ACR has for years had a belief in mutability and transmutation of species, prompted by disputes over the nature of species and varieties, and the existence of representative species in space and in the geological record. Could not accept a Creator employing small miracles to make species differ just a little between formations. Has maintained that one would not expect to find fine gradations between forms in the fossil record, but only representatives of very populous forms. [See 2711.]

Pleased ACR likes Origin. Every geological believer is most important. A long, stiff battle is ahead for the new doctrine.

In his paper for Geological Society ["Glacial origin of certain lakes", Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 18 (1862): 185–204] he will prove that all the lake-basins of the Alps were scooped out by glaciers.

Would like to hear ACR’s new views on origin of mountain lakes, but cannot stand the hot, late meetings [at Geological Society].

Sends his paper [on glacial lakes, see 3450]. Falconer attacked it. Falconer thinks Himalayas confound the theory, but Hooker writes that it explains the absence of lakes there.

On ACR’s paper on glacial origin of lakes. CD thinks it is correct. Suggests further investigation to corroborate it. His only doubt has to do with areas of great activity.

On ACR’s view of cause of glacial period: CD did battle with Hooker on same point.

T. F. Jamieson has smashed CD’s Glen Roy marine theory in splendid style.

Sends 3d ed. of catalogue of rocks [A descriptive catalogue of the rock specimens in the Museum of Practical Geology (1862)].

T. F. Jamieson’s paper on the parallel roads of Glen Roy to be read 20 January. Asks whether CD will be a referee.

Thanks ACR for Catalogue; pleased some of his volcanic specimens have been included.

Will review T. F. Jamieson’s paper on Glen Roy. Knows the facts and knows too well that he [CD] is everlastingly smashed.

Interested in ACR’s Presidential Address [Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 19 (1863): xxix–lii] on the breaks in succession (of formations). Hopes ACR will provide a diagram of breaks, with the percentage of fossils that "pass upwards", i.e., continue to appear.

Horrified at Huxley’s geology.

Wishes ACR would discuss "creeps".

Glad CD likes his Presidential Address to Geological Society [1863].

Will continue the practice [of discussing the break in succession of strata].

Has devised a diagram showing number of genera and species in each geological formation and the number that pass from formation to formation.

Describes the glaciated terrain of S. Wales.

Sends 2d ed. of his Physical geology [1864]; hopes that he will burn the 1st because of its errors.

ACR is convinced he is right about denudation of the Weald.

Thanks for his book [Physical geology and geography of Great Britain, 2d. ed. (1864)].

Pleased that ACR’s glacial lake theory is progressing. New Zealand lakes support the view. Suggests he write to Charles Gould in Tasmania, calling his attention to glacial action.

R. I. Murchison has criticised ACR’s glacial lake theory in his Presidential Address to Royal Geographical Society [J. R. Geogr. Soc. 34 (1864): cix–cxcii].

ACR has finished his Geology of N. Wales.

Thanks for Geological survey of North Wales [1866]. Longs to return to the mountains with which he was once familiar, but did not understand.

Lyell says CD is revising what he says about the Weald in the Origin. Asks CD to look at his subaerial denudation views in his book [Physical geology and geography of Great Britain, 2d ed. (1864)].

Received and read ACR’s Physical geology. Places him at head of the subaeria denudationists. Unfortunately CD confounded William Whitaker’s article with ACR’s views and gave Whitaker credit for first producing the evidence. Will rectify it now. Has eliminated the rubbish he wrote on the Weald and will add a paragraph on importance of subaerial denudation.