Thanks GGS for calculation [to determine the chances of the same peculiarity recurring in a family, see Variation 2: 5]
Sabine’s Royal Society address [awarding the Copley Medal to CD], in referring to the Origin, did not contain the words "expressly excluded". The actual words were "expressly omitted from the grounds of our award". This was not meant to place the Origin on a sort of index expurgatorium, but was a simple statement of fact.
Wishes to correct an expression in his last letter which is "perhaps not rigorously exact": he should not have said "declining to honour it [the Origin] with the Copley Medal" but simply "not honouring it with the Copley medal". "Declining implies having been asked and there was no asking in the present case."
He is certain he heard "expressly excluded" [of Origin from consideration in Royal Society award of Copley Medal]. Believes GGS may have inadvertently substituted "excluded" for "omitted". THH then submits his reasons for objecting to the passage as a whole even with the word "omitted".
It is improbable that he changed the wording of Sabine’s address without his noticing. Proceeds to defend the passage by quoting the rules of the award of the Copley Medal and the Royal Society Council’s action in this case, which is accurately presented in the wording of the award.
THH never imagined that "we" referred to anyone but the [Royal] Society Council. Still objects to inclusion of the passage, since "an agreement to say nothing" [about the Origin] does not justify comment on it by one party to the agreement.
Corrects a minor error in his last letter.
Urges THH to return proofs of his paper to Royal Society. Some authors are more ready to come down on reviewers and secretary for delay than to get on with their own proofs.
THH rejects GGS’s charges. Chides him with possibility that if he substituted "Falconer" for "Busk" he might have done it also for "excluded" and "omitted".
Thanks for congratulations on Francis Darwin’s success in the tripos examinations at the university of Cambridge.
The king of Prussia has awarded him the order Pour le Mérite für Wissenschaften und Künste.
Wants to know how the colour of the eye of the peacock’s tail is produced, whether it depends upon colouring matter in the feathers or reflection, and whether any varying structural change will account for the series of colours surrounding it.
On the play of colours in the peacock’s tail.
Thanks GGS for information on the peacock’s feathers. Asks whether the colour zones around the "eye" could result from varying the thickness of the film of colouring matter or whether it would require different kinds of colouring matter.
Sends GGS examples of feathers from an albino peacock and repeats his query about the zones of colour [see 5950].
Notifies CD that information he [GGS] gave before on colours of peacock’s feathers was wrong [see 5891 et seq.] and refers CD to H. C. Sorby, who has worked on the subject.
CD is curious about the feathers but will wait to see whether H. C. Sorby’s paper appears.
The Royal Society have not accepted R. L. Tait’s paper on insectivorous plants; it will be returned to CD, who submitted it.
The Society’s rejection of R. L. Tait’s paper on Nepenthes is a lesson which will last CD for his life. It is clear that he should not have sent it.
Gives a referee’s report on Samuel Haughton’s paper ["Notes on physical geology, no. IV", read 4 Apr 1878; published as "Physical geology", Nature 18 (1878): 266–8]. Believes his estimate of geological time is extremely wild. The conclusion that the interval of time separating the Miocene from the present is greater than that between the commencement of the Secondary period and the Miocene "seems almost monstrous". Recommends the paper not be published in the Proceedings.
No summary available.
Reports on Joseph Prestwich’s paper, "On the origin of the parallel roads of Lochaber" [read 1 May 1879]. Strongly recommends that the paper be published in Philosophical Transactions [Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 170 (1880): 663–726].