Thanks THH for his note; pleased by what he says. Is too sensitive about shades of opinion of men like THH.

The Macmillan article on Origin [H. Fawcett, "A popular exposition of Mr Darwin on the origin of species", Macmillan’s Mag. 3 (1860): 81–92].

J. E. Gray’s misunderstanding of Origin.

Account of the encounter at Oxford BAAS meeting.

Forwards A. Gray’s letter [inquiring whether THH would be interested in printing Chauncey Wright’s review of Origin].

Congratulates THH on first number of Natural History Review.

THH’s article on brain ["On the zoological relations of man with the lower animals", Nat. Hist. Rev. (1861): 67–84] completely smashes Owen.

Owen’s Leeds address [Rep. BAAS (1858): xlix–cx].

In his historical sketch of opinion on species CD has picked out some sentences [by Owen] with which he will take some revenge. CD is not bold enough to come to an open quarrel.

Chauncey Wright’s review of Origin: A. Gray asks that THH append a list of philosophical books on subject if he accepts it for Natural History Review.

Sends Gray’s pamphlet of his (republished) reviews [Natural selection not inconsistent with natural theology (1861)] for notice.

Invites Mrs Huxley and the children to spend a fortnight at Down.

MS of Chauncey Wright’s review has not yet arrived.

[P.S. missing from original.]

Does not think much of the arguments of the Duke [of Argyll], though liberal and complimentary to himself.

THH’s Athenæum letter ["Man and the apes", 30 Mar 1861, p. 433] almost too civil. What a thorn THH must be to Owen.

Chauncey Wright’s review of Origin.

Family plans for Torquay in summer.

J. S. Henslow’s death.

Mr Campbell (recommended by H. Spencer) would be a treasure but doubts any man has patience to experiment at another’s suggestion.

Jocular comments about THH’s audacity in doubting Catasetum.

Owen’s new résumé of his brain doctrine ["On the cerebral character of man and ape", Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. 3d ser. 7 (1861): 456–8]; an attack on CD’s views. Quotes Owen on cavillers and controversialists.

On success of THH’s Edinburgh lectures.

Agrees that THH is right that the hybrid question is a "hiatus" [in the argument for natural selection] but he overrates it. Crossed varieties frequently produce sterile offspring. On this question asks THH to read his Primula paper [Collected papers 2: 45–63]. CD suspects sterility will come to be viewed as a selected character.

Much amused at the Witness.

Pleased at what THH says on hybridity.

Odd that objectors never allude to the arguments that alone have weight in their favour – affinities, rudimentary organs, etc.

Has 16 ill in the house!

Natural History Review a capital number.

Returns a letter, which, when it is published, he believes will make readers take up THH’s lectures in a more impartial spirit.

Returns "The Week" [unidentified].

Agrees with THH’s published letter that writer is a man of excellent spirit, but doubts he is a good logician.

Thinks THH’s [Anniversary] Address [to Geological Society, Feb 1862, Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 18 (1862): xl–liv] a wonderful condensed and original summary of palaeontology.

Nearly agrees on contemporaneity, but THH pushes his ideas too far. Would require strong evidence before believing that the so-called Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous strata could be contemporaneous. Thinks THH’s case on advancement of organisation is strong. But he should read Bronn, before publishing again, and say more on other side. Cannot help hoping he is not as right as he seems to be.

On THH’s Lectures to working men.

Work by Ferdinand J. Cohn on the contractile tissue of plants ["Über contractile Gewebe im Pflanzenreich" Abh. Schlesischen Ges. Vaterl. Cult. 1 (1861)] seems important. CD has come to the conclusion that there must be some substance in plants analogous to the supposed diffused nervous matter in lower animals.

[Part of P.S. missing from original.]

Enthusiastic about Lectures IV and V [Lectures to working men (1863)].

Sends specific comments on fantail pigeon,

sterility of hybrids,

the geological section diagram.

Returns Kingsley’s letter [see ML 1: 225 n.].

Lectures [to working men] would do good if widely circulated.

On sterility, they differ so much there is no use arguing. To get the degree of sterility THH expects in recently formed varieties seems to CD simply hopeless. Has suggested a test experiment to Tegetmeier [two fertile birds paired and unproductive].

CD overwhelmed by THH’s praise.

Agrees with his reservations about species theory but not wholly about sterility and gives his reasons for differing.

On Natural History Review, Hugh Falconer, and R. Owen.

Has written a review [Collected papers 2: 87–92] of H. W. Bates’s paper ["Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley", Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 23 (1862): 495–566].

THH’s efforts to obtain Copley Medal for CD fail. Thanks THH for kind words of sympathy.