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.

Sends two papers ["On the physical relations of the new red marl", Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 27 (1871): 189–98 and "On the red rocks of England", Q. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 27 (1871): 241–54] bearing on the continuance of generic and specific terrestrial types, in areas of Europe and elsewhere, that lasted from the Upper Silurian to the Lias.

Thanks ACR for papers.

Glad present situation of our continents has been confirmed.

Wishes ACR would prove his view of origin of Red Sandstones, which many dispute.

Glad CD agrees with his views as much as he does. Not surprised that his red rocks [Red Sandstones] ideas are disputed. The red marls of Auvergne support his inland water theory.

Requests further information on subsidence of flagstones because of action of worms.

Sends description and measurements of the 18th century courtyard pavement of his house, the stones of which have sunk as a result of earthworm action [see Earthworms, pp. 192–3].

Further details and measurements of the stones in the courtyard pavement for CD’s investigation of earthworm action.

Thanks for 3rd edition of ACR’s Physical geology and geography of Great Britain (A. C. Ramsay 1872).

Thanks for ACR’s Physical geology [5th ed. (1878)]; delighted with its success, proving there is a large body of men in England capable of appreciating sound geological science.

Notes on worm action, and CD’s questions concerning source of nutriment for worms in ACR’s courtyard [see Earthworms, pp. 192–3].

Further details of pavement that sank from action of earthworms. There were plenty of castings, which first led him to think worms were involved.