He is not grieved at CD’s omissions of his [JDH’s] work [from Origin, 4th ed.]. It proves nothing – claims only to be illustration of using CD’s methods.

No summary available.

In London for the Botanical Congress; regrets missing CD.

Lyell and CD have mistaken H. Lecoq’s position on glaciers. He has not denied the possibility of a glacial period, only that decreased temperature is needed for their extension.

Recommends F. J. Ruprecht on vegetable detritus in the black earth chernozem of Russia.

Thanks JH for his kind letter [see JH's 1866-5-31]. James South has heard that his godson, William James Herschel, has returned from India. Could JH visit? [A greeting is appended by James South.]

Has seen JH's letter regarding the use of compressed air for working machinery in deep mines. Encloses two papers on the subject by one of his sons. Comments on the use FL has made of compressed air in his mines.

Thanks for Asa Gray’s letter, enclosed.

Knew JDH would not care about omissions but was vexed at his own forgetfulness.

Thanks for WT’s papers, especially ["The present aspect of the doctrine of cellular pathology", Edinburgh Med. J. 8 (1863): 873–97].

Sends blooms of Cytisus purpureus-elongatus.

Examined the Cytisus and forwarded to Caspary. The C. adami case "gets more and more perplexing", asks for report if Cytisus purpureus-elongatus produces any pods.

Identifies a plant.

CD will not find Hermann Schacht’s Lehrbuch [der Anatomie und Physiologie der Gewächse (1856–9)] at the Linnean Society Library.

Data on good and bad pollen-grain yields of different species. Sends sketches of two male Rhamnus catharticus flowers [see Forms of flowers, p. 294].

Sends proofs [of "On hybridization among plants", Pop. Sci. Rev. 5 (1866): 304–13].

Regrets delay in returning CD’s books.

Encourages CD to make "disparaging remarks".

Returns proofs of GH’s paper ["On hybridization among plants", Pop. Sci. Rev. 5 (1866): 304–13] with his criticisms. Prefers that GH not state that CD has read the proofs.

Does C. V. Naudin really say that ovules (not seed) of hybrid Luffa and Cucumis are imperfect?

Review enclosed document, then send it to Warren de La Rue, James Glaisher, and back to JW, who will forward it to B.A.A.S.

Comments on CWvN’s Die Entstehung und Begriff [der Naturhistorischen Art (1864)].

Discussion of beauty of flowers in new edition of Origin not based on CWvN’s article.

Comments on CWvN’s argument that flower structures are not due to natural selection.

Thanks for criticism of proofs of his paper [see 5117].

Not sure whether CD believes in reversion and would like a positive statement as this is the one point C. V. Naudin especially observed. Naudin offers his remarks on ovules as a matter to be proved ["Nouvelles recherches sur l’hybridité", Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. 1 (1865): 25–176].

Will take earlier train to Down.

CD believes most strongly in reversion. J. G. Kölreuter’s, K. F. v Gärtner’s, and some of Charles Naudin’s cases leave no doubt in his mind. Forgets whether Herbert gave cases but in conversation he certainly believed in it. Thinks Gärtner is right to say reversion occurs only rarely in plant hybrids which have not been cultivated. [See 5120.]

Variation

Thanks for Geological survey of North Wales [1866]. Longs to return to the mountains with which he was once familiar, but did not understand.

No summary available.