To J. D. Hooker   25 April [1864]

Down.

April— 25th

My dear Hooker

It was very good of you to waste so much time in writing to me about Scott.1 I have written to him not to think of Kew,2 & have advised him to grapple with the difficulties of life, as you advised.— I presume that Scott wished to come to Kew merely as a gardener: anyhow do not for a moment suppose that I ever even hinted to him about my former scheme; I never thought more about it, after your former letter.3 I cannot but think you take a rather hard view of his character; but I will not argue or say another word on subject: I have caused you most unreasonable trouble about him. He has interested me strongly, & I have formed a very high opinion of his intellect. I hope he will at least accept temporary pecuniary assistance from me; but he has hitherto refused.4 Again I thank you most sincerely for all the trouble you have taken.—

You have put me on a capital scent for getting Leersia: I will soon write to Mr Bennett; very many thanks: I must make some sort of tank.—5

I am heartily sorry in every way about Dr Crüger’s death; he promised to make many curious observations.—6

I keep going on very well, though weak; I amuse myself with little observations on odds & ends. Some cowslips have just flowered which give a pretty proof of difference of power of so-called by me homomorphic & heteromorphic pollen:7 I fertilised some cowslips with own-form pollen & 24 hours afterwards put on some polyanthus pollen; & now 29 of the seedlings have flowered & every one is red, showing that all have been crossed by polyanthus & not one is true cowslip.—8 Whenever you write, (but that must not be soon) tell me a little what you are chiefly doing in science.—

I have been reading up some old numbers of Nat. Hist. R:9 what an admirable periodical it is.

Farewell my good friend | C. Darwin

Endorsement: ‘/64’

1
Hooker’s letter of 20 April 1864 was largely concerned with John Scott and his future.
2
In his letter to John Scott, 9 April 1864, CD wrote that Hooker would not be able to get Scott a foreign appointment; he did not refer to Scott’s interest in working at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. A letter replying to Scott’s letter of 14 April [1864] has not been found.
3
CD refers to his suggestion of Scott acquiring a position at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, that would be funded by CD and include the opportunity to carry out his own experiments (see letter to J. D. Hooker, [1 April 1864]). Hooker discouraged this idea in his letter of [2 April 1864]; see also Hooker’s letters of [4 April 1864], 6 April 1864, and 8 April 1864.
5
CD refers to the aquatic cut-grass, Leersia, and to William Bennett (see letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 April 1864 and nn. 14–16).
6
See letter from J. D. Hooker, 20 April 1864 and n. 11. CD had corresponded with Hermann Crüger during 1863 (see Correspondence vol. 11) and his last letter from Crüger was dated 21 January 1864; in February 1864, CD had communicated Crüger 1864 to the Linnean Society (see letter from Daniel Oliver, 18 February 1864).
7
CD first defined a homomorphic union as a union between the same forms of a dimorphic plant, and a heteromorphic union as a union between a long-styled form and a short-styled form, in ‘Dimorphic condition in Primula’, p. 87 (Collected papers 2: 55).
8
CD had been making various crosses between yellow cowslips (Primula veris) and polyanthuses, which he believed were a variety of cowslip, since 1861 (see Correspondence vol. 9, letter to Daniel Oliver, 23 March [1861]). CD described this experiment, performed with the pollen of short-styled dark-red polyanthus placed on long-styled cowslip flowers, in ‘Three forms of Lythrum salicaria’, p. 187 (Collected papers 2: 121–2); see also DAR 27.2: A35–6. CD also discussed this experiment, which he thought illustrated the prepotency of the heteromorphic polyanthus pollen, in Origin 4th ed., p. 321, ‘Illegitimate offspring of dimorphic and trimorphic plants’, pp. 432–3, and Cross and self fertilisation, p. 396. CD made a number of different crosses between cowslips and polyanthus in the spring of 1864 (see notes in DAR 108: 71, 148–156, 159, 162, 169 v.).
9
The Natural History Review was now in its fourth year of publication. CD’s annotated, unbound copies of the Natural History Review, including the 1864 issues, are in the Darwin Library–CUL.

Manuscript Alterations and Comments

1.8 about him.] after omitted point
4.3 by me] interl
4.5 is red] after del ‘are’

Please cite as “DCP-LETT-4471,” in Ɛpsilon: The Charles Darwin Collection accessed on 5 June 2025, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/dcp-data/letters/DCP-LETT-4471