To J. D. Hooker   30 August [1874]1

Down, | Beckenham, Kent.

Aug. 30th

My dear Hooker

I am particularly obliged for your address.2 It strikes me as quite excellent & has interested me in the highest degree. Nor is this due to my having worked at the subject, for I feel sure that I shd have been just as much struck, perhaps more so, if I had known nothing about it. You could not in my opinion have put the case better. There are several lights (besides the facts) in your essay new to me, & you have greatly honoured me. I heartily congratulate you on so splendid a piece of work. There is a misprint at p. 7, Mitschke for Nitschke.3 There is a partial error at p. 8 where you say that Drosera is nearly indifferent to inorganic substances: this is much too strong; though they do act less efficiently than organic with soluble nitrogenous matter; but the chief difference is in the widely different period of subsequent reexpansion.—4 Thirdly I did not suggest to Sanderson his electrical experiments; though no doubt my remarks led to his thinking of them.5

Now for your letter   you are very generous about Dionæa; but some of my experiments will require cutting off leaves, & therefore injuring plants. I cd not write to Lady Dorothy.—6 Rollisson says that they expect soon a lot from America.7 If Dionæa is not despatched have marked on address “to be forwarded by foot-messenger.”

Mrs Barber’s paper is very curious & ought to be published; but when you come here (& remember you offered to come) we will consult where to send it.8

Let me hear when you recommence on Cephalotus or Sarracenia, as I think I am now on right track about Utricularia, after wasting several weeks in fruitless trials & observations.9

The negative work takes five times more time than the positive.

Ever Yours | C. Darwin

1
The year is established by the relationship between this letter and the letter from J. D. Hooker, [29 August 1874].
2
Hooker had sent CD a pre-print of his address on insectivorous plants at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science; the final version, as published by the British Association, is J. D. Hooker 1874a. The annotated pre-print is in the Darwin Pamphlet Collection–CUL.
3
This misprint was corrected in the published version (J. D. Hooker 1874a, p. 106). The reference was to Theodor Nitschke.
4
In the later published version, Hooker changed this passage, writing that Drosera (the sundew) responded ‘less efficiently’ to inorganic matter (J. D. Hooker 1874a, p. 106).
5
In the later published version, Hooker removed the reference to CD’s inspiring John Scott Burdon Sanderson’s experiments on Dionaea muscipula (Venus fly trap; J. D. Hooker 1874a, p. 105).
6
In his letter of [29 August 1874], Hooker had offered to send CD the best Dionaeas they had at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and had suggested Dorothy Fanny Nevill as an alternative source.
7
George Rollisson ran a nursery in Tooting, Surrey (R. Desmond 1994).
8
Hooker had sent Mary Elizabeth Barber’s manuscript on the pupae of Papilio nireus; it was communicated to the Entomological Society of London by CD and published as Barber 1874. See letter from J. D. Hooker, [29 August 1874] and n. 8.
9
On Cephalotus (the Albany pitcher-plant), see letter from J. D. Hooker, 17 August 1874 and nn. 6 and 9. Hooker discussed Sarracenia (trumpet pitcher-plants) in his address (J. D. Hooker 1874a, pp. 107–10).

Manuscript Alterations and Comments

1.5 lights] after del ‘new’
1.9 though] after del ‘though’
1.10 but] above del ‘that’
2.2 & … plants] interl
2.3 that] interl
2.3 is] interl
3.2 (& … come)] square brackets in original; both margins triple scored red crayon

Please cite as “DCP-LETT-9613,” in Ɛpsilon: The Charles Darwin Collection accessed on 5 June 2025, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/dcp-data/letters/DCP-LETT-9613