Showing 41–60 of 100 items
ARW responds to CD’s list of queries about expression. Suggests acquiring informants through publishing the queries in newspapers. His doubts about their importance.
Has submitted caterpillar question to Entomological Society.
Asks to be kept informed on gaudy caterpillars.
Problems of his work on man; scope and role of sexual selection.
Indulgence of interest in expression is simply a "hobby-horse". Will see whether he can get queries inserted in an Indian newspaper.
Describes his view on colour [of plumage] of males and females – i.e., that absence of brilliant colour in either sex is due to need for protection in incubation, rather than to sexual selection.
Comments on ARW’s view of colouring in relation to sexual selection and protection. It is not new to CD. Hopes to discuss subject fully in his "Essay on Man" [Descent]. As to the problem of brightly coloured females, CD is not satisfied that it is due to males taking over incubation. Admires "value and beauty" of ARW’s generalisations.
Never imagined that the facts about sexual selection could be new to CD. Thought fact that brightly coloured females build concealed nests and almost all those in which sexes differ remarkably build exposed nests might be new to him. Some problems remain. Sends his notes for CD to use if he wants.
Returns ARW’s notes. He will work up subject much better than CD.
Apologises for the note of illiberality in his letter regarding ARW’s work on the colouring and other sexual differences in mammals.
Discusses laws of inheritance based on sexual selection.
He questions the extent of applicability of principles of protection and sexual selection to lower animal forms, though Ernst Haeckel has shown how protection may account for transparency and absence of colour in lower oceanic animals.
CD is invited to see ARW’s collections at Bayswater.
ARW has written an answer to the Duke of Argyll and North British Review criticisms.
CD now acknowledges that the sometimes very great sexual, i.e., ornamental, differences in fishes offer a difficulty to the view that females are not brightly coloured on account of the danger to propagation of the species.
Acknowledgment of article on mimicry [Westminster Rev. 88 (1867): 1–43].
Informs CD of his reply to Argyll and the North British Review criticisms [in "Creation by law", Q. J. Sci. 4 (1867): 471–88]. Cites "the predicted Madagascar moth" and Angraecum sesquipedale.
Birth of Herbert Spencer Wallace.
Response to ARW’s "Creation by law", especially the Angraecum sesquipedale and the predicted Madagascar moth.
ARW’s argument on beauty strikes CD as good.
Wishes ARW had made more clear the assumption of the reviewer [in North Br. Rev.] that each variation is a strongly marked one.
The Duke of Argyll’s argument on beauty is not candid.
Response to CD’s comments on "Creation by law" [see 5637].
The limits of variation discussed.
Thanks for Variation.
Reports work on his travel book [The Malay Archipelago (1869)].
Reports work on sexual selection. Problems with the relative numbers of the two sexes and polygamy. Asks ARW’s help with several questions on polygamous birds.
Responds to CD’s queries on polygamy in birds and orang.
Discusses sexual selection and secondary characters; colours and sexual preference.
Expresses his admiration for Pangenesis; it is superior to Herbert Spencer’s theory.
ARW differs somewhat with CD’s chapter on causes of variability [ch. 22 in Variation]. Thinks several of CD’s arguments are unsound.
Briefly discusses how natural selection might aid in producing sterility between allied species.
Pleased by ARW’s response to Pangenesis.
On negative reception by his friends.
Further argument concerning sterility and natural selection.
Polygamy and sexual selection.
Protection.
Offers enclosure demonstrating that natural selection could produce sterility of hybrids.
More on Pangenesis and the inadequacy of H. Spencer’s approach.
On critical exchanges at the Linnean Society on natural selection and mimicry.
Roland Trimen’s paper on South African mimetic butterflies ["On some remarkable mimetic resemblances among African butterflies", Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 26 (1870): 497–523; read 5 Mar 1868].
Coloration of butterflies; brilliantly coloured females.
Commends CD on his paper on specific differences in Primula [J. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 10 (1869): 437–54; reprinted and revised in Forms of flowers] as a test-case proving origin of real species.
On his Primula paper for the Linnean Society ["On the specific difference between Primula veris, Brit. Fl. (var. officialis, Linn.), P. vulgaris, Brit. Fl. var. acaulis, Linn.), and P. elatior, Jacq.; and on the hybrid nature of the common oxlip; with supplementary remarks on naturally produced hybrids of the genus Verbascum", [officinalis!?] J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 10 (1869): 437–54].
Peacocks and sexual selection.
ARW’s sterility argument has driven CD’s sons half-mad.