To Henry Denny   23 March [1865]1

Down Bromley | Kent

March 23d

Dear Sir

I had not heard before in answer to my letter of Jan. 28th & now thank you sincerely for taking the trouble to write to me.2

I regret that you have had no opportunity to observe the lice of our various domestic animals from distant lands.— I am much interested by what you tell me about the aperea, for I had come to the conclusion from other reasons that the aperea is not the progenitor of our guinea-pigs.—3

I am not sure what you mean by the “stock-dove”: properly that means the C. œnas; our domestic pigeon being C. livia, which has an enormous range.—4 C. œnas has a wide range, but how wide I do not know; but as your specimen had not its habitat marked this is unimportant.—

If you thought it worth while to address a letter to the Council of the Zoolog. Soc. stating in some detail what you required, it is probable that proper orders would be issued; but I fear you wd. have to pay frequent visits to the Gardens to get the orders attended to, but I daresay you would receive some specimens.— Mr Sclater wd. feel interest in regard to the Birds—5

With my best thanks | I remain Dear Sir | Your’s faithfully | Ch. Darwin

1
The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter to Henry Denny, 28 January [1865].
2
See letter to Henry Denny, 28 January [1865]. The letter from Denny has not been found.
3
In July 1844 CD had sent Denny specimens of lice taken from a Cavia aperea or wild guinea-pig. In his Beagle ‘Catalogue for animals in spirits of wine’ (Down House MS), CD had noted that it would be interesting to compare these specimens with the lice of a European domestic guinea-pig to observe whether lice had been altered by transportation or domestication (Notebook 63.1, entry 646; see also R. D. Keynes ed. 2000, p. 340). Denny found the specimens to be a different genus and species from the lice on the domestic variety of guinea-pig, which led him to doubt that the wild guinea-pig could be the progenitor of the domestic guinea-pig (see Correspondence vol. 3, letter to Henry Denny, 12 August [1844], and letter from Henry Denny, 30 October 1844). See also letter to Henry Denny, 17 January [1865] and nn. 2 and 5, and letter from Henry Denny, 23 January 1865. CD’s conclusion that C. aperea was not the parent form of the domestic guinea-pig is discussed briefly in Variation 2: 152.
4
CD discussed the possible relationship and crosses between Columba oenas and C. livia, or what he also called the rock pigeon, in Variation 1: 183, 193 n. See also J. A. Secord 1981, pp. 179–82.
5
Philip Lutley Sclater was secretary of the Zoological Society of London from 1860 to 1903. He was an acknowledged expert on birds (DSB).

Manuscript Alterations and Comments

3.3 had] ‘h’ over illeg
4.3 wd.] interl

Please cite as “DCP-LETT-2435,” in Ɛpsilon: The Charles Darwin Collection accessed on 5 June 2025, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/dcp-data/letters/DCP-LETT-2435