Discusses text of Origin.

Compares Eocene and modern climates.

Mentions Hooker’s view of his geographical [distribution] chapters.

Asks CL’s opinion of his statements on distribution during "glacial and preceding warmer periods".

Mentions chapters on geological record and embryology.

Is sending off last proof-sheets of Origin.

Asks CL’s opinion of final chapter. Mentions difficulties of his argument.

Is too unwell to start for Ilkley.

Murray’s printing of 1250 copies seems too large to CD.

Praises the Origin: a "splendid case of close reasoning".

Objects to CD’s having ignored Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.

Thinks CD should omit mentioning problem of explaining the eye at the beginning of chapter 14. Suggests rewording several passages.

Thinks want of peculiar birds in Madeira a difficulty, considering presence of them in Galapagos.

Has always felt that the case of man and his races is one and the same with animals and plants.

Response to Origin. Praise for summary of chapter 10 and chapter 11.

The dissimilarity of African and American species is ‘necessary result of “Creation” adapting new species to the pre-existing ones. Granting this unknown & if you please miraculous power acting’.

C. T. Gaudin writes of Oswald Heer’s finding many species common between Miocene floras of Iceland and Switzerland. Interesting for CD’s migration theory.

CL’s comments on Origin. Mentions corrections to last chapter suggested by CL.

Comments on lack of peculiar bird species on Madeira and Bermuda. Emphasises importance of American types in Galapagos.

Denies necessity of continued creation of primitive "Monads".

Denies need for new powers and any principle of improvement.

Discusses gradations of intellectual powers.

Adaptive inferiority and extinction of groups of species and genera.

Asserts that climate is less important than the struggle with other organisms.

Suggests an experiment involving primroses and cowslips.

The chapter on hybridisation.

Rudimentary organs.

Gives opinion of Lamarck’s work.

Comments on CL’s letters.

Discusses foreign animals naturalised in Australia and elsewhere.

Affirms man’s capacity to survive in Eocene climate.

Comments on American types.

Denies necessity for "continued intervention of creative power".

Wishes CD would enlarge on the doctrines of [Pyotr Simon] Pallas about the various races of dogs having come from several distinct wild species or sub-species.

Suggests organisms have a latent principle of improvement which is brought out by selection or breeding.

Discusses P. S. Pallas’ theory of origin of domestic dog breeds. CD believes domestic dogs descended from more than one aboriginal wild species but ultimately "we believe all canine species have descended from one parent and the only question is whether the whole or only part of difference in our domestic breeds has arisen since man domesticated them".

Races of man offer great difficulty. The doctrine of Pallas and Agassiz that there are several species "does not help us" in the least.

Hopes Henry Holland will not review Origin.

CD’s and CL’s difference on "principle of improvement" and "power of adaptation" is profound. Improvement in breeds of cattle requires neither. Urges him to reread first four chapters of Origin carefully. Natural selection is not to be contrasted with "improvement": every step involves improvement in relation to the conditions of life. There is no need for a "principle" to intervene.

Since dogs have same gestation period as the wolf it is likely that the wolf is the ancestral wild species, if it is just one species.

CD’s belief that domestic dogs are descended from several distinct aboriginal species seems to contradict views on sterility of hybrids and variation in Origin. If domestic varieties came from hybrids of wild species it will be impossible to trace ancestry. Opponents will exploit these problems.

Further discussion of origin of domestic dog breeds.

Effects of crossing separate races.

Comments on rate of artificial and natural selection.

The origin of pigeon breeds.

Questions CD’s view in Origin that domestic dogs are not descended from a single stock. Occasional crossings of domestic stock with wild species could explain cases of reversion towards wild specific forms. CD’s views on hybridity do not then have to be contradicted in constructing an ancestral stock.

Comments on pp. 201, 211, and 218 [of Origin].

Thanks CL for his decision to accept CD’s "doctrine of modification" [in Elements of geology, 6th ed. (1865)]. Believes it "morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong". Does not think CL’s decision will injure his works.

Thinks CL overrates importance of multiple origin of dogs.

Mentions sending copy of Origin to Herschel. Asks CL about Herschel’s reaction.

Sales of Origin.

Discusses revisions for second edition. Mentions possible French translation.

Views of Quatrefages [de Bréau].

Discusses corrections for second edition [of Origin]. Will leave out the reference to whale and bear. Discusses pheasant crosses. Success of the book.

Asks how many kinds of supposed birds’ footprints were found in North American sandstone.

Making progress on second edition of Origin.

Encloses letter from Adam Sedgwick [2548].

Mentions conversion of A. C. Ramsay.

Comments on note from Charles Kingsley saying CD’s theory is not opposed to a high conception of the Deity.

Mentions negative views of Origin of Sedgwick, John Crawfurd, Roderick Murchison, John Phillips, and Joseph Prestwich.

Encloses a letter from FitzRoy to the Times.

Mentions letter from W. B. Carpenter accepting single progenitor for major animal classes.

Speculates about Richard Owen’s opinion.

Discuss CL’s suggestions for revisions to the chapter on the geological record [Origin, ch. 9].

Henry Holland’s reaction to the book.

Comments on CL’s work on flint tools of early men.

Describes at length a conversation with Owen concerning Origin. Notes "that at bottom he goes immense way with us", but emphasises Owen’s unfriendly manner. Remarks that Owen accepted a relationship between bears and whales. "By Jove I believe he thinks a sort of Bear was the grandpapa of Whales!"

Has heard Herschel considered his book "the law of higgledy-piggledy".