His better opinion [of work of Boucher de Perthes].

Explains his position on CL’s treatment of species.

Mentions positive response to his ideas on the part of a German professor [Ernst Haeckel], Alphonse de Candolle, and a botanical palaeontologist [Gaston de Saporta].

Notes negative reaction of entomologists.

Mentions Falconer’s objections [to Antiquity].

Mentions work of Hooker.

Comments on paper by Owen ["On the aye-aye", Rep. BAAS 32 (1862) pt 2: 114–16]

and CD’s review of Bates’s paper [Collected papers 2: 87–92].

Thinks Natural History Review is excellent.

Reports the observations of Hermann Crüger and John Scott that fruit is set by orchids whose flowers never open and that pollen-tubes are emitted from pollen-masses still in their proper position. These cases convince CD that in Orchids he underestimated the power of tropical orchids to produce seed without insect aid but he is not shaken in his belief that the structure of the flowers is mainly related to insect agency.