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."

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.

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.

On the play of colours in the peacock’s tail.

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.

The Royal Society have not accepted R. L. Tait’s paper on insectivorous plants; it will be returned to CD, who submitted it.