To Wilhelm Breitenbach   21 September 1880

Down. | Beckenham Kent (&c).

Septr 21. 1880.

Dear Sir.

I am obliged to you for the copy of your paper which I read with interest when it appeared in the Bot: Zeitung.— I came to the conclusion that I was probably wrong about the length of the pistil in the Ancestor of the Primulaceæ & that you were right—1 But my opinion goes for very little, for I have lately been working on other subjects, & it is a considerable exertion to me now that I am old to recall to mind what I happen to know on any subject. I was then too much engaged to undertake this labour.

Should you visit Brazil you will have a splendid field for new observations & wishing you all success2 | I remain Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | Ch. Darwin.

Copy

1
Breitenbach had sent his paper ‘Über Variabilitäts-Erscheinungen an den Blüthen von Primula elatior und eine Anwendung des “biogenetischen Grundgesetzes”’ (On the phenomena of variability in the flowers of Primula elatior and an application of the ‘fundamental biogenetic law’; Breitenbach 1880). On p. 580, Breitenbach concluded that because the young plant was homostyled, then, according to the biogenetic law (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny), the ancestral form must have been homostyled. In contrast, CD discussed the emergence of homostyled from heterostyled forms in species of Primula in Forms of flowers, pp. 272–4.
2
Breitenbach travelled to Brazil in 1881; see Correspondence vol. 29, letter from Wilhelm Breitenbach, [before 20 June 1881].

Please cite as “DCP-LETT-12719,” in Ɛpsilon: The Charles Darwin Collection accessed on 5 June 2025, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/dcp-data/letters/DCP-LETT-12719