Asks for a testimonial for Edward Newman.

Discusses the Origin, considers natural selection works well when applied to the evolution of nations and groups of men; on the other hand feels the classification of mineral elements is a damaging analogy as it parallels organic classification but could not be derived by any evolutionary means.

Thanks GM for his excellent criticisms. His observations on the classification of minerals force him to "own that classification may be closely like that due to descent yet have no relation to it".

Asks whether GM has observed any cases of "bud-variations".

Thanks GM for his fair review [of Origin, Zoologist 19 (1861): 7577–611].

Feels it is a pity to mingle science and religion;

explains why he did not deal with the case of man.

Has read GM’s review and thanks him for its fair and liberal spirit. Discusses briefly several specific difficulties raised by it.

Thanks CD for his letter about GM’s review of the Origin.

Sends instances of correlative organisation and functions which he finds difficult to believe could have accumulated by gradual modifications.

[Letter erroneously dated 1862 by GM.]

Would welcome any facts on correlation, or GM’s criticisms. Explains how natural selection could produce apparent correlation of characters, but feels GM’s Pelargonium example must arise from the leaves and petals being similarly affected at an early stage by an unknown cause.