CD intrigued by the pollination mechanism of Leschenaultia formosa.
CD interested in Thomas Bell’s rumour that Owen avows his review.
Curved styles and their relation to pollination.
Showing 61–80 of 3165 items
The Charles Darwin Collection
The Darwin Correspondence Project is publishing letters written by and to the naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882). Complete transcripts of letters are being made available through the Project’s website (www.darwinproject.ac.uk) after publication in the ongoing print edition of The Correspondence of Charles Darwin (Cambridge University Press 1985–). Metadata and summaries of all known letters (c. 15,000) appear in Ɛpsilon, and the full texts of available letters can also be searched, with links to the full texts.
CD intrigued by the pollination mechanism of Leschenaultia formosa.
CD interested in Thomas Bell’s rumour that Owen avows his review.
Curved styles and their relation to pollination.
Sends list of plants with asymmetry in nectar-secreting surfaces and pistils bent in that direction. Shows insect agency so important that structure has changed. Asks for contrary or confirming examples and that request be passed on to Daniel Oliver.
Has examined Leschenaultia and concludes the external viscid surfaces have nothing to do with the stigmatic surface. Agrees with CD’s style and nectary conclusions; accounts for their form and position in irregular flowers by describing floral development.
[Enclosed are some queries by CD with answers by JDH. Gives information on seed setting by Mucuna
and an opinion on the abruptness of N. and S. limits of plant ranges.]
Gives CD references to papers on eyes of lower animals.
JDH has settled the Leschenaultia case, but it remains a difficulty to CD.
Goodenia, like bee orchid, seems a case of a structure with an evident function, which is not carried out. Is curvature of styles an incidental result of growth or a pollination adaptation?
Cannot supply a case of atavism in canaries.
Will lend CD back issues of Cottage Gardener.
Cites case of bird (tumbler hen) laying egg in another’s nest.
Has read Origin with pleasure.
Has performed many experiments which confirm his opinion that primrose, oxlip, and cowslip are three distinct species.
Responds to CD’s comments on his review of the Origin. Regrets lack of space often causes him to do injustice to CD and to himself. Agrees to alter some of his statements
and offers some evidence for his opinions on plant hybridising.
Sends references to papers mentioning cave insects. Paussi are not blind, as CD thinks, though some other insects that live in ants’ nests are. Each country over the world has its peculiar species of Paussi, though they all live in ants’ nests. "Physical condition I say – Natural Selection you say".
Reports to CD on what he has found out about Elodea growing near Cambridge.
Sedgwick is speaking at [Cambridge] Philosophical Society on CD’s "supposed errors" [Camb. Herald & Huntingdonshire Gaz. 19 May 1860, pp. 3–4].
JSH wonders how Owen can be so savage toward CD’s views when his own are "to a certain extent of the same character".
Future orders will be highly esteemed.
To understand Leschenaultia pollination CD requires field observations in the native country.
Has observed two forms of cowslips, which he calls male and female. The same two forms are found in primroses.
Saw Salter’s Spirifer specimens; a very good proof of indefinite modifiability.
Beginning to think gap between Cambrian and Lower Silurian enormous.
Édouard Lartet to give paper before Geological Society ["On coexistence of man with certain extinct quadrupeds", Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 16 (1859–60): 471–5].
Comments on Richard Owen’s review of the Origin [in Edinburgh Rev. 111 (1860): 487–532]. Considers Owen unfair to CD and most ungenerous toward Hooker.
Expects Sedgwick to be fierce against him. Sedgwick also misrepresented CD in his Spectator review [24 Mar and 7 Apr 1860].
Compares natural selection to the undulatory theory of light as a hypothesis explaining a large number of facts.
Observations on hybrids from crossed cabbage varieties.
Describes Sedgwick’s attack on CD’s views [at Cambridge Philosophical Society] and his own defence, though he believes CD has pressed his hypothesis too far.
Returns reviews of Origin.
F. J. Pictet [Arch. Sci. Phys. & Nat. n.s. 7 (1860): 231–55] goes further than he himself realises.
Naturalists will resist CD’s views until faith in certain "impassable" barriers between existent species is shaken.
Gives CD an instance of convergence.
CD’s divergent series explains those anomalous plants that hover between what would otherwise be two species in a genus.
Inclined to see conifers as a sub-series of dicotyledons that developed in parallel to monocotyledons, but retained cryptogamic characters.
Mentions H. C. Watson’s view of variations.
Man has destroyed more species than he has created varieties.
Variations are centrifugal because the chances are a million to one that identity of form once lost will return.
In the human race, we find no reversion "that would lead us to confound a man with his ancestors".
Dissection of Leschenaultia convinces CD insect agency necessary for self-fertilisation in this case.
Primroses and cowslips seem universally to occur in two forms. Very curious to see which plants set seed.
Cannot provide plants CD requested.
Has sowed several kinds of lettuce seed near each other and has never observed them to cross naturally [see Cross and self-fertilisation, p. 173 n.].
J. S. Henslow’s defence of CD;
[Thomas?] Thomson’s opposition to Origin.