Criticises Dana’s classification of man and his use of fore-limbs as a basis for systematic classification.

Comments at length on CL’s book [Antiquity of man (1863)]. CD is "greatly disappointed that you have not given judgment and spoken fairly out what you think about the derivation of species".

Lists large number of queries concerning minor points.

Praises especially the chapters on language and glaciers.

Comments on the temperature of Africa during the glacial period, especially with regard to the views of Hooker.

Mentions Owen’s paper on the aye-aye [Rep. BAAS 32 (1862) pt 2: 114–16].

Defends position he takes on species [in Antiquity of man]. CD overestimates CL’s capacity to influence public. Will not dogmatise on descent of man; prepared to accept it, but it "takes away much of the charm from my speculations on the past". Cannot go to Huxley’s length with regard to natural selection. Responds to CD’s comments on Antiquity of man.

[On Antiquity of man] CD is "convinced that at times … you have … given up immutability". "A clear expression from you, if you could have given it, would have been potent with the public."

Objects to CL’s description of CD’s view "as a modification of Lamarck’s doctrine". Quotes Henrietta [Darwin]’s observations on this description.

Comments on CL’s controversy with Owen concerning the human brain.

The controversy between Falconer and CL.

The "wretched" review of CL [Antiquity of man, Athenæum 14 Feb 1863, pp. 219–21] and Huxley [Man’s place in nature].

Lyell has received compliments for letting readers draw own inferences [on species question]. Now feels he earlier did Lamarck injustice. [CD’s] substitution of variety-making power for volition [as in Lamarck] in some respects only a change of names.

Thinks Huxley taking on too many responsibilities.

His better opinion [of work of Boucher de Perthes].

Explains his position on CL’s treatment of species.

Mentions positive response to his ideas on the part of a German professor [Ernst Haeckel], Alphonse de Candolle, and a botanical palaeontologist [Gaston de Saporta].

Notes negative reaction of entomologists.

Mentions Falconer’s objections [to Antiquity].

Mentions work of Hooker.

Comments on paper by Owen ["On the aye-aye", Rep. BAAS 32 (1862) pt 2: 114–16]

and CD’s review of Bates’s paper [Collected papers 2: 87–92].

Thinks Natural History Review is excellent.

Describes a letter he has written to the Athenæum in which he mentions CL’s views on species modification ["Doctrine of heterogeny", Collected papers 2: 78–80].

Comments on criticism of Lyell’s book [Antiquity] by Falconer and others.

Mentions his eczema.

Invites the Lyells to visit.

Falconer’s letter [attacking CL, Athenæum 4 Apr 1863, pp. 459–60] is most unjust.

Regrets his letter [to Athenæum, on heterogeny] now criticised by Owen.

Comments on article by Samuel Haughton [On the form of cells made by wasps – with an appendix on the origin of species (1863)].

Mentions forthcoming reviews by Asa Gray [in Am. J. Sci.].

Has been to Osborne on the Isle of Wight to visit Queen Victoria, who had lots of questions about CD.

Congratulates CL on finding Arctic shells.

Comments on paper by E. B. Hunt ["On the origin, growth, substructure and chronology of the Florida reef", Am. J. Sci. 2d ser. 35 (1863): 197–210].

Mentions J. D. Dana’s health.

George Bentham’s statement on species [Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (1863): xi–xxix].

Praises Bates’s book [Naturalist on the river Amazons (1863)].

Delighted to hear that CD was awarded Copley Medal. Important because award by chartered institution acts on outsiders and helps increase stock of moral courage.

His view of Origin.

Belief of Duke of Argyll that substituting "variation" and "selection" for creation deifies them.

Thinks Argyll would accept evolution except for man.

A’s view of humming-birds.

Describes discussion with [Victoria,] Princess Royal of Prussia, about evolution.

New edition of Elements consistent with Origin.

Criticises Duke of Argyll’s address [to the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1864)] and demurs on Argyll’s "new birth" theory.

Agrees with CL on beauty.

Enjoyed hearing of Princess Royal’s discussion [on Darwinism].

CD’s illness.

CL’s advice on chapter [of Variation] on dogs was excellent.

Belated thanks to CL for copy of Elements. Praises CL’s work. Notes especially Atlantic continents, the Weald, the Purbeck beds, glacial action, and the formation of lake-basins.

Also mentions account of Heer’s work

and CD’s disagreement with J. D. Forbes.

Suggests that CL have Murray print a two-volume edition [of the Elements].

Mentions Miss Buckley’s information on roosting in trees [see Variation 1: 181 n.].

Refers to Duke [of Argyll] and his Lamarckian view of change.

Roosting habits and behaviour of pigeons in Egypt.

Criticises Herbert Spencer’s works.

Has finished Elements; comments on Laurentian stages.

Remarks on his health

and forthcoming work [Variation].

Emcloses copies of correspondence concerning his dispute with John Lubbock.

Discusses Louis Agassiz’s theory of the glaciation of Brazil.

Discussion of Mrs Agassiz’s letter [to Mary Lyell, forwarded to CD] regarding S. American glacial action,

with comments on Bunbury’s letter on temperate plants.

Refers to opinions of Agassiz, David Forbes, Hooker, and CD on glacial period and glaciers.

Wishes he had published a long chapter on glacial period [Natural selection, pp. 535–66] written ten years ago.

Tells of death of his sister, Catherine, and other family matters.

Thanks CL for Hooker’s letter.

Discussion of Hooker’s views on glacial action and temperature with specific reference to S. America.

His squabbles with Hooker on transport of seeds via water currents,

temperate plants, and preservation of tropical plants during cooler period.

Expresses interest in seeing Agassiz’s letter.

Discusses CD’s and J. D. Hooker’s letters to Lyell concerning Louis Agassiz’s theory of the glaciation of the Amazon basin in Brazil.