Search: letter in document-type 
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections in repository 
No in transcription-available 
Sorted by:

Showing 120 of 58 items

From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
Date:
[31 May 1865]
Source of text:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (JDH/2/1/14 f.323); The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Gen. 113/3650–3, 3813–20, 3821–4)
Summary:

Emcloses copies of correspondence concerning his dispute with John Lubbock.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Archibald Geikie
Date:
9 Dec 1875
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Gen 524/12 Coll-74/11/12 1. 1)
Summary:

CD has signed James Croll’s certificate [of nomination to Royal Society] with real pleasure.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
Date:
[24 Sept 1848]
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection AIL Coll 203 B)
Summary:

Congratulations on CL’s knighthood.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Richard Thomas Lowe
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
12 Apr 1856
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection, Journal I: 132–6)
Summary:

Discusses the flora of Porto Santo in relation to that of Madeira. While these islands have some 20 endemic species in common, there are 7 or 8 species endemic to Porto Santo alone, and 25 common to Porto Santo and Europe that are not found on Madeira. Believes the great difference in soil and climate is enough to explain this: plants common on one island cannot be made to grow on the other. Believes J. D. Hooker has underestimated the number of species endemic to Madeira. There are some remarkable endemic species of common plants in the Dezertas.

The eel is the only freshwater fish on Porto Santo and Madeira.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Thomas Vernon Wollaston
Date:
6 June [1856]
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Gen. 1999/1/30)
Summary:

Comments on TVW’s book [On the variation of species with special reference to the Insecta (1856)].

On TVW’s Unitarianism. Predicts TVW will fall further away from Christianity.

[Letter sent by TVW to Charles Lyell.]

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[1 July 1856]
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/2: 132–6)
Summary:

To cast doubt on CD’s view that volcanic action is associated with elevation of land, CL suggests that local oscillations in strata underlying volcanoes could also explain how active volcanoes have uplifted fossil deposits of marine shells. Overall he is more inclined to believe that recent volcanoes belong to areas of subsidence rather than of elevation.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
Date:
13 Apr [1857]
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Gen.109/702)
Summary:

CD returns a letter from Wollaston.

Although opposed to the Forbesian doctrine [of continental extension] as a general rule, CD would have no objection to its being proved in some cases. Does not think Wollaston has proved it; nor can anyone until more is known about the means of distribution of insects – but the identity of the two faunas is certainly interesting.

His health is very poor and his "everlasting species-Book" quite overwhelms him with work. It is beyond his powers, but he hopes to live to finish it.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
22 Oct 1859
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A1/242: 15–24)
Summary:

Wishes CD would enlarge on the doctrines of [Pyotr Simon] Pallas about the various races of dogs having come from several distinct wild species or sub-species.

Suggests organisms have a latent principle of improvement which is brought out by selection or breeding.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
28 Oct 1859
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/4: 170–3)
Summary:

Since dogs have same gestation period as the wolf it is likely that the wolf is the ancestral wild species, if it is just one species.

CD’s belief that domestic dogs are descended from several distinct aboriginal species seems to contradict views on sterility of hybrids and variation in Origin. If domestic varieties came from hybrids of wild species it will be impossible to trace ancestry. Opponents will exploit these problems.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
21 Nov 1859
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/4: 195–7)
Summary:

Questions CD’s view in Origin that domestic dogs are not descended from a single stock. Occasional crossings of domestic stock with wild species could explain cases of reversion towards wild specific forms. CD’s views on hybridity do not then have to be contradicted in constructing an ancestral stock.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Leonard Jenyns; Leonard Blomefield
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
4 Jan 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/5: 95–103)
Summary:

Has read Origin and considers it one of the most valuable contributions to present-day natural history. Believes, however, that there are difficulties in the extensive generalisation that all taxonomic groups are related by descent. Does not understand how Genesis is to be read unless at least the human species was created independently of other animals. Cannot bring himself to the idea that man’s reasoning and moral sense could have been obtained from "irrational progenitors": the "Divine Image" is the unsurmountable distinction between man and brutes. [See 2644.]

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
François Jules Pictet de la Rive
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
19 Feb 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/5: 110–11)
Summary:

Believes Origin makes science "young, clear, elevated" but does not have the facts to prove that cumulated slight modifications could ever produce different families from common ancestors. [See 2709.]

