Requests permission to call briefly to discuss Drosera.
Showing 21–40 of 43 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.
Requests permission to call briefly to discuss Drosera.
Bullfinches’ instinctive capacity for removing nectaries from cowslips.
Thanks for letter relating to domesticated bullfinches’ instinctively cutting off cowslips [see 9430]. Suggests observing whether the birds swallow any part of flower or particular parts.
Variation in bullfinches’ instinctive ability to remove nectaries and ovaries from cowslips.
Requests sewage water (and oleic acid) for experiments to determine sensitivity of leaves [of Drosera].
Thanks for the sewage water and the oleic acid. The former does not seem to act.
Asks for the specific gravity of common phosphate of ammonia.
Utricularia catch freshwater Crustaceans, which cannot be digested and rot in the bladders. CD is interested to identify any substance produced in the putrefaction before it is resolved into gases and salts of ammonia. He has reason to believe that the plant absorbs such products.
Sends information CD requested on phosphate of ammonia and on nitrogenous substances produced during putrefaction of animal matter.
Acknowledges the information about the phosphate and about putrefaction. Regrets that there is no knowledge of the conjectured substance. [See 9671.]
Requests permission to call upon EF any morning from Saturday through Tuesday.
His samples of earth have been sent for analysis. EF has saved CD and his son from wasted experimenting.
Requests chemical analysis of sample of both natural and burnt soil.
Sends analysis of burnt and unburnt samples.
Gratitude for the invaluable assistance. Is disappointed that natural soil is richer than burnt. Problem of securing sufficient chemically pure soil to test growth of plants.
Asks whether he may call to discuss a chemico-physiological point.
Thanks for the Blue Book [Report to the Local Government Board on the water supplied to London].
Gives instructions for sending the pure water.
Has sent for the Wenham ice.
Enjoyed his talk with EF.
Fears that the promised bottle of pure water may have been despatched or stolen in passage. [See 11768a.]
Gives results of the experiments: the leaves in most cases make the water alkaline. It cannot be ammonia. He and his son, Francis, suspect potash, which is valued as a manure. Will be grateful for the analysis EF has offered.
Hearty thanks for the two bottles of pure water.