Mentions American edition of Origin.

A "savage" review [by John Duns] in North British Review [32 (1860): 455–68].

Comments on views of G. H. K. Thwaites on the survival of simple forms as a problem in his theory.

Mentions imperfection of geological record.

Marine origin of coal.

Illness of Etty.

Encloses article by Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire on hare–rabbit crosses [Histoire naturelle générale (1854–62) 3: 222].

Comments on review of Origin by Andrew Murray [Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh 4 (1860): 274–91] and views of William Hopkins on Origin ["Physical theories and the phenomena of life" Fraser’s Mag. 61 (1860): 739–52; 62 (1860): 74–90]. The attacks will tell heavily.

Mentions Blyth’s failure to receive appointment as naturalist to China expedition of 1860.

Encloses letter from Asa Gray.

Discusses gestation period in domesticated dogs.

Comments on hybrid fertility.

Mentions Etty’s illness.

A "coarsely contemptuous" review of Origin by Samuel Haughton ["On the form of the cells made by various wasps and by the honey bee; with an appendix on the origin of species", Proc. Nat. Hist. Soc. Dublin 3 (1860): 128–40].

Comments on reception of Malthus’ ideas.

Says William Hopkins does not understand him.

Discusses problem of term "natural selection".

J. A. Lowell’s review of Origin [Christian Examiner (1860): 449–64].

Relationship between instinct and structure.

Discusses blindness of cave animals.

The fallacy of Andrew Murray and others; the slight importance of climate.

Mentions letters from Edward Blyth and William Hopkins.

Sees little in review of Origin by J. A. Lowell [Christian Examiner (1860): 449–64].

Sees only one sentence approaching natural selection in paper by Hermann Schaaffhausen. Emphasises importance of natural selection.

Comments on Agassiz’s view of species.

Cites account of flint tools in travel book by F. P. Wrangell [Narrative of an expedition to the Polar Sea (1840)]. Mentions Eskimo tools.

Rejects CD’s comparison of natural selection with the architect of a building. The architect who plans and oversees construction should not be confused in his function with the wisest breeder. That would be to deify natural selection.

Discusses relationship between natural selection and more general laws. Law of gravity is not seen as requiring design. Mentions mathematicians’ judgment of probability.

Notes gestation periods for hounds.

Etty is somewhat better.

Mentions his paper on fertilisation of orchids by insects [Collected papers 2: 32–5].

Sees Huxley’s deification of matter and force as a reaction to the way Paley likened the "Unknown Cause" to the mind of man so that new causes could be introduced. If you wish to retain free will which is inconsistent with constant law, Paley’s position is better. Free will is a recently introduced cause on our planet. It cannot be fully attributed to secondary causes.

What CD says about the variation in gestation of the hound is remarkable.

The astonishing fertile rabbit–hare hybrids encourage belief in Pallas’s theory of the multiple origin of dogs.

Does the regularity of gestation in man indicate a common stock?

Hooker’s observation of absence of forms peculiar to extra-Arctic Greenland indicates that the time since the beginning of the glacial period is brief in geological terms.

Blyth’s effort to raise money for a Chinese expedition.

Comments on free-will in animals.

Says natural selection is not in the same category with Huxley’s "force" and "matter".

Discusses remarkable variation in period of gestation in dogs and ducks.

Discusses Arctic flora.

Has been working on orchids; they beat woodpeckers in adaptation.

Encloses arrow-heads.

Comments on gestation in dogs.

Mentions BAAS meeting at Oxford.

Etty’s illness.

Criticises views of J. W. Dawson on organic and geological change.

The problems of distinguishing varieties and species.

Discusses facts explained by his theory.

Glad CL plans trip to Amiens to investigate flints and post-glacial period.

Mentions support by Huxley, Hooker, and Lubbock at Oxford BAAS meeting. Asa Gray also goes on fighting.

Likes article by William Hopkins ["Physical theories and the phenomena of life", Fraser’s Mag. 61 (1860): 739–52; 62 (1860): 74–90].

Comments on hybrids of hare and rabbit.

Comments on BAAS meeting: "our side seems to have got on very well". Asa Gray, too, is fighting nobly.

Comments on review [by Samuel Wilberforce] in the Quarterly [Rev. 108 (1860): 225–64].

Mentions a favourable review in the London Review.

Wonders if German translation [of the Origin] by Bronn has drawn attention to the subject.

The Natural History Review to be edited by Huxley and others.

Expects CL’s book [Antiquity of man (1863)] to be a bombshell.

Comments on his fear that "so many heavy guns fired by great men" might influence the public and scientists.

Sends CL the Owen-inspired Wilberforce review [Q. Rev. 108 (1860): 225–64].

Mentions defence of Origin by Asa Gray at American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Agassiz and Theophilus Parsons have poor criticisms ["Prof. Agassiz on the origin of species", Am. J. Sci. 2d ser. 30 (1860): 142–54].

