. in correspondent 
1880-1889 in date 
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden in repository 
Sorted by:

Showing 16 of 6 items

From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Henry Gilbert
Date:
5 Feb 1881
Source of text:
Rothamsted Research (GIL13)
Summary:

Asks whether vegetable mould has an acid reaction. The contents of intestines of earthworms and castings are acid, which leads him to inquire about mould.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Henry Gilbert
Date:
25 Feb 1881
Source of text:
Rothamsted Research (GIL13)
Summary:

Discusses acidity of earthworm castings. JHG’s reply will make him more cautious.

Would like to see W. A. Detmer’s paper [Landwirtsch. Versuchs-Stat. 14 (1871): 248–300] and S. W. Johnson’s work [How crops feed].

Comments on food value of white and brown bread.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Joseph Henry Gilbert
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
7 Mar 1881
Source of text:
Rothamsted Research (GIL13)
Summary:

Sends some books.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Henry Gilbert
Date:
15 Mar 1881
Source of text:
Rothamsted Research (GIL13)
Summary:

Returns the two books JHG had lent him. "I can plainly see I had better say nothing about the acidity of common mould."

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Henry Gilbert
Date:
8 June 1881
Source of text:
Rothamsted Research (GIL13)
Summary:

Regrets that he has not strength enough to visit [Rothamsted].

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Joseph Henry Gilbert
Date:
12 Jan 1882
Source of text:
Rothamsted Research (GIL13)
Summary:

Quantity of nitrogen in castings surprises CD.

Comments on papers: [J. B. Lawes and J. H. Gilbert, "Results of experiments on mixed herbage, pt 1", Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 171 (1880): 289–416; Gilbert, Lawes and M. T. Masters, "pt 2: The botanical results", Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 173 (1882): 1181–413].

Has never made sections to see how deep worms burrow – five or six feet is probable. Wishes the problem had arisen when he made his observations.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project