Against all predictions his Edinburgh lecture was well received [Evidence as to man’s place in nature (1863)].

Took his old line about problem of infertility of hybrids as a test of CD’s views.

Report [from a newspaper] not quite right about what he said, but they have not refuted his statement that some form of progressive development theory is certainly true, nor that man and the apes come from same stock. Owen has gone in for progressive development in second edition of the Palaeontology [1861].

On success of THH’s Edinburgh lectures.

Agrees that THH is right that the hybrid question is a "hiatus" [in the argument for natural selection] but he overrates it. Crossed varieties frequently produce sterile offspring. On this question asks THH to read his Primula paper [Collected papers 2: 45–63]. CD suspects sterility will come to be viewed as a selected character.

The Witness attacks THH’s lecture.

Assures CD he spoke more favourably of his doctrines than the reports show.

Agrees with CD’s arguments on sterility of hybrids and predicts physiological experiments will produce physiological species sterile inter se. Has come even closer to CD’s view especially since Primula paper. Will soon be more Darwinian than CD.

Much amused at the Witness.

Pleased at what THH says on hybridity.

Odd that objectors never allude to the arguments that alone have weight in their favour – affinities, rudimentary organs, etc.

Has 16 ill in the house!

Natural History Review a capital number.

Returns a letter, which, when it is published, he believes will make readers take up THH’s lectures in a more impartial spirit.

Returns "The Week" [unidentified].

Agrees with THH’s published letter that writer is a man of excellent spirit, but doubts he is a good logician.

Thinks THH’s [Anniversary] Address [to Geological Society, Feb 1862, Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 18 (1862): xl–liv] a wonderful condensed and original summary of palaeontology.

Glad to receive CD’s pat on back for address.

Wants to know what CD thinks of the argument on geological contemporaneity.

On his poor health.

Nearly agrees on contemporaneity, but THH pushes his ideas too far. Would require strong evidence before believing that the so-called Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous strata could be contemporaneous. Thinks THH’s case on advancement of organisation is strong. But he should read Bronn, before publishing again, and say more on other side. Cannot help hoping he is not as right as he seems to be.

The BAAS meeting at Cambridge was exhausting.

Owen came to attack him but was beaten; his paper fell flat.

A "society for propagation of common honesty in all parts of the world" was established at Cambridge [THH’s "Thorough Club"?].

Thanks for a contribution ["On the so-called ""auditory-sac"" of cirripedes", Nat. Hist. Rev. (1863): 115–16; Collected papers 2: 85–7]. Is sending a proof.

This year’s lecture to working men to be devoted to CD’s book.

Sends first three of his Lectures to working men [on our knowledge of the phenomena of organic nature (1863)]. Does not intend them to be widely circulated.

On THH’s Lectures to working men.

Work by Ferdinand J. Cohn on the contractile tissue of plants ["Über contractile Gewebe im Pflanzenreich" Abh. Schlesischen Ges. Vaterl. Cult. 1 (1861)] seems important. CD has come to the conclusion that there must be some substance in plants analogous to the supposed diffused nervous matter in lower animals.

[Part of P.S. missing from original.]

Enthusiastic about Lectures IV and V [Lectures to working men (1863)].

Sends specific comments on fantail pigeon,

sterility of hybrids,

the geological section diagram.

Returns Kingsley’s letter [see ML 1: 225 n.].

Lectures [to working men] would do good if widely circulated.

On sterility, they differ so much there is no use arguing. To get the degree of sterility THH expects in recently formed varieties seems to CD simply hopeless. Has suggested a test experiment to Tegetmeier [two fertile birds paired and unproductive].