Has made observations on pollination mechanism in Medicago sativa [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 9 (1867): 327–9], which his brother-in-law [J. D. Hooker] would accept. Wants to check that CD has not already made them.

Also sends interpretation of Salvia.

His observations come from following CD’s generalisation in Origin [p. 79] on necessity of out-crossing.

Reports the results of an experiment to compare the weight of seeds produced in plants of [Medicago sativa] by self-pollination and by insect pollination.

Pleased CD confirms his observations on Salvia.

Spring action of Medicago stamens described.

Has been writing a review of CD’s "Climbing plants" for Popular Science Review [5 (1866): 55–65].

Reviewing C. V. Naudin’s article ["Nouvelles recherches sur l’hybridité dans les végétaux", Ann. Sci. Nat. (Bot.) 4th ser. 19 (1863): 180–203] for Popular Science Review [5 (1866): 304–13]. Requests references.

Proposes to visit Down on Easter weekend.

Thanks for references for his Naudin–hybridism paper [see 5029].

Forgot to thank CD for his praise of tendril paper [see 4944].

Cannot come to Down on weekend because of teaching duties.

Sends copies of Science gossip and The leisure hour.

Enjoyed visit.

His criticism of Primula fertility referred to table 2 [Collected papers 2: 56] where weight of seeds produced from good pods by long-styled homostylous cross and short-styled heterostylous cross are virtually identical.

F. Hildebrand, in his recent article [Bot. Ztg. 10 (1866): 73–8], describes what GH showed CD about Indigofera’s irritability.

Describes the pollination of broom by bees.

Thanks for explanation on relative fertility of homostyled and heterostyled crosses in Primula. Sends an intermediate form with small stamens, but stigma only slightly above stamens.

Election as Botanical Lecturer at St Bartholomew’s Hospital.

Has written his Naudin–hybridism article [Pop. Sci. Rev. 5 (1866): 304–13]. Would like CD to criticise proofs.

Will return books borrowed from CD.

Sends proofs [of "On hybridization among plants", Pop. Sci. Rev. 5 (1866): 304–13].

Regrets delay in returning CD’s books.

Encourages CD to make "disparaging remarks".

Returns proofs of GH’s paper ["On hybridization among plants", Pop. Sci. Rev. 5 (1866): 304–13] with his criticisms. Prefers that GH not state that CD has read the proofs.

Does C. V. Naudin really say that ovules (not seed) of hybrid Luffa and Cucumis are imperfect?

Thanks for criticism of proofs of his paper [see 5117].

Not sure whether CD believes in reversion and would like a positive statement as this is the one point C. V. Naudin especially observed. Naudin offers his remarks on ovules as a matter to be proved ["Nouvelles recherches sur l’hybridité", Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. 1 (1865): 25–176].

CD believes most strongly in reversion. J. G. Kölreuter’s, K. F. v Gärtner’s, and some of Charles Naudin’s cases leave no doubt in his mind. Forgets whether Herbert gave cases but in conversation he certainly believed in it. Thinks Gärtner is right to say reversion occurs only rarely in plant hybrids which have not been cultivated. [See 5120.]

Variation

Has altered paper according to CD’s comments.

Returns books.

Thanks CD for his interesting papers.

Proposes writing a note for Linnean Society ["Note on the structure of Genista tinctoria", J. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 10 (1869): 468], in part using information CD gave him at Down.