GHD’s article will not do. It is too long and the denial seems weak and confused; also, it ought to be in the form of a letter to the editor. Encloses draft of the sort of letter of denial he thinks GHD should write.

Apologises for delay, but is away from home; has sent telegraph.

Francis Darwin is abroad on his honeymoon and unable to respond to GEP’s offer of a medical position.

Has no objection to sending GHD’s letter as it is. The only accusation it seems necessary to rebut is about licentiousness. Regrets this is not made more prominent.

Gives some suggestions for GHD’s reply to Mivart’s attack.

CD understands JTK’s reasons [for not republishing W. D. Whitney’s article]. Cannot undertake to write anything himself; he needs rest and is unwilling to enter into controversy.

Praises WDW’s essay on language [North Am. Rev. 119 (1874): 61–88] which argues against Max Müller’s views and is a good defence against an attack made in Quarterly Review on CD’s short discussion of language.

Discusses flower structures of the hop.

Approves of GHD’s letter [to Q. Rev. 137 (1874): 587–9] and his present plan, which removes all CD’s objections. Will make his own letter to Murray less imperious. "It will be a dreadful evil to me, if … we come to a quarrel."

Asks JM, as a favour, to use his influence with the Editor of Quarterly Review to print George Darwin’s answer to the charge made by the author of "Primitive man" [St George Mivart] that GD approved "of the encouragement of vice to check population".

CD has not received the proofs [of JT’s Belfast address to BAAS].

Wishes JT were through with Belfast [meeting of BAAS, 1874]. CD cannot imagine surviving such a week of excitement.

Returns proofs [of JT’s Belfast address, Rep. BAAS 44 (1874): lxvi–xcvii]. Gratified by what it says about his work and is anxious to read the whole address; it is a grand subject.

Likes GHD’s article ["Professor Whitney on the origin of language", Contemp. Rev. (1874): 894]. "You have defended me nobly."

It is splendid how Nepenthes is behaving. Drosera and Dionaea are insignificant by comparison.

Takes rather a malicious pleasure in JDH’s failure with Cephalotus as a match to his with Utricularia.

Reports difficulties in experiments on digestion of fibro-cartilage. Asks about JSBS’s experiments with artificial digestive fluids.

JSBS must read Hooker’s address at Belfast [Rep. BAAS 44 (1874): 103–16] to see what a magnificent digester Nepenthes is.

Thanks EN for his book [Indian snakes, 2d ed. (1874)]. CD is pleased that it calls attention to gradation in the character of snake poison.

States his indebtedness to and admiration for Humboldt and his work.

Thanks JDH for his "quite admirable" address [Rep. BAAS 44 (1874) pt 2: 102–16]. Suggests revisions.

CD thinks he is "now on right track about Utricularia" after wasting several weeks "in fruitless trials and observations".

Mrs Barber’s paper is very curious and ought to be published.

Glad to hear about sticky fluid on leaves. WCM need not bother to count leaves.

Utricularia catch freshwater Crustaceans, which cannot be digested and rot in the bladders. CD is interested to identify any substance produced in the putrefaction before it is resolved into gases and salts of ammonia. He has reason to believe that the plant absorbs such products.