Lists other negative reviews by Rudolph Wagner ["An essay on classification by Louis Agassiz", Göttingische Gelehrte Anz. (1860) pt 2: 761–800], Charles Daubeny ["Remarks on the final causes of the sexuality of plants, with particular reference to Mr Darwin’s work On the origin of species by natural selection", Rep. BAAS 30 (1860) pt 2: 109–10], and two anonymous ones (one favourable).

Huxley says K. E. von Baer "goes a long way with us".

Comments on "pipes" in chalk as evidence of geological processes still at work.

Is writing on origin of dog breeds [Variation 1: 15–43].

The adultery of Lady [Harriet Spencer] Grey and Captain Keppell.

A new species of elephant discovered by Hugh Falconer.

Comments on excellent review by Asa Gray [Atlantic Monthly 6 (1860): 229–39].

Still believes dogs descended from several wild stocks.

Objections to Origin which Owen and Wilberforce could have used. Why have incipient mammalian forms not arisen from lower vertebrates on islands separated since Miocene period? Knows CD would not derive Eocene Mammalia from higher reptiles, but would bats not be modified into other mammalian forms on an ancient island? This is not the case in New Zealand. Why have island seals not become terrestrial? Assumes rate of change is greatest in mammals. Difficulties are small compared with ability to explain absence of Mammalia in pre-Pliocene islands. Asks about descent of Amblyrhynchus. Believes objections apply equally well to independent creation of animal types, but not if the First Cause is allowed completely free agency.

Discusses at length CL’s criticisms of natural selection.

Comments on possible former connection between the Galapagos and South America.

Discounts survival of mammals on atolls.

Discusses reptile origin of mammals.

Discounts development of a mammal on an island and the descent of mammals from a bird.

The antiquity of islands.

Comments on bats of New Zealand. Geographical distribution of seals. Discusses Amblyrhynchus.

Glad CL will read his MS on origin of dogs [Variation 1: 15–43].

Believes CD’s argument against special creation based on absence of terrestrial mammals on islands isolated before Pliocene era is very strong. However, the absence means Cetacea and bats have not modified towards terrestrial existence. There is similar lack of development of bats and rodents in Australia. Constancy among land shells of Madeira over long period shows that the majority of their species are immutable: a minority of "metamorphic" species maintains the overall number of true species while extinction removes many. Emphasis on the role of extinction discomfits CD’s opponents since the power of generation of new species ought to keep pace. Mentions Ammonite deposits with reference to CD’s comments on their apparent sudden extinction [Origin, pp. 321–2]. Perhaps absence of transmutation on slowly subsiding atolls indicates the slow rate of selective change.

Additional response, at length, to CL’s criticisms of natural selection. Comments on failure of rodents to develop in Australia. Argues that most species become extinct and do not develop. Discusses variability, especially variability of rudimentary organs. Extinction among ammonites. Survival of Ornithorhynchus. Descent of marsupials and placentals. Emphasises embryological argument for descent of species.

It is strange that Agassiz, who is for the "sanctity of species", should favour Pallas’s view of hybrid origin of domestic dog.

CL has not meant to advocate successive creation of types but to question assumption that all mammals descended from single stock. Why should a Triassic reptile or bird not move towards mammalian form because an ancestral marsupial has appeared? Believes recent appearance of rodents and bats in Australia explains their lack of development.

Can CD supply a reference on plant extinction on St Helena?

Believes marsupials better adapted for surviving drought in Australia than higher mammals.

Will not press argument about lack of development of mammalian forms on islands, but CD should note objection.

Does CD’s belief in multiple origin of dogs affect faith in single primates in different regions?

Does time lapse between putative independently descended mammalian forms mean first form will "keep down" later incipient one? Thus Homo sapiens has prevented improvement of other anthropomorphs; bats and rodents on islands would prevent improvement of lower forms into mammalian.

Hopes to get Asa Gray’s review of Origin republished.

Argues for single origin of mammals.

Encloses two phylogenetic diagrams indicating possible descent of mammals.

Comments on rodents, marsupials, and dingo in Australia,

and on a paper on the survival of stumps as a result of root grafting.

Argues that man had a single progenitor and consists of a single species.

Comments on destruction of non-white races.

Discusses introduction of rodents to islands by man.

Returns "excellent" MS in which CD favours hybrid origin of domestic dog, which CL believes strengthens case for common progenitor of wild species.

Doubts CD’s authorities for antiquity of dingo.

Variation will raise many points for investigation.

"Leporine" hare–rabbit hybrid should be investigated.

Has re-read passages in Origin that CD suggested.

Annals of Natural History would probably reprint Gray’s review of Origin at their own expense.

CD’s thought that modern reptiles could not develop into existing Mammalia but only into another high form is a "grand notion" compatible with "the infinite capacity of the creative power".

Comments on New Guinea marsupials.

Still thinks that the Australian genera and species are so well fitted for extraordinary droughts that they would get the better of the dingo.

Suggests that once there were more races of man, though from common stock. Competition and then hybridity checked divergence.

Falconer’s views on elephant classification. CL attaches little value to Falconer’s objection that mastodons and elephants do not come in chronologically, as they should in CD’s view.