From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Lawrence John Jones, 4th baronet
Date:
6 Nov 1881
Source of text:
American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.600)
Summary:
Explains source of error [in Earthworms].
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
John Lubbock, 4th baronet and 1st Baron Avebury
Date:
6 Nov 1881
Source of text:
The British Library (Add MS 49645: 104–5)
Summary:
Supports the statements on Henry Hicks in JL’s address.
Bonney is an "objector general".
CD has always supported A. C. Ramsay.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Wilhelm Friedrich Philipp (Wilhelm) Pfeffer
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
6 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 174: 39
Summary:
It is impossible to trace the direct connections between stimuli and responses in plant movements. Disagrees with much of Julius von Wiesner [Die Bewegungsvermögen der Pflanzen (1881)]. Disagrees with CD on induced movements and circumnutation.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Thomas Mellard Reade
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
6 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 176: 32
Summary:
Praise for Earthworms.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Robert Francis Cooke; John Murray
Date:
6 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 143: 297
Summary:
Discusses additional printing of Earthworms.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Anthony Elly Graves
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
6 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 165: 91
Summary:
Sends his observations on the behaviour of a worm. They seem to indicate some sensory apparatus enabling it to "see".
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Foster Barham Zincke
Date:
7 Nov 1881
Source of text:
Cleveland Health Sciences Library (Robert M. Stecher collection)
Summary:
Would like to cite the case of the celt in a new printing of Earthworms. Asks for details.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles James Breese
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
7 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 160: 289
Summary:
Sends CD an abstract of his 1871 paper on the earthworm, and requests information on the phenomenon of luminosity.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Sarah Marshall
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
7 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 171: 43
Summary:
Can CD explain why in a mollusc (Bulimus decollatus) immature forms are always broken at the apex.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Nature
Date:
7 Nov [1881]
Source of text:
Nature , 17 November 1881, p. 51
Summary:
Summarises letter of William Nation [13350]. The facts given strongly support the conclusion that there is some close connection between the parasitic habits of birds that lay their eggs in others’ nests and the fact of their laying eggs at "considerable intervals of time".
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Thomas Mellard Reade
Date:
8 Nov 1881
Source of text:
University of Liverpool Library (TMR1.D.7.8)
Summary:
"Roots often run down worm burrows, but can penetrate the ground without such aid."
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Foster Barham Zincke
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
8 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 184: 13
Summary:
Describes the soil in which he found prehistoric tools.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
James Frederick Simpson
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
8 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 177: 168
Summary:
Thanks CD for his letter and gives permission to use his observations, although not considering himself a worthy authority. Enlarges upon some of his previous observations.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Anthony Elly Graves
Date:
9 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 144: 347
Summary:
Cannot explain worm behaviour observed by AEG. Cannot believe in power of vision. Inclined to speculate on capacity for distinguishing damp air.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Francis Darwin
Date:
9 Nov [1881]
Source of text:
DAR 211: 70, DAR 211: 89
Summary:
Comments on two letters received from W. F. P. Pfeffer [13425, 13464] who thinks Julius Wiesner’s view that light, etc. acts directly on plants is wrong.
Is frantic over the number of letters received about worms; feels the enthusiasm of the reception of Earthworms is laughable.
Is confounded by Euphorbia rootlets and has re-examined the effect of carbonate of ammonia.
Has thought of three good experiments to oppose Wiesner.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Johann August Georg Edmund (Edmund) Mojsisovics von Mojsvár
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
10 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 171: 228
Summary:
Thanks for Earthworms.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Julius Frazelle Galbraith
Date:
11 Nov 1881
Source of text:
Bonhams, New York (dealers) (21 September 2015)
Summary:
Explains that the animals in the cask cannot have developed from the wheat.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Julius Wiesner
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
11 Nov 1881
Source of text:
DAR 261.11: 22 (EH 88206074)
Summary:
CD has misunderstood his views on heliotropism. Agrees that his experiments on the movement of root tips are weak. Will conduct further research. Thinks that since mechanical conception of botany is not so widespread, those who agree with CD probably are in majority.
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
George John Romanes
Date:
12 Nov 1881
Source of text:
American Philosophical Society (Mss.B.D25.601)
Summary:
Discusses GJR’s controversy with the Duke [of Argyll] concerning Roux’s book [Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus (1881)].
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
William Turner Thiselton-Dyer
Date:
12 Nov [1881]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Thiselton-Dyer, W. T., Letters from Charles Darwin 1873–81: ff. 228–9)
Summary:
Progress of his and Frank Darwin’s work; "all natural science seems now to depend on section-cutting".
Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project