CD is pleased by BP’s appreciative opinion of Origin. He never intended to claim that he originated the doctrine that species have not been independently created. The only novelty in his work is the attempt to explain how species became modified and how the theory of descent explains large classes of facts. If he has taken anything from BP, he has done so unconsciously. Gives names of those he would have mentioned in any account of authors who maintained that species have not been separately created.

CD greatly admires BP’s Philosophy of creation.

To avoid possible misundertanding of his letter [2654] of that morning, CD wishes to make clear that he did not wish to imply that BP’s essay and the Vestiges of creation were in the same class. The more he thinks of it the more difficult he feels it would be to give a fair account of the authors who have maintained the modification of species. CD finds that he referred to BP’s views in the preface to his larger work [Natural selection], which was replaced by the Origin.

Will be glad to have SPW’s criticisms of Origin.

Discusses his use of terms, "typical" and "specialisation".

Emphasises large body of facts explained by his theory of species.

Sends two letters from G. Lincecum about ants ("perhaps the most marvellous instinct ever recorded") for possible publication. [See Gideon Lincecum, "The habits of the ""agricultural ants"" of Texas", J. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 6 (1862): 29–31.]

Sends paper to be read ["Sexual forms of Catasetum", Collected papers 2: 63–70].

Asks that referee of his [Catasetum] paper be informed that if it is ordered to be printed he will borrow woodcuts. But if referee thinks fit, he will withdraw it, for almost all will be published in Orchids. He is not willing to spare time to condense it.

CD’s great interest in JS’s work on fertility of Primula crosses.

Thanks for Passiflora trials.

"By no means modify even in slightest degree any result."

CD wishes he had counted rather than weighed Primula seeds.

Requests all parts of Transactions due him.

Asks [Secretary] to list the proper titles of foreign societies of which he is an honorary member; he has mislaid diplomas.

F. Hildebrand, in his recent article [Bot. Ztg. 10 (1866): 73–8], describes what GH showed CD about Indigofera’s irritability.

Asks to have author’s spare copies of F. Müller’s article on climbing plants [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 9 (1867): 344] sent to him for forwarding to FM.

Sends J. P. M. Weale’s paper on Bonatea for consideration by Linnean Society [J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 10 (1869): 470–6].

He had no idea that the double function of an excretory passage had played a part in the history of religion.

Gives his comments on the merits of a paper on South African botany [by J. P. M. Weale, "Notes on Bonatea", J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 10 (1869): 470–6].

Thanks for information [about sex ratios] received from bird-catchers.

"Can you form any theory about all the many cases which you have given me and others which have been published, of when one pair is killed, another soon appearing?"

Facts about gay-coloured caterpillars very satisfactory.

Comments on Pangenesis.

Returns volumes of the Ibis.

Requests T. C. Jerdon’s Birds of India

and Thomas Bell’s British reptiles

as well as vols. 5 & 6 of Ibis.

Thanks THF for correcting the error in Orchids.

Asks him to find out what insects visit the fly orchid and for what purpose.

Requests 50 copies of his paper ["Offspring of illegitimate unions of di- and trimorphic plants", J. Linn. Soc. Lond. (Bot.) 10 (1869): 393–437].

"I have seen the action on Ophrys exactly as you describe and am thoroughly ashamed of my inaccuracy."

Comments on THF’s MS [on fertilisation of scarlet runners]. Suggests publication, though CD anticipated main features ten years before. Is amused at the caution with which THF put his case that the final end [of the contrivances] was crossing distinct individuals.