Search: letter in document-type 
1860-1869::1863 in date 
Oliver, Daniel in correspondent 
Sorted by:

Showing 119 of 19 items

From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Daniel Oliver
Date:
20 [Jan 1863]
Source of text:
DAR 261.10: 38 (EH 88206021)
Summary:

Has been copying out references from Natural History Review [possibly D. Oliver, "The structure of the stem in dicotyledons; being references to the literature of the subject", Nat. Hist. Rev. n.s. 2 (1862): 298–329].

Suggests DO study high incidence of separate sexes in freshwater plants.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Daniel Oliver
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
22 Jan 1863
Source of text:
DAR 173: 19
Summary:

The number of "aquatic" flowers is reduced if one considers only those that expand under water.

Lecturing at Norwich.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Daniel Oliver
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
17 Feb 1863
Source of text:
DAR 173: 20
Summary:

DO thinks an essay [Alexander Braun’s "Rejuvenescence", Ray Society (1853)] is not worth reading with respect to some difficulty concerning phyllotaxy.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Daniel Oliver
Date:
20 [Feb 1863]
Source of text:
DAR 261.10: 41 (EH 88206024)
Summary:

Having trouble understanding laws of phyllotaxy in order to grasp Hugh Falconer’s objections.

L. C. Treviranus on Primula [see 3980] misses the "prettiness" of the adaptations.

John Scott says P. scotica is never dimorphic.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Daniel Oliver
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
27 Feb 1863
Source of text:
DAR 108: 178
Summary:

Answers CD’s query on Primula longiflora and P. scotica.

Would like abstract of CD’s paper ["Two forms of Linum", Collected papers 2: 93–105] for Natural History Review.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Daniel Oliver
Date:
24–5 Mar [1863]
Source of text:
DAR 261.10: 42 (EH 88206025)
Summary:

Observation on morphology of Primula ovarium sent for DO’s use.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Daniel Oliver
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[26 Mar 1863]
Source of text:
DAR 173: 18
Summary:

Discusses the female parts of the Primula flower; the true character of the free placenta is not completely understood.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Daniel Oliver
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[27 Mar 1863]
Source of text:
DAR 173: 23
Summary:

Sends some specimens for CD.

Is busy with W. African Amomum, whose floral structure he discusses.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Daniel Oliver
Date:
28 Mar [1863]
Source of text:
DAR 261.10: 43 (EH 88206026)
Summary:

Nectar secretion in Edwardsia. Could the stamen protect stigma?

Sends monstrous Primula with three pistils.

Had never heard of Robert Caspary, but what DO thinks is the placenta could be a whorl of pistils without stigmas.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Daniel Oliver
Date:
[12 Apr 1863]
Source of text:
DAR 261.10: 46 (EH 88206029)
Summary:

Working on monstrous Primula. Is ovule anatropous as Asa Gray says, or amphitropous? Does he know natural path of pollen tubes in Primula. Can the tube enter the ovule by the chalaza?

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Daniel Oliver
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
14 Apr 1863
Source of text:
DAR 173: 21
Summary:

The ovule of Primula is amphitropous or what J. Georg Agardh calls apotropo-amphitropous [see Theoria systematis plantarum (1858), tab. 24, fig. 5–6].

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Daniel Oliver
Date:
[after 14 Apr 1863]
Source of text:
DAR 147: 214
Summary:

Thanks for information on Primula ovules. From what DO says the pollen-tubes ought to find their way to the micropyle.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Daniel Oliver
Date:
18 July [1863]
Source of text:
DAR 261.10: 51 (EH 88206034)
Summary:

Sends F. Hildebrand’s paper for publication by the Linnean Society or in Natural History Review.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Daniel Oliver
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
20 July 1863
Source of text:
DAR 173: 22
Summary:

Hildebrand’s paper is unsuitable for the Natural History Review.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Daniel Oliver
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
[after 20 July 1863]
Source of text:
DAR 173: 25
Summary:

Gives a reference to a paper.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Daniel Oliver
Date:
[before 27 Nov 1863]
Source of text:
DAR 261.10: 53 (EH 88206036)
Summary:

Recommends Wyman’s short notice ["Report on Dr Jeffries Wyman’s experiment on the cause of contractility in vegetable tissues"] in the Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 3 (1852–7): 167.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Daniel Oliver
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
27 Nov 1863
Source of text:
DAR 173: 24
Summary:

Discusses the contraction of hygroscopic bundles in seed-pods,

and a paper by Hugo von Mohl ["Über dimorphe Blüthen", Bot. Ztg. (1863): 309–15, 321–8] in which he discusses Oxalis and determines that Fumaria is a necessarily self-fertilising plant.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
From:
Charles Robert Darwin
To:
Daniel Oliver
Date:
28 [Nov 1863]
Source of text:
DAR 261.10: 54 (EH 88206037)
Summary:

Fertile flowers of violets, except Viola tricolor, require insect visits.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
Text Online
From:
Ferdinand von Mueller
To:
Daniel Oliver
Date:
25 December 1863
Source of text:
RB MSS M105, Library, Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne
Summary:

No summary available.

Contributor:
Correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller Project