Search: letter in document-type 
Hooker, J. D. in author 
1860-1869::1868::02 in date 
Sorted by:

Showing 1–5 of 5 items

DCP-LETT-5831

From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
1 Feb 1868
Source of text:
DAR 102: 191–4; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Directors’ Correspondence 19, f. 200)
Summary:

Amazed that Hugo von Mohl and E. M. Fries are not foreign members of Royal Society; Thomson going over the whole matter.

Candolle’s contribution to botany.

Lubbock shocked about Wollaston.

CD’s answer to Greg was capital.

Comments on Variation.

Charles Murchison’s work on Falconer’s Memoirs [Palaeontological memoirs and notes of the late Hugh Falconer (1868)] and JDH on Falconer.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail

DCP-LETT-5874

From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
13 Feb 1868
Source of text:
DAR 102: 198–9
Summary:

Rejoices over news of Variation sales.

Pall Mall Gazette review [7 (1868): 555, 636, 652] is undoubtedly by G. H. Lewes [see 5951].

Dinner at Lyells’.

Dean Stanley favours a monument to Faraday in Westminster Abbey.

Perceval Wright is back from Seychelles and reports on plants he collected.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail

JHC1155

From:
Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Dr Thomas Anderson
Date:
19 February 1868
Source of text:
JDH/2/3/1 f.104-106, The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Summary:

No summary available.

Contributor:
Hooker Project

JHC1528

From:
Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Henry Bolus
Date:
24 February 1868
Source of text:
JDH/2/3/3 f.3-5, The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Summary:

No summary available.

Contributor:
Hooker Project

DCP-LETT-5935

From:
Joseph Dalton Hooker
To:
Charles Robert Darwin
Date:
26[–7] Feb 1868
Source of text:
DAR 102: 200–3, DAR 94: 67
Summary:

Could not believe Owen to be so demoniacal as to write the Athenæum review [of Variation].

Gardeners’ Chronicle review [see 5918] is weak. CD’s ideas on causes of variation may be as hazy as the reviewer’s.

Huxley’s clever remark on Pangenesis. JDH’s view of Pangenesis as fundamental to development doctrines, but nothing is gained by formulation in terms of germs or gemmules.

Tries to answer question on last page of CD’s letter anent sexuality.

Contributor:
Darwin Correspondence Project
thumbnail
Author
Addressee
Correspondent
Date
Document type
Repository
Contributor
Transcription available