My dear Lubbock—
Many thanks for Anthropological Review returned.2 Thanks also about buds and ovary. I wish I had remembered your discussion. I have now alluded to it in 2nd Edition. Taking the whole sense of Müller’s pages, especially one passage further on, I still think that he meant to say that buds and germs were essentially the same, but it is far more doubtful than I supposed.3 I have been reading your address to Ent. Soc.; and the number of first rate papers to which you refer is quite appalling.4 How do you find time to search up so much matter? I have nothing else to do, and do not hear of half so many papers. It is very unfair of you! Do you take in the Zeitschaft fur Wissen. Zoolog.; if so, can you lend me vol. xvii. p. 1, with Landois’ “On Noises of Insects”?5
Also can you lend me Desmarest on ‘Crustacea,’—a thick pinkish volume, if you have it. I want to look at sexual differences.6 I have been looking at your papers and figures in March and May, and have been fairly astonished (for I had nearly forgotten) at the wonderful structure of the geniculated antennae of male; but I wish you had figured both antennæ, i.e. the pair, in their proper position: I should have liked to have given a copy in a wood cut.7
If you ever arrive at any definite conclusion, either wholly or partially for or against Pangenesis, I should very much like to hear; for I settled some time ago, that I should think more of Huxley’s and your opinion, from the course of your studies and clearness of mind, than of that of any other man in England.8 H. Spencer’s views, I hear from him, are quite different from mine: he says he shall think over the subject, but apparently he does not yet quite understand what I mean.9
There is a rather nice Review of you in last Athenæum and a very unnice one of my book; I suspect, from two or three little points, by Owen.—10
Ever yours very truly, | C. Darwin.
Please cite as “DCP-LETT-5881,” in Ɛpsilon: The Charles Darwin Collection accessed on