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Andrew Crombie Ramsay
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
21 Feb 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/5: 112–16)
Summary:

ACR has for years had a belief in mutability and transmutation of species, prompted by disputes over the nature of species and varieties, and the existence of representative species in space and in the geological record. Could not accept a Creator employing small miracles to make species differ just a little between formations. Has maintained that one would not expect to find fine gradations between forms in the fossil record, but only representatives of very populous forms. [See 2711.]

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Herbert Spencer
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
22 Feb 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/5: 107–9)
Summary:

CD has caused a great change in HS’s views, in showing how a great proportion of adaptation should be explained by natural selection not direct adaptation to changing conditions. HS had remarked on the survival of the best individuals as a cause of improvement in man, but he "& every one" overlooked selection of spontaneous variation. Believes so many kinds of indirect evidence must add up to a conclusive demonstration of the doctrine.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Joseph Beete Jukes
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
27 Feb 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/5: 125–7)
Summary:

Believes in the "perfect indefiniteness & frequently the vast length of the interval" between consecutive geological formations. Thus has little respect for arguments against CD based on the absence of transitional forms in the geological record. States that species found through series of beds do vary: some Silurian species have many synonyms which are really varieties of greatly differing ages. CD’s theory accounts for the progressive inprovement, multiplication and increase in complexity that can be seen, but which may often be only relative.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
2 May 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/5: 176–9)
Summary:

It is small comfort to be told you will be succeeded in lineal descent by angels when Lamarck and Darwin have made your ancestors without souls. However, can the progressive system not be seen as most consonant with a higher destiny if all spiritual natures advance? The link of common descent to inferior beings like idiots should be obvious. Infants die before they become responsible. Pope’s An essay on Man [1733] shows how man was "In doubt to deem himself a God or Beast", without speculation on his genealogy.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
15 June 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/6: 108–9)
Summary:

Rejects CD’s comparison of natural selection with the architect of a building. The architect who plans and oversees construction should not be confused in his function with the wisest breeder. That would be to deify natural selection.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
19 June 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/6: 117–23)
Summary:

Sees Huxley’s deification of matter and force as a reaction to the way Paley likened the "Unknown Cause" to the mind of man so that new causes could be introduced. If you wish to retain free will which is inconsistent with constant law, Paley’s position is better. Free will is a recently introduced cause on our planet. It cannot be fully attributed to secondary causes.

What CD says about the variation in gestation of the hound is remarkable.

The astonishing fertile rabbit–hare hybrids encourage belief in Pallas’s theory of the multiple origin of dogs.

Does the regularity of gestation in man indicate a common stock?

Hooker’s observation of absence of forms peculiar to extra-Arctic Greenland indicates that the time since the beginning of the glacial period is brief in geological terms.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
28 Aug 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/6: 164–71)
Summary:

Objections to Origin which Owen and Wilberforce could have used. Why have incipient mammalian forms not arisen from lower vertebrates on islands separated since Miocene period? Knows CD would not derive Eocene Mammalia from higher reptiles, but would bats not be modified into other mammalian forms on an ancient island? This is not the case in New Zealand. Why have island seals not become terrestrial? Assumes rate of change is greatest in mammals. Difficulties are small compared with ability to explain absence of Mammalia in pre-Pliocene islands. Asks about descent of Amblyrhynchus. Believes objections apply equally well to independent creation of animal types, but not if the First Cause is allowed completely free agency.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Lyell, 1st baronet
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
8 Sept 1860
Source of text:
The University of Edinburgh Centre for Research Collections (Lyell collection Coll-203/A3/6: 179–86)
Summary:

Believes CD’s argument against special creation based on absence of terrestrial mammals on islands isolated before Pliocene era is very strong. However, the absence means Cetacea and bats have not modified towards terrestrial existence. There is similar lack of development of bats and rodents in Australia. Constancy among land shells of Madeira over long period shows that the majority of their species are immutable: a minority of "metamorphic" species maintains the overall number of true species while extinction removes many. Emphasis on the role of extinction discomfits CD’s opponents since the power of generation of new species ought to keep pace. Mentions Ammonite deposits with reference to CD’s comments on their apparent sudden extinction [Origin, pp. 321–2]. Perhaps absence of transmutation on slowly subsiding atolls indicates the slow rate of selective change.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project